Why Won't Some People Play Spellcasters?

[Thanee]

I heard Magic Missile and Scorching Ray work fine from scrolls or wands.

Damn, I guess I'm already min/maxing there...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Desdichado]

I strongly dislike the flavor and feel of D&D magic. Not only that, spellcasters simply don't work well with my personality. My favorite class to play is the ranger; it's a fighter with some skill points and a schtick -- the woodlands guy.

I've played spellcasters from time to time, but not usually for campaigns where I suspect I'll be with the character for some time. I simply don't like them. I don't think they're too complicated (although I've also never played a high level one) though. I don't think that's a very good universal comparison there.

 

[DragonLancer]

They don't always have the time/money/exp to do that. Especially not at 1st level. Additionally scrolls and wands are terrible for storing offensive spells because of the minimum save DCs.

You misunderstand (I think). I'm suggesting that at low levels, the caster scribe detect magic and identify, so they can concentrate on memorising the offensive spells.

I'm playing a illuisonist in a current game (halfway to 2nd at the moment) but as soon as we finish the first adventure we're on I plan on sitting down for a couple days and scribing a couple of each. We've not got much gold but I have enough that I consider this worthwhile.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I don't particularly like to play spellcasters because I dislike the Vancian System and the Arcane/Divne split. They're both too limiting.

If I want to be an Fire Mage, then I have to either find a PrC in some supplement or just be an Evoker. Either way, I'd have to spend hours staring at my spellbook and deciding whether I'd rather have Flaming sphere or Searing ray. I'd rather have a system where I can invest a few points in fire magic and have access to both.

If I want to be a Knight in shining armor, then I can be a fighter. And if I want to be a bar-brawling mercenary with a shady past, then I can still be a fighter. Likewise I can be a rogue whether I'm a shadowy ninja assassin, or a charming street rat with a cockney accent. But If I'm a wizard then I don't have that choice. As written, the rules allow neither deviation within the spellcasting classes, nor an easy method of making new and unique ones.

You want to play a fire mage? Fine! Play a sorcerer take the summon monster spells that let you summon fire creatures. Take the fire attack spells. Ask your DM for fire versions of cone of cold, lightning bolt and magi missle. See if your DM will let you take feats that specifically boost caster level/DCs of your fire spells. There you have your fire mage and you don't even have to think about preparing spells. Happy?

Oh and I'm pretty sure they have multiple PRCs for most of the fighter and rogue archtypes you have mentioned. Which is in my opinion ridiculous just like a fire mage PRC.

 

[Zweischneid]

Thats what scribe scroll and craft wand is for.

Well, thats another one of those things that make the game feel more like a video game than a believable fantasy setting. Hell, even in the official D&D and FR Novels you rarely if ever see a protagonist use one of those.

Consequently, potions, scrolls and wands are usually among the first victims of the big red *not-in-my-campaign* textmarker.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

It's been my experience that the problem with magic users in D&D isn't the class, but the person playing it. Sure, there's a lot of work involved in planning and choosing spells, but if the DM is willing to lend some help to the player to tailor the spell list and the right feats, any wizard or sorcerer can be just as effective and deadly as the most fearsome fighter.

 

[beaver1024]

I enjoy playing a fighter-type now and then, for variety, but it's refreshing to be able to do something more interesting than just saying "I attack" each round. I never thought of it as a hassle to pick appropriate spells (or Feats, for that matter).

Any opinions or experiences....?

Jason

It's strange, my combat rounds are much more complicated than "I attack". It's more like

"I tumble 10 feet behind the orc chief and trip him with my glaive then I take a 5 foot step back."

or

"I use my bluff skill to feint the ogre, then I take a 5 foot step to the left of the ogre so that I'm flanking then I sneak attack him".

 

[IceBear]

Well, thats another one of those things that make the game feel more like a video game than a believable fantasy setting. Hell, even in the official D&D and FR Novels you rarely if ever see a protagonist use one of those.

Consequently, potions, scrolls and wands are usually among the first victims of the big red *not-in-my-campaign* textmarker.

Then, quite simply, D&D isn't for you. If you have to take out most of the rules and items from the gam then you're really no longer playing that game, which is perfectly fine. Just hard to have a discussion about spellcasters in D&D when you aren't playing D&D.

It seems to me, you enjoy the low-magic settings more than the high-magic settings. I've read some fantasy novels that had scroll and wand use, though I agree the low-magic novels were more fun to read.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Very few people play arcane spellcasters in my campaign.

I can sum it up: d4 hit dice.

Monte hit the nail on the head with this one. Way too underpowered. How the hell are there mage duels when mages can't even survive one fireball?

5th level mage... "Hmmm... I have 5d4 hit points but can cast a 5d6 fireball... something's not quite right here...."

I personally love mages, but man, it's a hell of a survival test to get them to a point of near survivability on their own. "What do you mean the fighter hit me for 54 points of damage on his first attack?"

 

[beaver1024]

It's been my experience that the problem with magic users in D&D isn't the class, but the person playing it. Sure, there's a lot of work involved in planning and choosing spells, but if the DM is willing to lend some help to the player to tailor the spell list and the right feats, any wizard or sorcerer can be just as effective and deadly as the most fearsome fighter.

This is where as a DM I hate arcane spellcasters. Somehow I feel obliged to fudge adventures just so that arcane spellcasters can have a fair go. I never do this even for rogues. It feels artifical and constrainting. Additionally it makes the players feel like an invalid where they know I am deliberately changing monster tactics so as to help the arcane spellcaster along.