Blaster Casters

[Tinker Gnome]

Do you like playing them? In any edition? I know there has been talk on the forums about how in 3.5(And maybe 4E, I am not familiar with it) playing a blaster is inefficient compared to inflicting ability damage or using Save Or Die spells(in the case of 3.5).

I myself still find that these are the most fun types of casters to play, even if they may not be as efficient as someone who utilizes spells to completely immobilize all of the enemies.

 

[Trihelios]

I've played some fun mages whose major focus was just directing a hell of a lot of fire at their enemies.

But most of the time I prefer to play the 'mage as batman' idea. We get into some situation and I try to figure out how in the hell I can use a combination of grease, tenser's floating disk and arcane mark to get out of it.

(My GM has commented that sometimes he deliberately gives me really weird situations, just to see how I macgyver my way out of it).

I ultimately don't care which way is 'more powerful', but I have so much more fun with the weird utility effects than I do with battle magic.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I enjoy playing these archetypes, though the blaster is a lot weaker in 3.5, especially at higher levels, than other types of casters.

In 4E it is a very solid arhetype as there are no save or die, and the best way (nearly the only way) of killing a monsters is to reduce its hit points to zero (though conditions can help in this or rreduce the monster's damage while it is being reduced to zero)

But then again, I am not the type of player who enjoys controllers or controller type spells, so my opinion might not be unbiased.

 

[CapnZapp]

The way causing damage was inefficient in 3E was a bug and not a feature.

By removing save or die's and ability penalties, 4E have fixed this particular bug.

You might still not like 4E, but at least not because your blaster caster is overshadowed by others.

 

[drothgery]

In 3.x playing a blaster caster was inefficient. Because it was fun, I did it a lot anyway.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I loved playing blasters in 3E. I would have in 2E if I had played it more back then. Did rather love doing it with a Sorcerer in Baldur's Gate 2. especially that tasty Melf-s Minute Meteors spell.

It wasn't actually until 2-3 years ago I first tried an arcanist who had nearly no damage spells just to "try something different," if that gives you an idea. Then I discovered how freaking awesome debuffing and battlefield control can be in terms of fun. Even so, I still occassionally will make a glass rail gun because I like to.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Quite frankly, save-or-dies in 3.5 are vastly overrated, save for maybe Sleep at level 1.

Buffs/debuffs are a lot more potent, fun, and group-friendly.

And frankly, it fits the wizard archtype better. Wizened old man that uses his magic to cause the enemies to slow down and weaken while his allies grow bigger and more powerful just looks better then hurling fireballs or zappy death beams.

 

[Voadam]

Do you like playing them?

Yes. I'm playing a 3.5 Warlock right now and enjoying it immensely, despite the fact that I know they are generally subpar on power balance.

 

[Marius Delphus]

IMHO, the 3.5 warmage (Complete Arcane) makes a decent blaster caster.

Despite everything, rolling damage dice is just fun.

 

[Gort]

In 3.x playing a blaster caster was inefficient. Because it was fun, I did it a lot anyway.

I dunno, that depended a lot on the level you were playing at. Wiping out a dozen orcs with one fireball at level 5 was pretty damn efficient

(of course, it also meant that you never faced a dozen enemies as a serious encounter ever again)