Caster/Non-caster...the game show! lol.

[steeldragons]

There are many threads going on around 5e (or "Next" or "DnDN", if you prefer) about the classes and races and spells and types of magic, etc. that D&D:The Next Generation should include or have.

The amount, types, systems of magic that should incorporated, the skills, "themes", "powers", etc...that each player should have at their disposal.

SO, my question/query/curiosity in this thread is this...

What is a "Caster" class and what is not?

I'll start off...shocking I know.

For my own preferences...

Fighters, Thieves/Rogues, Barbarians, Cavaliers/Champions/Knights (however they get fluffed/described as classes), Warlords, and Assassins are...or rather, should be, "NON-caster" classes.

I'll add to that Paladins and Rangers also. They have extraordinary abilities, above and beyond Fighters, to be sure. Yes. Divinely imbued "powers" and "Nature" or "Outdoor" learned "skills"...but it's not magic...they don't need to use spells...to my mind, in my games and in my humble opinion.

Clerics, Magic-users/Mages/Wizards, Sorcerers, Shamans, Druids, Warlocks, Witches....even Bards...these are "Caster" classes. Whether they wear "light", "good", or "heavy" armour, use these weapons or those weapons, they have "actual" spell use at their disposal....be it prayer or ritual, songs or arcane formulae, they have "spells."

Personally, I would put the Monk in a "Non-caster" class...fluff them with "psionics"/mental powers, if you must, but it's not "spell use." Their skills the result of intense training and bodily and mental (and/or spiritual) discipline that exceeds that of most all "unenlightened" individuals. But they're not "casters".

I think the new game needs to be very CLEAR and clean on this issue...these classes gain their "heroic" abilities through training and skill and these other classes gain their "heroic" abilities through the use of magic.

And, for the sake of the "Balance Lawyers", there should be a solid, clean spread, with equal options on either side.

So...what would you like to see...how would you categorize "Casters" vs. "Non-casters"?

--SD

 

[Sunseeker]

Clerics are basically lightly armored paladins, or depending on your perspective, paladins are heavily armored clerics. In most editions, clerics can be build heavy-fightery and heavy castery. Paladins emphasize melee but can be built with a fairly strong system of casting(mostly heals and buffs).

I would argue that both of these count more as hybrid caster/non-caster than either one. I would say the same applies to druids actually, as most druids while being heavy casters also retain a lot of melee and non-caster ability due to their wild-shape abilities.

I don't think it's a good idea to artifically establish a caster/non-caster dichotomy in modern D&D, I think there's plenty of room for things like battlemages, healer paladins, damager/defender clerics, ect... I think it sets us down a dangerous road similar to having too much focus on "roles".

 

[mkill]

I don't care. I think people get way too hung up on this caster / non-caster, power sources and what not.

Don't want your PC to be a caster? Don't describe him that way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What is a "Caster" class and what is not?

I think the line is supernatural vs preternatural. Casters have supernatural powers, like magic or psionics. Non-casters have preternatural abilities, like super-human strength/speed/agility/charisma/skill/prowess, etc.

Casters do things that are utterly impossible.

Non-casters do things that are increadible, inconcievable, or superhuman - practacally impossible.

A caster might transform a pebble into a butterfly or cause an army to spontaneously combust.

A non-caster might punch the top off a mountain or train ants to steal gold dust from a vault one grain at a time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I genuinely do not care.

Whether something or someone is magical or not magical only would ever come up or matter when I wanted to play a campaign that did not have any magic at all. But if I wanted to play a campaign like that... I wouldn't use D&D to do it. There are plenty of other RPGs that don't have magic in them that would make for a better play experience than trying to strip all the magic out of D&D.

So it matters not whether someone has preternatural, supernatural, magical, non-magical, divine, mundane, psionic, mystical, or superhuman abilities. They are all a part of the game, and I'm not going to waste time trying to compartmentalize them, because it ends up not mattering in the long run.