NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7826249" data-attributes="member: 1465">I have the same experience.I myself always gravitate instinctively towards playing a spellcaster as my first PC in every game or edition... probably because I am attracted by complexity and its tactical applications, and it is quite obvious that the sheer amount of spells available outnumbers the amount of actions that a martial character can ever do.But when eventually playing a non-spellcaster, I think this is the time when you should take the opportunity to study combat or exploration rules better, since you won't have to spend time learning your many spells, and learn how to use those rules flexibly and efficiently. If the rules system is good, you can go quite far in this direction (incidentally, I think that if you don't allow feats in 5e, you're significantly limiting this opportunity).I know that people who aren't interested in thinking too much about it are often suggested by typical DMs or the books themselves to "play a Fighter", and assume the player will just do the same attack action all the time. But in fact, I've seen also many Wizard players just shooting an attack cantrip over and over, and it is practically the same complexity as attacking with a weapon. You still have to read about how to use your non-cantrip spells, but if you compare a low-level Wizard focused on attack cantrips with a low-level Fighter focused on basic weapon attacks, you can see how the Wizard is almost a physically weaker version of the Fighter that is compensated for this loss with a few daily tricks.But you can definitely be a casual spellcaster just like a casual martial-type, or you can play either more tactically. And 5e did a MUCH better job than 4e to create differentiated gameplay for them if you choose to go deep into the tactical approach. Probably there is still more depth potentially in a Wizard than a Fighter (the latter would never have as many feats or maneuvers or abilities as the former can have spells), but the point is that the responsibility is very much in the players and whether their DM is telling them that they actually have a choice, instead of dumbly suggest the old "play a Fighter" mantra.</blockquote>

Verification