Non-combatant Sor/Wiz - effective at low levels?

[Joshua Randall]

Here's a hypothetical question I've been considering. Can a non-combatant Sorcerer or Wizard be effective at low levels?

By non-combatant, I mean that this character will not fight. Perhaps he has low Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution; perhaps he just prefers not to. His non-combatant status, however, does not prevent him from using others to fight on his behalf (e.g., with Conjuration spells such as Summon Monster) or from assisting his friends (e.g., with "buff" spells like Mage Armor).

My mental image is someone who hides in the background casting Summon Monster to give his friends flanking bonuses, or buffs the party before and during combat, but has no weapons and no overt combat spells (no Magic Missile, etc.).

Assume there are some fighters and such to do the normal hacking and slashing, and keep in mind the short duration of many low level spells. Can a non-combatant Sor or Wiz character be an effective member of an otherwise typical party, or not?

 

[Mark]

Here's a hypothetical question I've been considering. Can a non-combatant Sorcerer or Wizard be effective at low levels?

By non-combatant, I mean that this character will not fight. Perhaps he has low Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution; perhaps he just prefers not to. His non-combatant status, however, does not prevent him from using others to fight on his behalf (e.g., with Conjuration spells such as Summon Monster) or from assisting his friends (e.g., with "buff" spells like Mage Armor).

My mental image is someone who hides in the background casting Summon Monster to give his friends flanking bonuses, or buffs the party before and during combat, but has no weapons and no overt combat spells (no Magic Missile, etc.).

Assume there are some fighters and such to do the normal hacking and slashing, and keep in mind the short duration of many low level spells. Can a non-combatant Sor or Wiz character be an effective member of an otherwise typical party, or not?

I think even adding in the summoning spells edges an Arcane caster into the combatant camp. That said, I think this type of question generally falls into the "Depends on the Campaign" section. Setting and style of DM always make the difference in what style of players will succeed, just-get-along, or be utterly useless throughout full campaigns. Can't bring a knife to a gunfight and you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[Kaji]

I think it's a fine idea. Non-Combat Spells that leap to mind are Summon Monster (as you already mentioned), Grease, Protection From Evil/Good, Silent Image, Enlarge, Expeditious Retreat (in case they come after you), Magic weapon, and that's just first level spells, the buffs get much better starting at 2nd level and continue as you go. Cast Haste on the Fighter later, use Greater Magic weapon, hand out the Cat's Grace and Bull's Strength, I think your party will like you just fine and you'll be plenty effective.

 

[Balgus]

with the right domains, i think a cleric can be even more effective as a helper in your case. There are plenty of summon spells, and buff spells you can cast. you have a huge spell list, and heals.

With that, you can effectively sit in armor and hide behind the main fighters all day and heal them as they fight.

If you specialize in elements, you can besummoning elementals all day- and never having ever really jumping into combat. plus, you have a huge armor and shield to keep you safe in case they do try to come after you.

 

[jgbrowning]

Ebenezzer

Do like i did with one of my chars... make him old enough to get the +2 to int and wis and have him concentrate of enchantment/summoning spells.

he was multiclass. mostly wiz with a level of sorc for his expeditious retreat and shield spells. the only spell he "fought" with was ray of frost.

it was kinda fun, but difinitely not for a regular-style game!

joe b.

 

[bret]

I think it would work much better with a Wizard than a Sorcerer. You want a wide breadth of spells if you are no direct help in combat.

It can work, but it is heavily campaign dependent. There are a number of utility spells that can make it worthwhile for the others to support the wizard, and it is easier to protect someone who is willing to take 100% cover than someone who wants to keep sticking their nose out during combat to light off a couple of more spells.

If you are considering doing this, I suggest you talk to the GM and the rest of your group first. Make sure the rest of the group is OK with this, and the GM will still give you XP even though you never lift a weapon or directly harm a creature.

 

[Thanee]

Sure that would work, but you better have a strong party to keep the baddies off, once they realize who is throwing all the nasties at them from the background!

Combat isn't everything. A wizard character, that specializes into other fields of knowledge (i.e. divinations and utility spells), which might have some impact on combat, too, but are mostly useful out-of-combat, is surely a viable concept, unless you are doing one dungeon crawl after the other!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Aaron2]

My most recent character is a non-violent wizard (at least he hasn't killed anything yet). Most combat spells at first and second level are fairly lame to begin with. I just load up on Charm Person, Hold Portal (for making good the escape), Silent Image, Change Self (for scouting ahead), Message (for superior tacticals) etc. We'll see how he does (he's just 2nd level now).


Aaron

 

[Joshua Randall]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I agree with Mark that it depends upon the campaign, the DM, and the other players. I wouldn't want to annoy people or cause problems for them. I'm just looking for something a bit out of the ordinary.

Balgus's comments about a cleric being possibly more effective as a non-combatant spellcaster are correct. (Indeed, I got this idea from reading about the character Velendo in PirateCat's story hour.) Clerics do have a ton of non combat spells at their disposal. But on reflection, so do Sorcerers and Wizards, although they are often thought of as artillery, not support.

bret points out that a Wizard may be more suited to a non-combatant role than a Sorcerer, because the former learns a wider variety of spells than the latter. After thinking about this, I agree. I had intially thought that the Sorcerer's spontaneous casting and additional spell per day would be a big asset. But not when he can only cast a couple of spells. (Remember, we're talking about low levels here.) I'd actually rather have a Wizard who prepares a variety of spells to deal with a variety of circumstances. And because he never learns or prepares spells like Magic Missile, Shocking Grasp, or Burning Hands, he doesn't have any slots filled with offensive spells.

Finally, Aaron2 gives an example of a non-violent Wizard character and the kinds of spells he casts. There are some good ideas in his post.

Thanks again, everyone.

 

[Shaele]

Don't discount the sorcerer!

Rereading your "closing" comments, I was thinking of how much versatility a sorcerer with the right feats can bring to the table. I had a half-elf sorcerer focussed on enchantments, and was thinking of a similiar strategy (before a TPK, oops <g>).

A wizard gives you more versatility, but a sorcerer can let you cover the entire party with a really useful spell. Sure, you might only have 4-5 buff spells, but you can cover the entire party with them (i.e. Bull's strength on everyone!) Take the Chain Spell feat later, and you get even more use out of these spells (i.e. 4th level Mass Spider Climb).