Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Joshua Randall" data-source="post: 466820" data-attributes="member: 7737">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Joshua Randall, post: 466820, member: 7737"] 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 [b]never[/b] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification