Who would want to play a non-caster?

[Alexander123]

Given all that casters can do, what rational person would want to play a non-caster. Given that casters can fly, teleport, shapechange etc. etc. etc. and basically alter reality who would choose to play a non-caster?

A real world example being who would choose to be a manual laborer when they can be a CEO.

 

[Dandu]

Howard Roark would.

 

[Alexander123]

Gave me quite a laugh, you're right, he would play a non-caster.

 

[Icyshadowlord]

I felt like yelling out "troll topic" but then I realized that would be quite distasteful. But I think the explanation lies in two things:

1. People expect a party with a little bit more than a cabal of wizards and/or priests as the adventurers. I mean, seeing four robed guys seems out of place when instead you have the Fighter, the Wizard, the Rogue and the Cleric in a (arguably) normal party.

2. Wizards are kind of weak in the start (from what I have seen and experienced). As for Clerics and Druids, I don't know. There's not much to say against them in the same context.

Either way, third reason that I just now got in my head out of nowhere was that it's also because DMs aren't cruel enough to the reality-warping Caster Classes who continue to oppress their lesser team-mates who lack the glory of spellcasting. Also, my first character in my first D&D game was a Half-Elf Cleric (of Pelor), though my second option would have been Paladin.

 

[Dandu]

He would also be a manual laborer instead of a CEO.

 

[Icyshadowlord]

Who, the DM?

 

[Alexander123]

I felt like yelling out "troll topic" but then I realized that would be quite distasteful. But I think the explanation lies in two things:

1. People expect a party with a little bit more than a cabal of wizards and/or priests as the adventurers. I mean, seeing four robed guys seems out of place when instead you have the Fighter, the Wizard, the Rogue and the Cleric in a (arguably) normal party.

2. Wizards are kind of weak in the start (from what I have seen and experienced). As for Clerics and Druids, I don't know. There's not much to say against them in the same context.

Either way, third reason that I just now got in my head out of nowhere was that it's also because DMs aren't cruel enough to the reality-warping Caster Classes who continue to oppress their lesser team-mates who lack the glory of spellcasting. Also, my first character in my first D&D game was a Half-Elf Cleric (of Pelor), though my second option would have been Paladin.

Wizards are weak in the start but I think that a party of say druid, cleric, wizard and artificer should be able to survive.

I take issue with your statement of the reason why someone would not play non-casters being because DMs not being cruel enough.

I also take issue with your statement of reality-warping Caster Classes oppressing their lesser team-mates who lack the glory of spellcasting as you put it.

I do not believe that a person should be punished and penalized for their ability, in this case spellcasting. Just as in the realworld I would not advocate penalizing and punishing a genius like Mozart or Beetoven or Rockefeller because he has more ability than others.

To say that reality-warping Caster Classes are oppressing their lesser team-mates is absurd. The reason being that human beings compared to animals are reality-warping creatures but no one would say that humans are "oppressing" animals because they have intelligence and reason and animals don't.

 

[anest1s]

In every battle in the campaign so far, the enemies avoid me, to target the casters. I mean I hit them, and they ignore me.

So yeah....being a caster isn't always good

 

[Alexander123]

No, Howard Roark, a character in one of Ayn Rand's novels.

 

[Greg K]

I would depending upon:

1. The DM
2. The level of the campaign: Never been a fan of the game beyond levels 10-12
3. The sourcebooks in use
4. The house rules
5. The setting
6. The other players involved and their approach to the game.
Then again, the same would go for playing D&D in general.