Why Won't Some People Play Spellcasters?

[ptolemy18]

Hello everybody,

While playing D&D, I've encountered a couple of people who don't like playing spellcasting characters. Generally, their reasons all boil down to the same thing: they don't like it because it's too complicated. Typically they're just not rules people, and they don't like having to decide which spells to use in a particular situation, or even going through the rules and figuring out which spells they can cast.

In fact, one of these people even said they don't like D&D 3.0/3.5 because Feats are too much like Spells; one more thing they have to choose and memorize!

Personally, I don't understand this attitude at all. I love playing spellcasters, so that's *my* bias. Which brings me to the other point of this thread... game-balance-wise, maybe spellcasting characters SHOULD be slightly more powerful than non-spellcasters, because they require more attention to play? I enjoy playing a fighter-type now and then, for variety, but it's refreshing to be able to do something more interesting than just saying "I attack" each round. I never thought of it as a hassle to pick appropriate spells (or Feats, for that matter).

Any opinions or experiences....?

Jason

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I'd agree that a high level spellcaster is overall more powerful than an equivalent level non-caster. I personally prefer Wizards over all other characters. Spellcasters are more versitile than most other characters, by changing your selection of spells you can fill a whole new nitch. Especially in UA where Magisters know EVERY spell (except exotic) for ever level they can cast. All they have to do is decide which ones they want to have readied.
Spellcasters ARE more complex than other non-caster types. You really have to want to devote some time to choosing your spells to get the most bang out of your caster. Some people don't want to devote that time... they just want to get in and get the dice rolling.

 

[Turjan]

For people new to D&D, choosing a spellcaster means a lot of work. It takes hours to read through the descriptions of cantrips and 1st level spells if you don't have a clue what you are reading. In a group of complete beginners, I had difficulties to find someone who wanted to play a wizard (I did not force it, though). Of course, after some time of play, this should be different. However, I can understand that some people don't like to manage spells and spell descriptions, because it is work and means some kind of dedication to the subject.

 

[Berandor]

Why won't somebody play Fighters?
Or Dwarves?

I don't get it.

 

[Brakkart]

I find that the more experienced a player is, the more likely they are to take on a spellcasting class. It is just a LOT for a newbie player to take in all at once. I've been playing D&D in its various incarnations for 16 years now and I can find it hard to get my head around the stats for that many spells. As a DM, I am often surprised by one of my players pulling a spell out of their selection that I'd never even heard of (Gedlee's Electric Loop in my current campaign caught me totally off guard, much to my chagrin ). Playing a fighter/barbarian type, or a class with limited spellcasting such as Bard, Ranger, Paladin, or many of the prestige classes, is just an easier way to get used to having to keep track of that much information.

 

[Zweischneid]

Dunno, the 'wargamy-table-top-aspect' of D&D is even more pronounced with spellcasters, than with melee-types I think.

Give me spell durations like: 'from sunrise to sundown' or for 'one scene' instead of '10 minutes/level' and give me effective ranges like 'line of sight' or 'as far as your shadow falls' instead of '25 ft + 5 ft / per point of Int' and I'm there playing a caster in a second.

As long as it stays the way it is, I'll stick Warhammer Fantasy as the superior version of an arcane wargame.

Also, the preselection you have to do with Wizards, Clerics and Druids tends to encourage metagaming. If you (the player) have a hunch that you might be facing a Troll, you'll load up on fire spells even though your character might not know (or might not know that Trolls are vulnerable to fire).

On the other hand, if you don't metagame and just go with the flavor, you may sit throught the fight without anything useful to do. Tough call both ways.
With a fighter or Barbarian it's just alot easier to harmonize 'in-game-knowledge' and 'out-of-game-knowledge' without ruining suspension of disbelieve.

 

[arscott]

I don't particularly like to play spellcasters because I dislike the Vancian System and the Arcane/Divne split. They're both too limiting.

If I want to be an Fire Mage, then I have to either find a PrC in some supplement or just be an Evoker. Either way, I'd have to spend hours staring at my spellbook and deciding whether I'd rather have Flaming sphere or Searing ray. I'd rather have a system where I can invest a few points in fire magic and have access to both.

If I want to be a Knight in shining armor, then I can be a fighter. And if I want to be a bar-brawling mercenary with a shady past, then I can still be a fighter. Likewise I can be a rogue whether I'm a shadowy ninja assassin, or a charming street rat with a cockney accent. But If I'm a wizard then I don't have that choice. As written, the rules allow neither deviation within the spellcasting classes, nor an easy method of making new and unique ones.

 

[Malic]

Well it's just a personal preference, but myself, I don't like to play casters because I can't really relate to D&D magic. It's definitely not a lack of dedication to the campaign! But the power level and lack of a coherent theme trouble me. I know you can create a style for yourself, but there is an expectation that you will be effective for the group, and that means picking the old faithful spells at least, no matter how different they are. The tactics of getting the 'most bang out of your spellcaster' bug me too. It just makes it seem more of a 'game' to me. I can't really empathise with it. With a more 'mystical' type of magic, it could be fun. I can just relate better to less magical characters, which is more fun for me.

(Druid might be an exception - I'm trying one now.)

And there's always else someone ready to be the caster anyway. Someone who relates to it better, enjoys the tactical aspects, or appreciates the higher power at later level.

(Please note I'm not saying anything is 'wrong' with the magic system or that using more or less magical pcs are more 'roleplaying' ! Just a personal preference. I don't know how widespread it might be, but I think it's relevant to the topic. Cheers!)

 

[XO]

Not Trolling

Not to offend anyone, but we could ask the question in a quite different form: do people like to think ? political comment removed by admin

In general, few people read. Many of the books sold at B&N or Amazon never get opened. They just lie there. A super-hot bestseller (not necessarily a proof of quality, but for the sake of argument...) is a "One Million Copies in Print" item. For a market of about 400 million (counting US, Canada and UK).

And a large portion of THOSE wil end up in the bargain bin.

Spellcasters require reading. They also demand a knowledge of the game and (even more) maintenance and management than other characters.

One game option that makes things somrwhat easier (and draws away from the ever-criticized Vancian magic system( is to make wizards as sorcerers (and perhaps boost the # of spells / day for the sorcerer): choose from spellbook along the way, no prep. Based on a simple "open slot" system. Give clerics and druids the same advantage.

Voila ! No more busting your chops in preparing multiple spell lists ("Let's see ! Got it ! Shipboard list, flight list, overland list, town list, dungeon list, shopping list, 10 best list and list of lists !")

 

[Li Shenron]

I largely prefer playing spellcasters, or at least characters with some spellcasting levels, because I tend to look for characters with lots of options.

The one you mention is the reason for not playing spellcasters that we too have heard most times, and it's understandable... an average fighter player doesn't need to know more than how his feats work, plus some of the different generic combat options; if he's really a good fighter player, he'll think about terrain/movement circumstances, different equipment, and unsual combat situations or conditions. However, a spellcaster (in theory) always has more to learn than anyone else.

There are however other reasons we've gathered around about not wanting to play a spellcaster. Some people don't want because they believe D&D casters are too powerful, and as such they don't want to be criticised for overshadowing the others (although I've heard this is kind of leftover opinion from older D&D...). On the other end of the gamer's spectrum, some don't play spellcasters because they think they're weak

Of course, also there's still people who just play a character because they like its image - and I have to say, this was my original reason long-ago for picking a wizard - and if they like the idea of a non-spellcaster they just go with it, no matter the rules. Which, in general, I believe it's quite the best thing a player can think