Why Won't Some People Play Spellcasters?

[beaver1024]

I heard Magic Missile and Scorching Ray work fine from scrolls or wands.

Damn, I guess I'm already min/maxing there...

Bye
Thanee

My players quickly found that damage dealing spells are terrible at low levels. Most of the time they're doing more damage with their crossbows than with damage spells. Which then leads to the inevitable question. Why am I playing a hamstrung class when I could be playing a fighter/barbarian/rogue etc. and join in on the action?

Not to say that they can't affect the battle. At low levels, that occasion is so few and far between that I can see how frustrating it is for my players.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is where as a DM I hate arcane spellcasters. Somehow I feel obliged to fudge adventures just so that arcane spellcasters can have a fair go. I never do this even for rogues. It feels artifical and constrainting. Additionally it makes the players feel like an invalid where they know I am deliberately changing monster tactics so as to help the arcane spellcaster along.

First time I hear about this...

IMXP adventures needed to be occasionally "fudged" to help

(1) rogue-like characters to give them a chance to use their skills (= more traps and doors very hard to bash) and sneak attack (less undead, my fav monster type...)
(2) druids/rangers to accomodate for their animal companions and nature/weather spellcasting, usually by moving encounters from underground or enclosed locations to aboveground and outside
(3) some straight fighters or similar character built for power melee only and nothing else, whose players tend to solve everything with the attack action because they are otherwise useless

The arcane casters are the ones I have never felt I needed to change my adventures...

 

[Berandor]

Wow. You're the first people who say that magic-users are classes that need tailoring to have a fair go. Usually, once you survived the first 5 levels, you are pretty powerful yourself, and once your level hits double digits, your power increases exponentially faster than non-caster classes. At least, that's my experience.

 

[Shade]

I too dislike the magic system D&D uses. Mainly, I can't get past the material component system. I know that it is there for balance reasons, but I just can't handle playing a character running around with pocketfuls of bat guano and lard.

Even with the Eschew Materials component feat, you still need to rely on material components semi-frequently.

If the DM of a group I played in offered me a great mana-based, component-free spell system, I'd play a caster in a heartbeat.

I'm hoping that the warlock in Complete Arcane offers an alternate. Since its spells are essentially spell-like abilities, it shouldn't need material components.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Well, through the years I have played more spellcasters than anything else, so I obviously have a bias. I agree that sometimes the D&D magic system is annoying or limiting, but that is why I used to play other games as well. I take the D&D system for what it is and enjoy it. As for the "Tenser's Floating Disk syndrome", I guess it depends a lot on what kind of D&D game you play. If you play a combat heavy game, you are correct that the spellcasters will load up on offensive spells and things will start looking like a video game. Of course there are a lot of video games out there where the players just carry a big sword and hack apart everything they encounter, yet I do not hear as much that the D&D combat system is too much like a video game (yes, it can be, but again it is what the DM makes the game).

So what makes a D&D game less like a videogame? Its about the NPC interactions, the roleplaying, the solving complex challenges without necessarily killing your way to the solution. That happens regardless of the magic system in use. When I play spellcasters in these kinds of games, I take a few "blaster" spells, and many spells that can be used in creative, flexible ways. It does take a lot more thinking and planning, and yes there are times where I am frustrated that I do not have the correct spell for the situation, but if I were playing a fighter, I also would not have the spells I need. The only thing more I would have as a fighter would be the ability to dole out and take more damage, so if that isn't the answer, then my character should be just as capable as any.

 

[Zweischneid]

5th level mage... "Hmmm... I have 5d4 hit points but can cast a 5d6 fireball... something's not quite right here...."

I don't see the problem there. Being able to shoot a gun doesn't mean you have to be able to take a bullet.

And gun-fights are quite popular in fiction as in real-life.

 

[Driddle]

I used to enjoy playing spellcasters -- mostly wizards. In my early gaming years I was always the first to step up and claim the mantle of party mage.

Over time, though, it became too much trouble to keep track of which spells my character had memorized for the day, and I got tired of being frustrated when I hadn't chosen the 'right' one for any particular circumstance.

Simply put: It's easier to not mess with magic. Let someone else do it.

 

[drothgery]

If the DM of a group I played in offered me a great mana-based, component-free spell system, I'd play a caster in a heartbeat..

Play a psion.

 

[Particle_Man]

Never mind the Warmage, go for the *Warlock* core class in Complete Arcane:

d6 HD, can wear light armor with no ASF, has cleric BAB.

Doesn't use spells, but has "invocations" which are a kind of spell like ability. Limited in number (and so easy to keep track of), although you always get an Eldritch Blast for 1d6 DA at up to 60' range (the damage increases at higher levels, and you can use some invocations specifically to beef up this Blast).

They can keep up all their invocations and Eldritch Blast, all DAY. It is a standard action to use one. You NEVER run out of spells, spell slots, or spell points. You are the "energizer bunny". Now your powers are a bit toned down from regular spells, but that is a small price to pay, IMHO.

Later you can try to make magic items without knowing the relevant spells! You need the relevant feat and a good UMD skill, though. Did I mention that they get the ability to take 10 on UMD, EVEN IF they are distracted or threatened?

I had a friend who would never play spellcasters before, who says that the Warlock is the only one he would play. And I am inclined to think the same way! This class saves headaches for those with no inclination to keep track of zillions of spell options, and by the way is great for DMs who need an arcane villain-on-the-fly.

I cannot say enough good things about the Warlock. This class alone restored my faith in Wotc's creativity and made the Complete Arcane book worthwhile as a purchase.

 

[Timeboxer]

I must say that I love casters, and I especially love wizards.

That said, my experience, which may be atypical, is that casters are seldom played because most people think that they're too complicated. Admittedly, I have tended to play in groups where the most sophisticated tactic has been, "I charge him and attack!" whereas I prefer to concentrate on utility and battlefield control; casters tend not to be conducive to mindless fighting. I have even played with a player who played a druid and insisted on never using spells, because "I hate casting."

But beyond that, there's just something more visceral in playing a fighter than a caster, and a lot of the people I've played with tend to talk about their characters in terms of, "My character is so cool because he can do 384 damage per round with his greatsword, plus 6 fire damage!" For me, at least, I think there's this sense that killing as many bad guys as fast as possible is more worthwhile than clever play.

Of course, I will be the first to admit that historically most of the people I've ended up with tend to be rollplayers. So.