Why Won't Some People Play Spellcasters?

[Thanee]

My players quickly found that damage dealing spells are terrible at low levels.

At the lowest levels, spells like Sleep and Color Spray work fine, when the DC of those isn't easy to beat yet.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

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

Hey, with Resist Energy it doesn't look all that bad anymore.

I personally love mages, but man, it's a hell of a survival test to get them to a point of near survivability on their own. "What do you mean the fighter hit me for 54 points of damage on his first attack?"

Heh. Happened to me in the current campaign (at level 9 or so?). Damn crits. The barbarian also got hit for a similar amount (by the same opponent one round later). End of story: barbarian dead (tho, that was a bit unlucky to be honest), sorceress alive and kicking.

Never enter combat without False Life running.

Bye
Thanee

 

[kenobi65]

I've got several players, in my game groups, who never play wizard-types. If asked why not, they'll say (a) it's too much work, and (b) they prefer role-playing over the pursuit of power (this POV is undoubtedly engendered by the fact that the players who *do* play wizards in our group tend to be...well...munchkiny.)

My wife's among those who automatically rule out playing wizards. She's usually happiest playing a bard or rogue, with all the skills (esp. interpersonal skills) that those classes excel in. Though, she's now got a couple of clerics that she's enjoying playing. I think, for her, while playing a cleric (or a bard) does entail a certain amount of bookkeeping over spell lists, it still isn't as heavy as how she perceives playing a wizard would be.

While my groups never seem to have an issue with not having a wizardly-type, we *do* frequently have problems with not having anyone playing a cleric. I guess they're not seen as flashy enough.

At any rate, I've observed that most players have an archetype or two that they're most comfortable with. Some players play nothing *but* wizards; others always seem to play dwarven fighters. As long as the group has a fair mix, I don't really see it as a problem.

As for me? I like playing spellcasters, including wizards, just fine. About the only class I *don't* enjoy playing much is rogue...

 

[Frostmarrow]

I enjoy wizards the most in any game. I don't particulary take to the concept - it's just that wizards work for me. I like to do clever things. I like to solve the problems in a way that surprises my fellow players. Wizards are the best class to be if that's your game.

However, after playing a wizard for awhile I ten to get sick of it. I need to cram two to three other characters inbetween my wizards. The reason I get sick of them is that I always end up picking the same spells. Sure, I could make a specialist from a school I normally wouldn't pick spells from but such endeavors often collide with my principles. I can't play an evoker because that's too cookie-cutter, I can't play an enchanter because I'd hate to have every NPC I meet at my beck and call, I can't play a necromancer because I like to be a good guy, et c, et c. So usually I end up with a conjurer or a general mage.

I enjoyed reading this thread though. The idea of sunrise to sundown duration and as far as you cast your shadow range sound very nice to me.

With 3.5E no one in my group bothers with spells anymore. The durations are too short. It just magic missile and cure wounds all day long.

 

[_Magnus_]

I like a balance of both spell-casters and non-spellcasters. On the one hand, spellcasters can be fun and exciting to use, but on the other, they definately are more complicated. I myself am a relatively new player(of about 8 months), and I do have some trouble with grasping all the details of playing a spellcaster. I also like a character that can hack its way through the enemy. The fighting styles are so different that it really depends on what mood I'm in.

 

[ptolemy18]

Switching from the Wizard to the Sorcerer Isn't going to help, even if you beef up its power. The problem lies with Tensers Floating Disk... Not that spell specifically, but that entire class of spells. The flavorful ones that you'll rarely have a use for...

You can always replicate that kind of magic with house rules; I think Cantrips generally cover most of that kind of thing, with higher level spells possibly covering more dramatic effects (the Illusion spells and Creation spells, for instance). If your DM is going to be a real stickler and say "No, you can't spend a Cantrip to turn pinecones into harmless li'l fireworks to amuse the kids" then that's a problem with your DM, unfortunately. (I'd allow it! )

It's when you say "I turn the pinecones into fireworks and throw them in the face of the orc, making a called shot" that things get troublesome. D&D is a combat-oriented game, so naturally many of the "important" spells are going to be combat-related. And it's those uses that have to be restrained so players don't try extremely cheap, unbalancing spell applications like "My magic lets me turn any small amount of liquid into an ice cube, right? Okay, I aim the spell at... HIS EYEBALL!" (This is a real example...)

Personally, I agree with you up to a point, though... I prefer 3.0 to 3.5 mostly because of the changes in the spell list. I think they oversimplified and dumbed down a lot of the interesting magic for meta-game purposes of game balance (for instance, "Darkness" no longer creating real darknes, or "Command" no longer letting you use any verb you want, and "Baleful Polymorph" only letting you unwillingly turn things into harmless animals instead of, say, ugly monsters or members of the opposite sex or whatever).

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

Never try to force your round players into square holes of equal volume. Not only will they object, but something will break...So don't try to make your players play any class they don't like.

I'd never force somebody to play a class they didn't like... I'm just curious as to their motivation. But I guess I understand it a little better after this thread.

(Also, as a DM, iit's easier for me to think of plots for spellcasters, for some reason... )

Jason

 

[Sundog]

The reasons that I've heard most often for not playing a spellcaster is "D&D is a small part of my life." In general the people that have said that to me don't spend much, if any, time outside of game sessions thinking about the game. For these folks, the number of rules and options related to spellcasting requires more work outside of the game session than they want to commit. They get their enjoyment from the game by playing by showing up, socializing and dealing with whatever happens during the game. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I love to play a spellcaster because of the vast array of options. To the point that I will be playing a character in an upcomming campaign that eschews all evocation and conjuration spells. The challenge of picking the a good set of spells and surviving without magic missle and fireball will be a huge part of the fun of the game.

Even so, one thing I've noticed is that 3.0/3.5 has introduced more rules than even I care to master. I just don't feel like spending the time learning the intracicies of AoO or concelement or invisibile opponents. I'm getting old and my mind doesn't have room for all that any more.

 

[beaver1024]

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.

Surviving the first 5 levels is where I have to do the most fudging. You don't start playing at level 1? Even levels 5 - 8 need fudging. This is where monster saves and hitpoints ramp up but arcane caster levels are still too low to affect anything. 9th level onwards, is where I find I don't have to fudge the encounters too much. However because my group meets infrequently and the highest we've ever been in 12th level (aside from a few once off silly Epic games) my players feel that is too long for a class to stand on it's own.

As a side note, someone mention psionics. Some of my players have recently started using psionics and they love it. After playing with them a few times, I must say that they are much better than arcane casters.

 

[Sado]

The reasons that I've heard most often for not playing a spellcaster is "D&D is a small part of my life." In general the people that have said that to me don't spend much, if any, time outside of game sessions thinking about the game. For these folks, the number of rules and options related to spellcasting requires more work outside of the game session than they want to commit. They get their enjoyment from the game by playing by showing up, socializing and dealing with whatever happens during the game. And there is nothing wrong with that.

D&D (or RPG's in general) is probably the single biggest thing I do with my free time and I have avoided magic-users because of the extra work involved. I am only now brave enough to play a ranger (and I can't cast any spells yet).

Look at it like this: to play a non-magic character you have to know pretty much the first 160-170 pages of the PHB. To play a magic-user, you have to know all that, plus that much again for the magic and spells section in the second half of the book.

Not to mention the constant bookkeeping with deciding what spells you want to prepare every day.

The XP burn of some spells and feats is really annoying too.