Why Won't Some People Play Spellcasters?

[Saeviomagy]

Character sheet for a fighter, barbarian, rogue, monk:

1 page for stats and skills.

1 page for feats, weapon stats and inventory.

For a paladin or ranger:
1-2 pages for spells

For a bard:
2-4 pages for spells (1 if only those known)

For a sorceror:
8-9 pages of spells (1-2 if only those known)

For a wizard:
8-9 pages of spells (2-9 if only those known)

For a cleric:
8-9 pages of spells

I think that says it pretty simply, don't you?

Play a caster, have a complexity to your character that requires your character sheet is anywhere from 50% bigger to 400% bigger.

 

[ptolemy18]

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.

I don't really agree that spellcasters are weak, but I do think they nerfed the magic too much in 3.5. Among other things, I'm using 3.0's "Spell Focus" feats (+2 to DC instead of +1 to DC).

Jason

 

[Wormwood]

Add me to the "Playing spellcasters is more trouble than it's worth. More options and prep time than I'm comfortable with. I just want to kick in the door and hear the lamentations of the women."

 

[Iron Sheep]

Y'know, my way of dealing with this is that I have a "regular" spell selection that's my default, and I just replace certain elements if necessary for the day.

But to be effective with this, you need to spend time preparing these lists ahead of time. When my wife is playing rather than GMing she prefers not to have homework to do: levelling up is about the extent of it, and she likes having PCGen or similar available to do the calculations for her.

Does she know that you can leave some spell slots unprepared, and then spend a half-hour or so filling them later? This adds versatility, and it pretty much completely removes most of the advantages of having a sorcerer; you just can't do it in the middle of battle.

She probably doesn't, since nobody in our campaigns has tried this trick; but again, it's an additional level of complexity and still has the possibility of leaving you short in combat situations ("I should have memorised 3 fireballs, not 2 with a slot open"). So I don't think it's make a difference to her. And it doesn't help with clerics and druids at all.

These comments miss the point. My wife finds that non-spontaneous casters require continuous, complex decision making where a lot of unknowns have to be balanced throughout the game. Compared to playing a combat character, it requires a lot more strategic thinking; combat characters and rogues can be played effectively with fairly simple, localised strategies, even if there are a lot of potential options at any point in combat.

My wife can think strategically, but she doesn't enjoy it. It's not a lot of fun for her to play this way. Other people may enjoy it a lot, but the question at hand was why some people don't like to play casters. I think this distinction may be a factor for a number of those people.

Corran

 

[knitnerd]

Playing a spellcaster in not fun!

I am playing a spellcaster for the first time and not having any fun. Nothing I do seems to work. All our PC fighters have died and our group is mostly spellcasters with NPC fighters. My evil gnome evoker wizard was created almost as an antiparty,who attacked anyone who entered his territory. Now forced to work with other magic users, most of the spells he learned are useless. Someone else casts the spells to buff the party. Another uses fire spells, but the monster is resistant to fire. So he prepares a lightning spell, only someone else uses a lightning spell first and the monster likes it. So he finds a cold spell,and before he can use it,someone else tries it and the monster is resistant to cold too. Finally he takes out his crossbow and the idiot with the rod of wonder does something that hurts the monster but cuts him off from the party or pins him to the ground. Most of the fights are now in enclosed spaces where his favorite stinking cloud or choaking cloud will harm the party as much as it does the monster. I think he should just start killing off party members to get some peace and quiet.

 

[Felix]

*snip*

Uh, I don't think wanting to kill the other PCs is a problem with the class...

Yeah, casters take more time. Less so for clerics, though, what with spontaneous healing. And besides, you can have a warrior cleric build that mostly just uses buffs and then wades into battle.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Add me to the "Playing spellcasters is more trouble than it's worth. More options and prep time than I'm comfortable with. I just want to kick in the door and hear the lamentations of the women."

Agreed. I played a cleric as a secondary character in one game, and HATED memorizing spells.

Spontaneous casters are easier, since the planning ahead is more on a macro scale...instead of what spells you want for the day, you take the spells you like and think you'll need more often than not, and can wand the rest.

I recently created and started playing a warmage to enjoy what I consider the fun parts of spellcasting...ie., the Path of Bang.

Brad

 

[Timeboxer]

Add me to the "Playing spellcasters is more trouble than it's worth. More options and prep time than I'm comfortable with. I just want to kick in the door and hear the lamentations of the women."

"Dojo! What is Rule One?!"
"Do not act incautiously when confronting unarmed innocent-looking young women, especially if they have a material component pouch!"

Somewhat on the same topic as the subject, am I the only one who always feels horribly underappreciated when she plays a caster? As a caster, I'm generally the puzzle-solver and utility person and I can alternately pull out knocks and fireballs when necessary, but I always get the feeling that everyone in my party thinks that my specialties are much less useful and worthwhile than being able to do copious amounts of reliable melee damage.

 

[beaver1024]

Somewhat on the same topic as the subject, am I the only one who always feels horribly underappreciated when she plays a caster? As a caster, I'm generally the puzzle-solver and utility person and I can alternately pull out knocks and fireballs when necessary, but I always get the feeling that everyone in my party thinks that my specialties are much less useful and worthwhile than being able to do copious amounts of reliable melee damage.

When your party is getting smashed by the enemy and all you have are knocks and tounges prepared then you are less useful and worthwhile. Shame on you for not cheating and reading the module ahead of time in order to find out what spells to best prepare.

 

[Christopher Lambert]

IME, I play wizards and psions, but never sorcerers. I'm a big fan of saved-or-screwed spells. It it does a little damage, too, great!

The last time I played a wizard, I was a gnome wizard who liked using glitterdust. However, the party wouldn't stay away, and I wouldn't blind them.

One time the monk, rogue and I conspired to show the party how useful the spell was. We ran into three trolls, so we sent the monk up first. All the trolls went after him (they couldn't see the rest of us yet), putting them all into fireball position. Ok, so they hit the monk 9 times + 3 rends (amazing he was still alive after that!) after which I roasted and then blinded them. Then the rogue started going crazy with sneak attack!

Next combat the fighter immediately rushed into melee... Fortunately I became high enough level to cast Fear and O's Resilient Sphere, but having to wait until 7th-level because of uncooperative PCs isn't really fair.

I found wizards with their d4 hp/level and all-or-nothing defenses to be, well, often annoying to play. If you don't get surprised you're invincible, but if you are suprised, goodbye! (Watch out for elder xorns! They are not CR 8! Not by a long shot!)

Anyway I didn't find spell selection to be a problem. I wouldn't prepare fireballs because I know we'll face trolls; I always had a fireball prepared. Just one though, I also had a lightning bolt. There's a reason I didn't play sorcerers. Having only fireballs when you run into fire giants is a sucky situation. (As for psions, if the GM nerfed the energy powers so they weren't so flexible I'd still take them. I'd just take some of them more than once. )

Now, if you are only planning on casting Identify, that's no excuse for not having a combat spell on hand. Every day a wizard should have prepared the following (depending on caster level, of course): Mage Armor, False Life, Glitterdust, O's Resilient Sphere, Dimension Door.

The last is a real life saver, and Glitterdust and Otiluke's Resilient Sphere take care of a lot of pesky anti-magical creatures. You'll notice these are all defensive spells, too. Offensive spells are more varied and usually reflect your personality or even what you feel like that day. (If you're going to cast Identify after Identify after Identify you probably won't want to bother with Lightning Bolt.)

I think most campaigns start at 1st level. IME wizards and clerics are worth playing until 3rd level. Until you reach that point, you're still an apprentice and shouldn't be adventuring.