Why Won't Some People Play Spellcasters?

[Mercule]

Or you can play the "weirdo magic researcher": "I Balefully Polymorph the Bullette into a little mole, and pick him up and put him in a glass jar. I'll Dispel it later, in case we need a Bullette."

This is similar to my "item mage". I customized the effect of Shrink Item so that things would turn into cards, rather than cloth bits. I had a 4th (or 5th?) level version that was permanent. So I carried around 8-10 decks of cards all the time. Need a 10' pole? No problem. Hungry? How about a steaming hot feast? Broke your sword? Would you like long, short, bastard, or something else? Tired? How about a king-sized feather bed?

I also had a 5th level variation that would work on critters (but wasn't permanent).

Oh, and I think it's worth noting that a standard wooden door is one of the most useful items you could possibly carry. I couldn't keep 'em in stock.

 

[Arnwyn]

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.

Yep, that pretty much describes (a bunch of) my players. Bang on.

They find the mechanics to be unpleasant.

 

[shilsen]

All right, time to throw in my two cents.

I enjoy playing casters, in fact so much more than fighters, because fighter-types have so few options available. If I'm a fighter, the solution to 90% of all problems is "poke it with a pointy stick." As a wizard or cleric or druid, the solution can be to slice, fry, freeze, toss, dispel, banish, blast, solve, or even compel the problem to go away!

That's essentially my take on the subject (I think that's the third time in a week I've responded that way to one of Henry's posts!). I agree completely that playing a spellcaster leads to more complexity, but that's complexity I personally like. I prefer playing wizards to sorcerers, for example, since the former requires a greater degree of planning and creativity to be effective, and I enjoy that.

My favorite is possibly cleric, however, because it's like a fighter/wizard who can cast spells in armor. There's little to compare to a cleric loaded with divine favor, shield of faith, protection from energy and greater magic weapon wading into combat to smite the wicked. At higher levels, you can wade in encased in an anti-magic field, or shouting holy words until the foes stop twitching. Gods, what a feeling.

Can you tell I like to play clerics?

Yah, munchkin! Now get in line

 

[Galethorn]

But it's so FUUUUNNN!!!

I'm sure it it is (and have considered making a melee-cleric on more than one occasion), but having to keep track of all those spells (and their effects) really irks me. If I put in the effort to make myself a handy spell index for all of a character's spells (and make it easily expandable for gaining levels; maybe a notebook with 'spell cards' in it), I think I'd be ready to play a full-progression caster, but otherwise, I just wouldn't want to have to manhandle the PHB whenever I wanted to cast a spell.

And besides, magic is, in absolute terms, 'a way for wimps to even the playing field...by cheating,' to me at least. And I'd rather play a physically capable character than somebody who, by all rights, shouldn't be adventuring, were it not for their 'arcane crutch'. But, again, that's just me. I like playing the member of the group that 1. Doesn't die, except maybe to spellcasters or rat-bastard DMs, 2. Kills stuff with sharp and/or heavy things, and 3. Doesn't mind walking for a week to get to the next city.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hmm... for my sorceress (11th level) I have one sheet (front and back), which covers all information needed (still needs a bit of refinement, once I get around making some changes to it, but it works).

Wow - you guys run light on equipment. And I'm assuming that your spell list is nothing but the name of the spell?

The only time, when I have more than that is, when playing a higher level wizard, then some extra pages are needed for a decent spellbook. I think biggest up to date was 4 extra pages of spells for a 19th level character.

4 extra is around about right - we're talking about 2 levels of spells on a page.
Personally I prefer to have a page for 0 and 1st and then one page per level beyond that - it makes it easier to add new spells.

 

[Aaron L]

I myself get so bored playing non-spellcasters that I just don't do it. Fighter Mages are what make the game worth playing.

 

[Evilhalfling]

I Dm mostly but love casters, I have not played a mundane in 3.x, out of 5 characters. But it is hard to keep to your concept, when so many good spells are outside. I am trying my first melee cleric. Starting at 11th, where I have DM 'd from 3-12 for the last 3 campaigns.
The spell selection can be a headache - so many choices, so little time.
I never have exactly what I need, and buffing and getting postion is harder than I remembered. I find myself switching out a few spells in my memorized list, but reluctant to abandon my self buffs. More out of Charater concept than thinking he will actually run though his entire selection.
At this level you have a lot of options, and so do the monsters - will we face energy drains or dc 24 posion today? after 3 games I have died once, and my only crit was on another PC, forcing a massive damage save. I do like the d8+24 (x4crit)with my Pick Axe (see sig)that is my common lead in attack. This is the most combat oriented character I have ever played.
But my char has a detailed backstory and I have fun switching from the party leader, to bashful and indecisive in certain situations. I am currently treating one character with contempt, due to his extreme youth and low status, but he is smart and once I realize that his plans are as good or better than mine, the social dynamic will change. I look forward to my character growing and changing more than new ablilities. (well perhaps not more than improved critical)

 

[Thanee]

Wow - you guys run light on equipment.

I wouldn't say so. I have room for every body slot, one column (which could be a bit more, one of the improvements I would like to make) for general equipment and one for "expendable" equipment (potions, scrolls, wands and stuff like that).

And I'm assuming that your spell list is nothing but the name of the spell?

Right (that's also true with the 4-page spellbook, BTW, just that this one has some boxes to indicate prepared spells, too), tho sometimes I write up to three small letters indicating save type, range and whatever else might be needed, to have a better overview. Doesn't really need more room, however.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ShorelisNailo]

There ARE DIVINATION ....

Everybody says for it's difficult to choose which spells to prepare....Well you can have some divinations to prepare yourself,as well as having some generic spells for every problem....that's where priest RULES this game...and yes as HENRY said ... a priest going on you with buffs on him (divine favor/divine might/righthouse might/spikes-all stack ) on you CAN be a real nightmare...My priests do more damage,hit more easy and protect themselves better than most fighters...and they can heal,they can help the party,they can destroy undead,have d8 for hp,armor,and after 5th spell level insanely powerfull spells...But i agree that any spellcaster needs WORK...lot's of work to make him effective so he can live with your playstyle...I can say one thing to every one who don't like spellcaster...Just try one,for once...he'll worth the trouble for just the experience....

 

[ptolemy18]

And besides, magic is, in absolute terms, 'a way for wimps to even the playing field...by cheating,' to me at least. And I'd rather play a physically capable character than somebody who, by all rights, shouldn't be adventuring, were it not for their 'arcane crutch'. But, again, that's just me.

We all have our own fantasies. I ain't physically capable in real life, and I've never really wanted to be, so I'd rather play some wimpy, scrawny person with special powers related to my supposed intelligence, wisdom or charisma. (No comment on whether I actually have any of THOSE things in real life... )

In the typical D&D campaign setting, magic isn't "cheating" (although your character might think it is) -- it's just a fact of life. Like the D&D substitute for science. (Which is why I, personally, generally don't like RPG settings that mix magic and science... I have trouble believing that science would develop in a universe where people can make amazing things happen just by chanting some magic words. But I know that some settings mix them pretty well.)

Magic-users (of all kinds) are really like the superheroes of D&D-land. They have weird abilities beyond those of normal mortals. But on the other hand, it wouldn't be hard to run a campaign where **all** high-level characters are treated like superheroes... high-level fighters and rogues certainly kick so much butt that normal people should be scared of them. (I generally keep a pretty wide dividing line between "low level normal people" and "high level bad-asses" in my campaigns).

So, using the superhero metaphor, it sounds like you prefer the "tank" superheroes (fighter types) or the "crafty/stealthy" superheroes (rogues & such), or maybe the "weapon-using" superheroes, as opposed to the "freakazoid with weird powers, Dr. Strange, energy-bolt-shooting, dimension-travelling, shapeshifting, wall-crawling, flying" superheroes (which would be your standard spellcaster).

Jason