Are casters inherently more interesting to play?
I don't just mean in a D&D sense.
Are playing characters that get magical super powers with versatility just more interesting than melee people and the like, regardless of which is more powerful?
>>43558488
They usually are for me, even in roguelike games.
>>43558488
Well, it depends on the person
I prefer playing both at the same time
Magic is usually more fantastical, and if you're playing a fantasy game that's probably what you're after. So yes.
>>43558488
>Are casters inherently more interesting to play?
If they're given more meaningful options than non-casters, then yes.
>>43558488
I prefer playing Gishes, really. To me it makes no sense for a warrior to limit himself.
>>43558488
That depends on the design of the classes.
'Melee people' as you say could be Goku, Kratos, Hercules, Iron Fist, or Asura.
Or they could be Aragorn.
One of those is really fun and interesting, and one of those is Aragorn.
Yep, they are very fun to have around.
>>43558488
I find more fun in finding creative uses for a small number of tools than I do in having so many tools with immutable functions that it's almost certain I have one designed for the situation I'm in. This means many systems make spellcasters feel like a lazy copout to me, while non-casters or hybrid casters with a limited pool of spells feel like an enjoyable challenge.
So I'd say no, but it's a somewhat subjective topic.
>>43558488
Not universally. I really don't like playing casters. Except druid type characters. Even then that's because the shape shifting nature stuff.
>>43558488
In systems where my potential as a non-spellcaster isn't more constrained as my potential as a spellcaster, I almost never cast spells.
In systems where spellcasters can't be countered martially, I generally use the minimum amount of magic to prevent such fuckery.
I find it more interesting to be the guy who can beat the dragon down with skill and physicality.
>using magic
Its like you want to be called a bitch
>>43558758
This
The way you make non-casters worth playing is by giving them options. Not necessarily making them into superheroes, but giving them the ability to effect the state of things. Alternatively you can restrict magic either by scale, type, or cost to keep it from going out of control.
An easy way to make non-casters more powerful is to give them status in the setting. Sure the wizard can invisibility past guards and sneak into a warehouse, but a non-caster with status can just march down there with 20 armed men, and turn the place over in the daylight.
>>43558488
I've thought so, too, until I triedGURPS+Martial Arts.
I play Shadowrun, so the dichotomy is a bit different.
I prefer playing mundanes, usually. Cyberware is my jam, and you can't really get that without losing magical ability as an Awakened. But there's also tons of cool shit Awakened can do. Like, one of my backup characters is basically an Avatar: TLA build. Heal, Increase Reflexes, and 8 "Shape Material" spells. You can't do that with a mundane.
So, no, they're not inherently better or more fun. It's what you're looking to play. Everything has options.
Except Adepts. Fuck you if your play Adepts.
>>43558488
I prefer not to martial characters, though ideally ones with some magic or mystical powers to fall back on. I'm not talking half-and-half here, but more like 3/4 warrior and 1/4 caster (or maybe even a bit less).
Spells are either vague and hard to get a grasp on ("you can do some fire stuff"), or they're limited to a very specific effect (like a fireball in D&D). To do anything else requires complex mechanics that are hard to sink your teeth into, because there are no real-world equivalents to relate them to.
But when I attack somebody with a sword, there are intricate real-world physics that come into play, that we all have at least a passing familiarity with. Even if you're not an expert on pre-modern combat, you understand the basics of body positioning, inertia, force of impact, gravity and so forth. And you've seen enough movies, shows, anime, comic books, etc. to plug in all sorts of interesting moves.
So sure, you may be choosing from two dozen spells in combat, while I'm just attacking, but chances are that each of your spells is very limited. Meanwhile, I'm parrying my opponent's hammer swing at my head with the base of my blade, and twisting my arm while our weapons are still locked together to skewer my opponent in the shoulder, using the longer reach of my sword to my advantage.
If your group doesn't describe their attacks and in-combat acrobatics in at least some detail, and your GM doesn't modify your chance of success and damage (and apply special effects, liking having to make a strength or agility check or be disarmed) based on how appropriate and/or colorful your descriptions are, then your group kind of sucks. Hell, every so often, I'll have a player get up and demonstrate his attack in slow motion, while I mime the movements of his opponent.
>>43559892
I've really never seen magic played anything like this, and tend to find D&D-style casters to be incredibly boring because of this. Now, magic that more resembles superpowers that supplement and enhance your mundane attacks and movements is a different story, and here we get into why I like characters with a bit of mystical, or at least superhuman ability to fall back on.
But as far as I'm concerned, if you've got a flying wizard who can throw fireballs, I should be able to have a swordsman with mythic or mystical capabilities that don't rely on casting spells. If you expect noncasters to be "realistic" then we should really demand the same thing of wizards--sorry, magicians--and require that all their magic be mere sleight of hand and stage trickery.
>>43559892
>So sure, you may be choosing from two dozen spells in combat, while I'm just attacking, but chances are that each of your spells is very limited. Meanwhile, I'm parrying my opponent's hammer swing at my head with the base of my blade, and twisting my arm while our weapons are still locked together to skewer my opponent in the shoulder, using the longer reach of my sword to my advantage.
Exceedingly fe games have anywhere near that complexity of melee combat. You just roll some dice and try to beat a number. Everything else that happens is pure flavor
>>43558488
Not for me. I've always enjoyed playing martial characters much more. Something about the visceral brutality of dismembering my enemies, or the burning sensation when I cross swords with a worthy opponent... there's a lot of heroism in martials that I think casters lack. Also it's more alpha. I'd rather have a ripped body than magic any day
>>43558504
I play melee in roguelike games, too. lol
I always play how you would say it, "un-conventional characters" like a fat halfling who sings
>>43560031
>the burning sensation when I cross swords with a worthy opponent
That sounds like the kind of thing you should see a doctor about
>>43560031
>I'd rather have a ripped body than magic any day
Why settle for one?
>>43560021
>Exceedingly fe games have anywhere near that complexity of melee combat.
Not mechanically, no. I mean, we don't have detailed rules for each possible different action based on the position of you and your opponent, your weapons, and your respective physical capabilities. That would be an overly-complicated mess. And some things would end up being broken, and you do them over and over or never, depending on which way they were broken. But that's why a rules-light, improvisation-heavy game is great.
>Everything else that happens is pure flavor
By why have it be pure flavor? Because that's just another way of saying that, in game terms, it doesn't matter. Describe things and improvise effects based on those descriptions. If I say that my character lets out a scream and swings his axe downward with all his might using both hands, that should have a different effect than trying to stun my opponent with a short, quick jab to the face with the end of my axe.
>>43560240
>By why have it be pure flavor?
Because that's how the rules are made. Systems rarely support such improvised effects and GMs even less so. You can describe as many fancy maneuvers as you like, but good luck convincing anyone to have it matter.
If you like improvised combat that's fine, but most don't because
>some things would end up being broken
Casters are fun, but you have just as much roleplaying variety as a highly charismatic character and (depending on whether the DM likes to go into detail on fights) more combat variety as a fighter. I like wizards and sorcerers, but that's just because I like playing as crotchety old farts with arthritis-related penalties or smug fuckers with "natural talent".
One time I even made a warlock in 5e who performed at children's parties by day, but fought crime with his dove familiar by night. His powers were themed after tricking and distracting foes while his friends did the dirty work (stealing back stolen stuff, getting a surprise attack in broad daylight, etc.)
The class I can't imagine doing anything different in is ranger. They're always Robin Hood types or just rogues with bows. Never anything interesting.
>>43560358
>If you like improvised combat that's fine, but most don't because
>some things would end up being broken
Actually, improvisation is the remedy to that problem, rather than the instigation of it. If you have two mechanical options that are set in stone, people are almost always going to do the one that is mechanically superior for their character. If, however, the mechanics are improvised, then the GM can tailor them to the circumstances and vary them to address problems, keep things from falling into a rut, and make things unpredictable enough that you can't just math out the best option. Sure, each individual improvisation might not be as carefully calculated as a rule that's set in stone, but A) it can be applied to the specifics of the campaign and the character in question, and B) it doesn't matter if it's a little broken because it doesn't have to be applied exactly the same way the next time it is done.
>Because that's how the rules are made.
Depends on the game, really. Early D&D very much depended on DM fiat. It's only with 3e that you saw a dramatic shift away from that. There are also plenty of modern rules-light games that lean just as heavily on improvisation. And it's easy enough to slip in a +2 chance to hit and/or a -2 penalty to damage in even a heavy system that doesn't explicitly endorse that kind of thing.
>You can describe as many fancy maneuvers as you like, but good luck convincing anyone to have it matter.
I can't speak for everybody, but my crew would walk away from the table if I tried to tell them that their descriptions didn't matter. And if people wonder why martials seem boring relative to casters, maybe it's because they're doing things wrong.
>>43560521
Then every fight becomes random guesswork depending on what mood the GM is in, and any tactics the game might have had turn into "guess what the GM is thinking".
>>43558488
Depends on the system, aka no.
>>43560479
Nothing stops the ranger from doing the exact same thing as your warlock. He might even be better at it, what with an animal companion that could fight crime better than a dove
>>43560567
That's what warfare is, though. At least warfare involving a bit of strategy and tactics. Guessing or deducing what your opponent is going for, so that you can counter it.
>>43560479
>The class I can't imagine doing anything different in is ranger.
That's interesting, because to me "ranger" is one of the more interesting martial classes. You aren't some over-armored guy who wears platemail on week-long expeditions through wilderness and dungeons. You're more sensibly armored and you have skills to boot. You can survive in the wilderness. You can track, trap and snare. You know about animals and animal behavior. You're just all around handier than a straight-up fighter is. And I've never been a Robin Hood type, and tend to favor melee over missile combat.
>>43558488
Warhammer Roleplay(both fantasy and 40k) seems to go against it. I've played both types of character in both scenarios, and melee seems to take the cake. Warhammer's melee are full of maneuvers and action economy working, while casters just pretty much use a standard action per turn to cast their highest level damage spell.
Casters are way more versatile in anything that doesn't involve killing though.
>>43558504
That I can't discuss
>>43560606
That's not what a game is though
>>43560654
It's what a game can be.
>>43560567
It's not random guesswork, and if you don't try to get a feel to your GM's gaming style and the way his world works, you're gonna have problems regardless of whether or not he tends to improvise things (though granted, you'll have more problems if he does). And even if you can't count on the exact math, things will still follow trends. That two-handed downswing using all my strength that I described in my previous post? That's going to add to damage at the expense of something else (chance to hit, speed/initiative rank, and/or defense/AC). And given your knowledge of a GM and his game, you can probably make a very good guess which (and you can always ask, or specify which you're going for if it's really important).
>>43560669
Games stop being fun when the rules of it change with the DM's whims
>>43560669
yes but if someone wants to play calvinball they can just do that instead of trying to have some established system for them to disregard beforehand
>>43560712
As always, it depends on how well the DM does it and how well the players pick up on it.
>>43560654
>That's not what a game is though
It seems like you want your RPGs to be wargames. I like both, but I'm looking for very different things from them. Wargames are about calculating definite odds, making precise moves, and using exact math. RPGs are about immersion, and just like real life, you have to go on instinct. In real life, you aren't looking down on a grid where you can move X spaces every Y seconds, and perform actions with precise, pre-calculated probabilities of success.
>>43560724
So basically, what the game is is irrelevant, you just have to cross your fingers and hope you have an uncommonly intuitive GM/players. If that happens then martials will be much more interesting, because for whatever reason the same skills can't be applied to any magical effects ever
>>43560784
Yeah, the GM houserules and improvises a little so obviously none of the rules ever apply. The players are random strangers as well, and the GM takes no consideration of how they are or play.
>>43560763
Actual warfare involves calculating definite odds and making precise moves. Running on instinct is a risky thing if you haven't stacked the odds in your favor with all that calculating and precision moves
>>43558488
There's plenty. I wish there was more Shapechanging/Wild Shaping outside of Pen and Paper though
>>43560807
>The players are random strangers as well, and the GM takes no consideration of how they are or play.
So every Roll20 or LGS group ever?
>>43560240
How would you give bonuses and penalties to flavour attacks then ?
Tex ?
Quick attack = +Attack -Damage
Power Attack= -Attack/AC +Damage
Defensive Attack= -Damage/Attack +AC
>>43560824
>Actual warfare involves calculating definite odds and making precise moves.
No, it really doesn't. You may try to reduce warfare as much as you can to such things, but it's far from an exact science, and you certainly aren't working with anything like the exactitude that people in this thread seem to be demanding from their RPG rules or they'll regard them as random and pointless.
And that's talking about the guys running the show, not random skirmishers in squad-level engagements. And even in full-scale battles, it's not like a combatant can calculate his exact chance to hit his enemy based on his enemy's AC, or work out the math of an attempt to disarm an enemy.
>>43558488
Nah, I like gritty stuff with dirt and muck, so if casters are involved, it's low power-level or comes at great personal cost.
>>43560824
Most of the calculations take place pre-battle concerning logistics. On the battlefield there's rarely much calculation going on. Not even battlefield like Cannae are wonders of micro-management. One of the most successful strategies of all time, the feigned retreat, is simple as fuck: you pretend your troops are falling back in disarray, enemy charges in headlong to mop up, you spring a surprise attack on them. The Mongols created the second largest empire in history largely owing to this strategy. The reason is that it's difficult to know exactly what's happening on a large battlefield. There's no pause button, no overmap. Successfully applying strategical and tactics concepts beyond the basics is extremely difficult in the heat of battle. Pic related, for example, is widely considered one of the greatest tactical achievements in the history of warfare.
>>43561024
P.S. Hang on while I find the follow-up pictures.
>>43560913
>Tex ?
>Quick attack = +Attack -Damage
>Power Attack= -Attack/AC +Damage
>Defensive Attack= -Damage/Attack +AC
Yeah, those are good. Feints are fairly common as well, as are people waiting to receive an enemy's attack, anticipating what he is going to do and basically building a trap for it. Like letting him swing, dodging or diverting it, and then lunging in when he is open (or using his momentum against him like a Judo throw). It's all very organic.
I also like to run combat in pockets, where each set of combatants will get several strikes and counter strikes. It makes things seem a lot more visceral and real when you are reacting to something that just happened, rather than taking an action, waiting through a few more people's turns until the guy you were striking at can act, then waiting around a bit more until you can go again. Rather: you act, he acts, you act, he acts, and then you move on. Or something like that.
>>43561024
Okay, I thought there would be more of these to provide better detail of what happened, but you can obviously read about the battle if you want to.
>>43561049
>P.S. Hang on while I find the follow-up pictures.
Are you looking for a big pile of Roman bodies?
>>43561143
That, and images of glorious Rome left untouched.
>>43561206
Really Cannae was remarkable in two ways. Hannibal absolutely and utterly defeated Rome and left it with no choice but to surrender, and despite this Rome refused to give in and through sheer force of will managed to tough things out long enough to actually win the war.
>>43558488
>A Guy who is really athletic and can hit people incredibly well
>A dude who has the power of the cosmos at his finger tips or can communicate and summon allies of deities
Yeah I guess it's just more interesting. But then again I hate it when people try and spice melee up through the use of pseudo-magical capabilities like endless whirlwinds or attacks that cause earthquakes etc.
Even in real life fighters aren't that special unless you have alot of PR like Brock Lesnar or Money Maywhatever. Though back in the day I did build a Ready 2 Rumble (Dreamcast) beta system which was based around outlandish personalities and an insult system ripped straight from Monkey Island.
>>43561933
>>A Guy who is really athletic and can hit people incredibly well
>>A dude who has the power of the cosmos at his finger tips or can communicate and summon allies of deities
>martials are just normal dudes
>casters warp the fabric of reality by farting real hard
>this is balanced and fun
Can this 3.5e bullshit die already
>>43561933
>A Guy who is really athletic and can hit people incredibly well
>A dude who has the power of the cosmos at his finger tips or can communicate and summon allies of deities
Why is an epic level wizard in the same party as a low level fighter?
>>43561933
I think a good way to help martials in 3.5 without giving them whirlwind blades or chi blasts is just to give them all pounce at level 1.
