Buff or Attack

[Bullgrit]

In general, once initiative is rolled, is it better to spend a round buffing before attacking, or to straight-out attack on your first action?

This is something I've been considering in our campaign. I have a battle cleric that works best with at least one [10-round-duration] spell up and running. Nearly every combat we get into, I have to consider whether it's best to spend a round putting on a buff or to just jump into the enemy. The barbarian, of course, just jumps right in. [Our game is D&D3, if it matters for the discussion.]

Also, what's the longest time in combat (actually in the initiative count) you've seen someone spend buffing before actually entering the fray?

Is it better to throw "debuff" spells on an opponent or to throw damaging spells or save-or-die spells?

Is it better to throw damaging spells on an opponent or to throw save-or-die spells?

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

 

[ExploderWizard]

This question reminds me of a buddy that played a 1/2 orc druid in 3.0 game. He would cast barkskin & shillelagh, get all fired up............and the battle would be over.

 

[Cadfan]

Well, obviously it depends on what spells you know and who you're casting them upon.

 

[Piratecat]

Most importantly, what's the most fun?

But beyond that, it depends on my damage output. What's my expected damage per round? Let's say a fight lasts three or four rounds; if the buff will do enough damage over the extra two or three rounds to make up for the damage I didn't cause while buffing, it's worth it for me. That's why multi-person buffs (3.0 mass haste FTW!) have a better payoff than single person buffs.

 

[Celebrim]

In general, once initiative is rolled, is it better to spend a round buffing before attacking, or to straight-out attack on your first action?

In 3rd edition, almost without question, attack. Any buff that doesn't increase damage by more than 25% is probably a waste in the sense that it won't pay for itself before the combat is over, but more importantly its a waste compared to some other sort of spell + 2-3 rounds of attacking would be.

One exception is you are a character you've not built for combat in the first place and whose contributions to the 'party damage per round' are probably insignificant. I played a cleric which was designed with the goal of always being the last thing to drop, and I played fairly defensively and rarely did anything but throw buffs and healing around to keep other characters in the fray simply because my attack bonus and damage usually didn't justify it.

Another exception is that you've got some sort of defensive buff without which your other party members are likely to drop - throwing up or out a mind blank, death ward, freedom of action, or whatever is likely called for.
Also, what's the longest time in combat (actually in the initiative count) you've seen someone spend buffing before actually entering the fray?

Generally, I've seen some players buff for like 3 rounds, but I don't know that it is necessarily effective compared to just jumping in. I think its more motivated by the desire to achieve some sort of 'perfect', 'cool', 'ideal' state where they can unleash an impressive smackdown. But whether 3 rounds buffing + 2 rounds attacking is better than 5 rounds attacking, I'm not sure. In any event, I don't build characters like that. While such a character is certainly theoretically viable, I'm not sure that spot-light grabbing like that is the best contribution to the party.

Now, before the combat begins, I've seen like 5 or 6 rounds of buffing (at least).

Is it better to throw "debuff" spells on an opponent or to throw damaging spells or save-or-die spells?

Depends on your DM. I would say in general though that damaging spells (evocation) are usually pretty suboptimal in 3e. You are much better off throwing around debuffers and save-or-be-screwed in most cases, with the choice depending on the DM and the creature being faced.

Is it better to throw damaging spells on an opponent or to throw save-or-die spells?

Under core RAW, unquestionably, save-or-die. In 3.X saving throws are difficult, hit points are high, and damaging spells for the most part don't do alot of damage. I suppose that there might be a few exceptions where something has good saves, low hitpoints, and can be expected to have defenses against most common save-or-dies, but for the most part forcing a save is better than doing damage.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

You're probably better off attacking, unless the buff benefits the entire party. I usually throw out a buff in the third round or so, because if the combat has gone on that long it might be worth the resource expenditure. This is one of the main reason that psionics are so popular, especially the psychic warrior or war mind. With a psy warrior you can usually buff and attack at the same time.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In general, once initiative is rolled, is it better to spend a round buffing before attacking, or to straight-out attack on your first action?

When there is even any doubt at all, then engage the enemy. So, the latter.

So much so that one might be tempted to house-rule buffs to be like unto BAB +1 (or over) characters drawing weapons (i.e., so it can be done 'as a free action combined with a regular move') - possibly with a feat equivalent to Quick Draw as well.

And this reminds me of the Warlock profession in Dragon Warriors, which grants the ability to cast two of any of the specially marked 'combat-oriented' spells (there are one of these of each spell level) in one combat round. Note: Spells generally take one combat round a piece, in that system. It sounds like a powerful ability, but really it just makes some of them more appealing than they might otherwise be. No biggie, really.

 

[frankthedm]

[Our game is D&D3, if it matters for the discussion.]

Yeah. I'd say that matters. The levels being played and houserules or any “gentlemen’s agreements” are also big factor.

Is it better to throw "debuff" spells on an opponent or to throw damaging spells or save-or-die spells?

Depends on what you are facing. Against a big beast you want to buff whoever is going to be fighting the thing and make sure that every character is taking effort to soften the critter up before it engages the party. Until it engages, each round the characters should be backing away from it and setting up optimum positioning if possible, prevented it from full attacking or charging.. Debuffing it is a good idea if you have a way through it's defenses. Save or Screwed is tricky sine big beasts usually have decent fort and passable will. Also if the barbarian insists on charging the Direhuge Grabba-grindabeast at first sight, let him have his one way ticket to Valhalla.

If the party is surprised by classed characters, open up with a Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic is usually a solid opening move vs classed NPCS since buffs can be a big chunk of their potency. If they tried to surprised you, that also indicates they had time to prepare by drinking their potions. All of them. Similar issue with dragons, An opening Dispel magic helps bring down Mage armor and possibly Shield, making any AC targeter’s jobs much easier.

Is it better to throw damaging spells on an opponent or to throw save-or-die spells?

Damage helps the whole party work on taking the target down, SoD usually gives a flat chance of taking the target down.

 

[Halivar]

Thankfully, a lot of the best buffs ("Wrath of the Gods" comes to mind) are minor actions, thus removing the dilemma.