Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4728292" data-attributes="member: 4937">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).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.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.</blockquote>

Verification