Do you prefer damage or "tactics" during combat?

[The Shaman]

Tactics, probably to my detriment.

I can't remember ever running a character who was the big damage-dealer in the party - my warriors tend to be crafty, my spellcasters (try to be...) clever.

 

[Seeten]

I prefer to smite my enemies for very large numbers of dmg.

We have another player who very much prefer tactics, like grappling the giants, to the exclusion of dmg. If I flank for him and hit the 55hp mob for 50, and he's next, with 4d6 sneak attack due to flank, he'll use his tactics to grapple, lose, get pinned and pounded, and I'll need my next attack to dispatch.

God I hate "Tactical" approaches.

 

[shilsen]

I prefer to smite my enemies for very large numbers of dmg.

We have another player who very much prefer tactics, like grappling the giants, to the exclusion of dmg. If I flank for him and hit the 55hp mob for 50, and he's next, with 4d6 sneak attack due to flank, he'll use his tactics to grapple, lose, get pinned and pounded, and I'll need my next attack to dispatch.

God I hate "Tactical" approaches.

His approach doesn't sound all that tactical. I'm presuming when we speak about tactics we're referring to effective tactics. Theoretically, trying to wrestle a remorhaz is a tactic too, but it's not one I have in mind when I talk about the benefits of tactical thinking

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I said tactics, but not because I think it is a better solution to beating the opposition, but because its more fun! I'm the crazy roleplayer type, so my "tactics" aren't always good... they're more flamboyant and risky than anything else. Like climbing a slippery wall to grapple an archer instead of just shooting back at him with my own arrows, even if I know I can kill them before they kill me...

*BING! BING!*

Yep, that's also why I have been playing Spycraft so much lately - the players are more willing to try something new and exciting in the hopes that they will get some more Action Dice. Then again, they seem to spend a lot of Action Dice pulling off things that are 'New and exciting'.
Give me an entertaining battle every time!

The Auld Grump

 

[Seeten]

His approach doesn't sound all that tactical. I'm presuming when we speak about tactics we're referring to effective tactics. Theoretically, trying to wrestle a remorhaz is a tactic too, but it's not one I have in mind when I talk about the benefits of tactical thinking

If we are talking about "great tactics" I love great tactics. Its just that 98% of the time I find the best possible tactic to hit the mob for a huge ton of dmg.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I was wondering, if you had to make a preferance, do you prefer (or are more apt to do) damage during combat, or do you prefer a more tactical approach? What do I mean by tactical? Anything that ISN'T pure damage. This can be anything from casting non-damage utility spells, tripping, aiding another, disarming, etc. Anything to help you or your allies gain an advantage in combat, or hinder your enemies. Tactics can really change the swing of a combat, especially if your side is starting to lose. Though, generally the quickest way to end a combat is to do damage quickly and take out the opponent ASAP.

Edit: Also wanted to add.... This is more of an intent thing than anything else. There are times where an effect you do does both damage and has side effects (ex: Sound Burst does damage AND has a chance to stun). But was your intent behind it the damage, and the "tactical" advantage was a nice side effect, or is it the other way around? The tactical advantage was your primary interest, the damage was just a nice side bonus

So again, I ask, do you prefer (or more often do) damage or tactics during combat?

Where do you put casting save-or-die spells?

In any event, if tactics leads to doing damage, I'm all for it. I love those Final Fantasy abilities that deal damage and inflict a status effect at the same time.

I would probably go for damage. In DnD, most non-magical tactical abilities are nearly useless. Take disarming for instance. Your opponent loses a move action and draws an AoO (when they pick up their weapon). It's almost exactly the same as tripping them. Sunder is a better option - but the treasure values make that an unpopular prospect among players.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Where do you put casting save-or-die spells?

I thought about this, and I would have to put it in the damage category. The only effect damage really has is reducing the hit points enough until the creature is finally dead. Casting a spell that bypasses the hit points and brings the creature straight to dead is the same result.

Now if the spell has some funky addition, that could be different... Take Death Knell. You kill the opponent and get temp HPs. So are you more concered with finishing off the opponent, or with gaining your bonus XP? I think it most cases, you cast death knell to finish off the opponent, and the bonus hp is just a nice side benefit.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would probably go for damage. In DnD, most non-magical tactical abilities are nearly useless. Take disarming for instance. Your opponent loses a move action and draws an AoO (when they pick up their weapon).

You get a standard action and a move action.

Standard action - disarm.
Move action - you pick up his weapon. He's unarmed, so he doesn't get an AoO, and now there's nothing for him to pick up...

-Hyp.

 

[The Grackle]

After playing a lot of uninspired battles lately, I'd say my only joy has been dishing out damage. But if your DM actually presents you with an intersting encounter, both with the monsters AND the enviornment, I'd say tactics.

It's not really a fun fight for me unless I have to think my way out of it. I want tactics to be the element that makes the difference between victory and losing party members.

 

[Balgus]

My Dm usually really encourages tactice. If you use your skills and describe something fun or exciting. he will usually let it fly (unless you roll a 1-3) i've done that a couple times, and I understand that he really has his hands tied. Can't really help me there.