The Sage on White Raven Tactics

[Nail]

Plus, hitting the opposition harder and faster might actually preserve resources on average making the party able to fight longer than with the slower rate of spells.

That's been my experience anyway.

So long as you don't waste spells ("I'll just cast this extra one just because I can!"), casting more often is always a good thing.

 

[RigaMortus2]

For good reason.


The argument "Casting spells faster makes the caster run out of spell faster" is an old argument, and has - each and every time - been proved incorrect.

Not really. Its basic math. If I have 10 spells and can normally only cast one a round, it will take me a minimum of 10 rounds to cast them all. If I have 10 spells and have a way to cast 2 a round, it will take me a minimum of 5 rounds to cast them all. 5 rounds of casting is quicker than 10 rounds of casting. Can't see how that can be proven wrong...

Also, you are not going to be able to use WRT every round. The martial adept will need at least a round to get it back (a Crusader has a chance to get it back from one round to the next, but it is random if it will happen). So it is more like casting 3 spells every 2 rounds. Not that quick as you think, and definately not as quick as 3.0 haste.

I guess you could argue that "what if you have multiple people in the group that can each use WRT?" Well... what if you have multiple spellcasters in the group that can nuke each round?

Again, I don't see a major problem. It works fine for my game. Have never had any issues. It's all theory anyway. Sure, if you have 5 people with WRT each use it on a mage, he'll nuke the battlefield into oblivion. What are the chances of 5 people having WRT though? And if that's the case, I think the DM would be wise enough to realize his players are up to something (5 warblades and a mage... interesting group dynamic there guys...)

 

[shilsen]

Not really. Its basic math. If I have 10 spells and can normally only cast one a round, it will take me a minimum of 10 rounds to cast them all. If I have 10 spells and have a way to cast 2 a round, it will take me a minimum of 5 rounds to cast them all. 5 rounds of casting is quicker than 10 rounds of casting. Can't see how that can be proven wrong...

You're forgetting the issue of context and that there are other results of the caster using his spells besides running through them. I'll give you a random example of how being able to cast two spells a round instead of one can mean a caster actually runs through his spells slower:

1 - Suppose you have a high-level cleric in a group without anyone possessing WRT. During a fight with a BBEG, the cleric uses a spell in the first round and damages the enemy. The enemy acts on his round and (a) drops one or more of the cleric's allies into negatives or (b) poisons them or (c) paralyzes them or (d) does ability damage to them, and so on. In the second round the cleric uses a second spell and kills the BBEG. Then he has to spend a couple of extra spells to restore his allies to full health.

2 - Same situation, but one of the other PCs has WRT. He uses it to allow the cleric to get two spells off, and he kills the BBEG before the latter can damage his allies as in the previous example. Since he doesn't have to use extra spells to heal/restore the allies, the cleric actually ends up using less spells.

And that's just one hypothetical example. Considering the infinite different contexts created by the makeup of the individual group, the type of campaign (WRT allowing spellcasters to cast extra spells will be a whole lot deadlier in a campaign with only one or two encounters a day) and the type of enemies faced, "basic math" is quite irrelevant in determining its effectiveness. IMNSHO, of course.

 

[Votan]

You're forgetting the issue of context and that there are other results of the caster using his spells besides running through them. I'll give you a random example of how being able to cast two spells a round instead of one can mean a caster actually runs through his spells slower:

1 - Suppose you have a high-level cleric in a group without anyone possessing WRT. During a fight with a BBEG, the cleric uses a spell in the first round and damages the enemy. The enemy acts on his round and (a) drops one or more of the cleric's allies into negatives or (b) poisons them or (c) paralyzes them or (d) does ability damage to them, and so on. In the second round the cleric uses a second spell and kills the BBEG. Then he has to spend a couple of extra spells to restore his allies to full health.

2 - Same situation, but one of the other PCs has WRT. He uses it to allow the cleric to get two spells off, and he kills the BBEG before the latter can damage his allies as in the previous example. Since he doesn't have to use extra spells to heal/restore the allies, the cleric actually ends up using less spells.

And that's just one hypothetical example. Considering the infinite different contexts created by the makeup of the individual group, the type of campaign (WRT allowing spellcasters to cast extra spells will be a whole lot deadlier in a campaign with only one or two encounters a day) and the type of enemies faced, "basic math" is quite irrelevant in determining its effectiveness. IMNSHO, of course.

Another possibility is being able to use 2 low level spells to compensate for one higher level spell. Casting 2 hold person spells might save the use of mass hold person and it's is always better to replace one high level spell with two lower level spells if you have enough. In some cases, the lower level spells might never be used as they are not worth an action until you suddenly get two . . .

Another possibility is setting up a two round tactic without being impended. This is best seen with a spell that reduces saves followed by a knock-out spell targeting the (now weakened) save.

 

[RigaMortus2]

You're forgetting the issue of context and that there are other results of the caster using his spells besides running through them. I'll give you a random example of how being able to cast two spells a round instead of one can mean a caster actually runs through his spells slower:

1 - Suppose you have a high-level cleric in a group without anyone possessing WRT. During a fight with a BBEG, the cleric uses a spell in the first round and damages the enemy. The enemy acts on his round and (a) drops one or more of the cleric's allies into negatives or (b) poisons them or (c) paralyzes them or (d) does ability damage to them, and so on. In the second round the cleric uses a second spell and kills the BBEG. Then he has to spend a couple of extra spells to restore his allies to full health.

2 - Same situation, but one of the other PCs has WRT. He uses it to allow the cleric to get two spells off, and he kills the BBEG before the latter can damage his allies as in the previous example. Since he doesn't have to use extra spells to heal/restore the allies, the cleric actually ends up using less spells.

And that's just one hypothetical example. Considering the infinite different contexts created by the makeup of the individual group, the type of campaign (WRT allowing spellcasters to cast extra spells will be a whole lot deadlier in a campaign with only one or two encounters a day) and the type of enemies faced, "basic math" is quite irrelevant in determining its effectiveness. IMNSHO, of course.

Which apparently isn't a problem. Same situation, except instead of a Cleric they use WRT on the Fighter, who takes 2 full attack actions and drops the BBEG before the Cleric can even cast 1 spell. I'd have to ask the DM, if this is the BBEG, why does he have such crappy HPs? But anyway, if you can drop a BBEG with one use of WRT and 2 damaging spells cast, I think there is something else wrong with the scenario...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Again, I don't see a major problem. It works fine for my game. Have never had any issues. It's all theory anyway. Sure, if you have 5 people with WRT each use it on a mage, he'll nuke the battlefield into oblivion. What are the chances of 5 people having WRT though? And if that's the case, I think the DM would be wise enough to realize his players are up to something (5 warblades and a mage... interesting group dynamic there guys...)

Out of interest, do you still use 3.0 style Haste spell?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Here's a random thought that hit me--wouldn't WRT actually be impossible to exploit if it only worked on allies with a lower initiative count than the one using WRT? Because every possible exploit involves using WRT to grab someone from earlier in initiative that round.

 

[green slime]

The biggest problem, in my opinion, when it comes to haste-like effects for spellcasters, allowing them to unload most if not all of their spells very quickly, is the fact, that once the spellcasters have done this, and are low on spells, the party mostly wants to withdraw and rest.

Now, yes there are ways around this. And yes, the DM can throw random encounters disrupting rest. Yet how many times can the DM do this, and retain sanity. It is annoying. It starts to feel very videogamish for me (one battle, rest, heal. Repeat ad nauseum).

 

[Nail]

Here's a random thought that hit me--wouldn't WRT actually be impossible to exploit if it only worked on allies with a lower initiative count than the one using WRT? Because every possible exploit involves using WRT to grab someone from earlier in initiative that round.

...so how might that be worded so as to only pull someone "up" in initiative, rather than "down"?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Out of interest, do you still use 3.0 style Haste spell?

No, we've upgraded to 3.5 as soon as it became available. Not because we felt it "fixed" things that were broken (which it did a lot of fixing broken things, don't get me wrong) but because it is just the newest version. We try to play strictly using the rules in 3.5 now, unless someone wants to play a PrC that hasn't been reprinted (Candle Caster, Forsaker, Ooze Master just for example) we sometimes make those exceptions. I dislike house ruling as much as possible, so no reason to play 3.5 with "exceptions" (ie we play 3.5 but use rules for 3.0 haste). This is the same concept we would apply to ToB (ie we use ToB but house ruled and changed WRT).

Since there is only one version of ToB, that is the one we use... If the errata changes it, then we use the errata.