Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Edward 05-28-04, 06:15 PM	3.0-3.5 strategic-tactical. First my definitions. Correct me if I am wrong but these are the definitions I am using for this post. A tactic is a small thing you use in a fight to give yourself an advantage beyond a frontal attempt to kill the nearest target. Killing the skirmish party’s leader or the enemy spell casters is a tactic; casting invisibility on the rogue so he can get one sneak attack is a tactic. A general rarely needs to consider tactics A strategy is a larger thing (not in itself but in scope) that will not only help you win a battle but to win a string of battles. Kill all the enemy officers is a strategy, sneak past the enemy so you are fit to fight BBEG and his cronies will achieve nothing of consequence until you come back to mop up is a strategy. A soldier rarely needs to consider a true strategy. A unit commander dose. My personal preference is for strategy over tactics but in 3.5 may spells where reduced so they really only have a tactical scope. In 3.0 I could cast invisibility and spider climb on a rogue at a modest level and expect him to have time to get into a building reconnoitrer it possibly obtain whatever it was we needed quietly and efficiently. Escaping before the spells ended 30-200minuts later. Under 3.5 he has 3-20 minutes. Even at level 20 it is not engulf time. Clever application of bulls strength spells and its like used to last the better part of an adventurers day. If combined with extend spell and the ramifications of dispel magic and waking up in the middle of the night without it while under attack are considered it has an influence on tressure selection. Under 3.5 it is more reliable but won’t reliably last the duration of a fight and must be cast during the fight forcing you to make a tactical decision during each fight instead of a strategic one each day. Invisibility is now only useful to get past a single obstacle rarely allowing time even for a immediate return trip and can not be used for medium term close recognizance (i.e. listening at the back of a commanders tent for half an hour until he goes and then stealing his maps)you could use potions (recasting and scrolls make noise)but they are very expensive and if the party wizard is expected to provide them it costs XP (or are you suppose to take a indirect XP hit for thinking strategically.) And if this paten of tactics over strategy is to continue what of the feat persistent spell witch I take often in spite of its high cost. With this feat many of the old tactical spells gained a strategic element but it only works on spells that are not intended to be cast on others so it corrects none of the losses for a strategist. But is it to be lost to us. Once the 3.5 splat books are out few will allow the use of tomb and blood. Will a cleric retain the ability to give up much of his high level spells and become highly vulnerable to dispel magic in exchange for becoming a very powerful combatant for the day? I don’t believe that the old or the new set of spell durations is better or worse balanced just that the new encourages your only long term thinking to be will I need this spell later instead (and there was already a goodly amount of that) instead of should I prep this powerful spell that could win me a fight or this other spell that may tip the balance in several. So I ask 2 questions. Do you think the new system is better? If so why? Do you believe tactics should be more strongly emphasised than strategy, or vice versa? Do you have any spell strategies that work under 3.5 you are wiling to share as most of my favourers are lost. Edward
Seeker95 05-28-04, 06:50 PM	I'm not directly disagreeing with your conclusion, but rather with the foundation of your premises. The single-function-per-spell changes from 3.0 to 3.5 represent a change in both tactic and strategy as far as combat spellcasting is concerned. The two are not mutually exclusive, but rather inexorably intertwined. What has happened is a strategic difference. The spellcaster who formerly relied upon a strategy of using a small rotation of spells for all occasions must re-think his entire approach to both combat and utility. Combat requires more tactical understanding and planning. "Fire and forget" no longer works. The traditional "fire and forget" spells (stat buffs, etc.) have shorter durations. Rather than prepare-cast-continue, the caster must decide whether to prepare these spells at all, whom to cast them upon, and when to use them. One-size-fits-all no longer fits all Enlarge is now enlarge person. Polymorph other is split into multiple spells. The strategy of spellcasters must shift to a better tactical understanding of encounters. Casters must decide which spells to use under a different set of rules. The process is the same as it was when 3.0 came out, but because so many had settled into comfortable routines (ignoring tactics because their strategy permitted such ignoring) that the new strategy chaffes. One other foundation of your argument is that a general need not consider tactics. Idisagree here. The general must create strategies based on available tactics. The general must be master of both strategy (the approach and delivery) and tactics (the delivery). It is the footsoldier who need not worry about strategy, because he is the delivery agent of a single (or small number of) tactics. The PC is now forced to be a general, whereas in 3.0 he was permitted to be a footsoldier, using the same collection of tactics over and over again.
Edward 05-28-04, 07:12 PM	But under 3.5 a spell basted strategy is very hard to find as very few spells last more than a few minutes. Under 3.0 you still had to decide whether or not to proper and cast a buff and if you cast it on the fighter hew was held in the first round of combat you got no benefit of the spell for that combat. Also on a tactical level you had to watch more closely for dispel magic because it didn’t just weaken your buffs now but for the rest of the day. Also a 3.5 buff specialist on a tactical level is reduced to casting his buffs for the first few rounds. His only tactical or t\strategic decision becomes who to buff and when rather than who to buff in the morning and what other tactics to employ during the day. Edward
Seeker95 05-28-04, 07:59 PM	Originally posted by Edward a 3.5 buff specialist on a tactical level is reduced to casting his buffs for the first few rounds. His only tactical or t\strategic decision becomes who to buff and when rather than who to buff in the morning and what other tactics to employ during the day. Exactly. The strategy and tactics used in 3.0 do not work in 3.5. But you still need to have strategy and tactics. The buff specialist in 3.0 could use a "fire and forget" strategy and have absolutely no tactical skills. The buff specialist in 3.5 must determine which buff spells to prepare, which combats to cast them in, and which allies to use them on. For many, this makes the buff specialist unappealing, because they don't want to have to think about it. For others, the buff specialist finally becomes a specialist. The enchanter specialist in 3.0 is relatively unchanged in 3.5. S/He still has to decide which opponents to charm in combat, and which ones to make more subtle approaches toward. Strategically, this specialist must still walk the line between preparatory enchantment and offensive enchantment. The summoner specialsit has a little extra firepower with the augment summoning feat chain, giving a little more oomph to the tactical side. But the strategic approach must still be balanced between summoning for offense and summoning for defense. The biggest change in strategy is with the buff specialst for the reason you just stated. Now, the buff specialist[/]i must have some tactical skill. In 3.0, there was no reason to have any. There was no [i]buff specialist[/]i. Instead, the buffing caster was a specialist at something else, and just a buff utility belt at the beginning of the day. The changes in 3.5 also make more general item creation strategies all the more useful --> the [i]scroll (or wand) specialist. This specialist recognizes that down time can be used quite effectively making scrolls (or wands) -- not just the "once in a blue moon" scrolls that are a good course of action for every caster, but also making those scrolls (and wands) that the caster wants to have greater tactical superiority with. The buff scroll specialist now has a strategy that works better in 3.5 than it did in 3.0 -- s/he can either prepare multiple buff scrolls during downtime, using them frequently in combat, and saving prepared spells for greater utility approaches. The buff wand specialist recognizes that a wand of stat buff +4 is a great tool in supporting the front line combatants, leaving the caster free to prepare spells of a wider variety for other tactical courses of action.
Edward 05-28-04, 09:59 PM	you are right a buff caster was not necessarily a specialist type in 3.0 but now i don’t believe a buffing spell caster will exist (without persistent spell witch only works on yourself) at 5th level most combats are 3-5 rounds (in my experience) if you bulls strength the fighter first thing he gets +2 to hit and damage for the duration of the fight if he hits every time that is 10 points of damage. burning hands (level 1) is more effective. the +4 con spell was only ever any good for the HP but what good are HP that are only ther for rounds. the 3.5 changes to XP awards in parties withe disparate levels but I consider my caster levels sacrosanct. XP loss is only acceptable in the direst situations as falling behind in level really hurts. I don’t see the changes being sufficient to convince me that making expendable magic items for day to day use is worth the loss. why would I pay 180 XP for a wand that will boost a stat for 3 rounds. I believe that these spells (witch unlike haste where not always taken beacons they where so good) will completely fall out of usage. Edward