PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Party Theory and a hypothesis



jseah
2010-01-06, 07:32 PM
Inspired by a similar 4E thread I read on BG forums regarding how certain archetypes were not needed.
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1404.0
It wasn't received well, and I don't expect many people to agree with my hypothesis. I would still like to hear arguments otherwise.
Much of this argument is based around the same principles, only I take the stealth section and replace it with information and strategy. As 3.5 has far higher mobility and characters can act in strategic space with more freedom, this is more important in gaining a prior advantage.

Statement: Battlefield Control and Area Denial is inefficient in combat.

Let me state my assumptions:
1. The GM of the game plays the setting fairly, not railroading characters into a storyline or events.
- This is key, I acknowledge that my argument will fall apart if the campaign consisted of set piece battles. For this theory to stand, the players must be able to influence the campaign on a strategic scale.
- As a prime example, the Test of Spite dungeon used in "the Monkening" (was that the name?) is a series of set piece battles that this party will be hard-pressed to avoid.

2. The players understand and play the characters to a fair degree of competence. They are also not adverse to playing waiting games and applying strategic initiatives.
- This is a big assumption as well. Most of the character concepts and tactics I assume are used are arguably mid to high CO. And that the party is nearly an all caster party.

3. A gentleman's agreement is in operation that prevents TO and such crazy shenanigans.
- In particular, I limit myself to using divination to answer direct questions only.


So, to clarify...
It is my opinion that battlefield control in the likes of Web, Solid Fog and Grease, is not optimal when strategic options are present.
- SoLs, like Sleep and Dominate, are not included.

Argument:
-> The key to a success is to work towards acheiving a particular goal and to nullify the enemy's ability to hinder you.
-> This often takes the form of simply eliminating key targets.

-> A surprise round, or attacking with preparations, can often end a battle by granting the party the ability to attack without reprisal and without enemy short-term defences.
-> A burst of attacks, a nova as the term is called, during such an advantage is disastrous for the enemy and could easily end the battle right there and then.

-> Hence, a party built around 1 round novas and strategic maneuvering should be able to level any opposition in as short a time as possible by the members novaing one after the other.
(eg. Rapid Spell SNA druid with Ring of the Beast and Belt of Battle, Cindy the Mailman, Psion/Erudite synchronicity action Nova)
-> Ideally, the party should aim to cripple the enemy before they can act, sacrificing stamina for an alpha strike if need be but holding some retreat abilities in case of emergencies
-> If done properly, and the strikers are built to cover various situations, they should be able to effectively render the battle a mop-up rapidly.

I break here to note that the party is also fragile towards getting surprised. Such a party caught with their pants down would get easily killed by a similar alpha-strike party. They are not adverse to retreating the face of challenging odds, risk is not something they take too much off since they tend to be more offense oriented.
My point is that this style is able to completely demolish the round-by-round controllery style that usual batman builds use.

-> They then rely on one or two party members who specialize in the strategic options (almost certainly a Diviner and Knowledge skill specialist plus a social skills / "invisible man" character for infiltration)
so that they know which weaknesses the enemies have,
and to control pacing of encounters by bypassing or seeding misinformation, thus covering for the striker's lack of stamina by not wasting precious novas on non-priority targets.
-> Strategic characters thus manage the party's transport, security and information gathering. It's their job to find out and anticipate what problems could arise. It is also their job to hinder enemy information about party movements and abilities.

Through the liberal use of divination spells, teleport and lots of scouting, it is unlikely that the party will not be able to gather information. As they refuse to attack without prior information and strategic advantage, they should then always engage with an upperhand, followed by demolishing the opponent with a prepared nova.

-> Battlefield control (and strictly battlefield control only) serves to lock down large areas of the battlefield, splitting enemies up and rendering them ineffective.

This is counter to an efficient alpha strike strategy as you are wasting resources locking up the battlefield when enemy threats could just be eliminated outright.


Notes:
The strategy hinges on the players able to "win" the strategic war. The aim is to have an upper hand in information and position compared to the target so as to get the jump or ambush them.
In genres where this is fundamentally impossible (eg. Lovecraftian horror), this playstyle is highly ill-advised.

tl;dr summary:
Good scouting and information can prevent enemy ambushes.
They also grant the party preparation time and/or ability to set up an alpha-strike.
Alpha-strikes and pre-combat advantage effectively decide an entire battle due to the rocket-tag nature of combat.
Thus, BC wastes precious combat resources that could be better used in destroying or crippling enemy targets. (SoL, SoD and DD in generous helpings are the things I'm looking at)

My envisioned party should thus focus on gaining superior information and position before attacking with an all-out strike to cripple enemy response before they can act.
I'll argue this is far more efficient than playing cricket with enemies using area control effects. Just eliminate them and put them out of their misery already.

In actual fact, PA-focused meleers with a way to convert melee to range (bloodstorm blade) could be a core for the direct damage option. Ability to nuke an enemy to death before they move is valuable as sometimes that is the most efficient method.

EDIT:
I have since modified my stance and allow for the fact that BC is sometimes the better method (mainly defensive situations against superior forces)
from post29:
I think I will change my position. BC is useful in certain situations that require a long-term effect over a specific area. (eg. a seige, a defending party, superior enemy forces without mobility)

And it doesn't actually cost very much to use. The aforementioned metamagic blaster wizard could easily scribe all the staple BC spells into his spellbook. With uncanny forethought and a selection of the choice BC spells and some rarely used utilities, you can easily spontaneously cast BC if really needed.

Which should go a long long way to improving the party's ability to cripple opponent's ability to pull off a successful ambush.


Since it costs little resources (uncanny forethought is very good except in feat starved builds and scribing cost is very very low)
the party can quite easily accommodate BC as a backup.

Runestar
2010-01-06, 07:56 PM
The problem with your assumption is that enemy hp tends to scale much more quickly than your players' damage dealing capabilities. For instance, direct damage typically improves by 3.5 damage each lv; monster hp will almost assuredly improve by much more.

To ensure that your wizard can 1-shot any target, this will typically entail heavily metamagicked damage spells, which consumes high lv slots, so your wizard is unlikely to be able to sustain this for long. SoD are overrated, and not as fun as they seem (if you face a solo, it is no fun for the party. If you face multiple weaker foes, it is no fun for you since killing one is not an efficient use of your SoD).

In addition, a variety of factors can prevent or stymie alpha strikes. Difficult terrain discourages charging, foes may be immune to sneak attack, they may make their saves, presence of a counterspeller etc. Enemies attack the same regardless of whether they are at full hp or 1 hp after all.

Instead, I would argue that battlefield control spells hinder or even disable foes much more efficiently than damage spells because it works regardless of their hp. Perhaps you are right in that a party will not fall apart simply because the wizard does not use BC, but I feel it is the most effective option available, and is practically a no-brainer to use. No need to go through all the trouble of scouting and stuff.

Here are a few excerpts about the effectiveness of BC.
Dayvid Thales Dalawann: (Smoke) Gnome Illusionist / Shadow Adept
/ Geometer / Shadowcraft Mage

Yeah, he does fit the bill as far as a wizard goes. The difference? He's banned Evocation and Necromancy, and has zero ranks in Concentration, and yet it has been his contributions to the game that often secure victory for the team. Proper application of enchantment and illlusion lead to enemies being confused out of their wits, debilitated, sealed off from combat, or worse.

Furthermore, Dayvid's a skilled liar and manipluator, quite capable at leading people on even without magic if he needs to, while still providing the party knowledge base. Dayvid also has untold versatility as a vancian wizard: he's able to use shadow magic and various spells to mimic the effect of other spells on a spontaneous basis.

The normal drawbacks of shadow illusions are mitigated (and in a few levels, will be completely reversed once he starts casting shadow spells more real than the real thing!). Despite his low defenses (I don't think his AC's ever beat 11), he has been hit *twice* in the entire campaign to this date. He's also as likely to spend a round cleaning his nails as casting a spell, given how many combats he's reduced to waiting for the foes to succumb to his powerful lasting battlefield control effects. Blasting and worrying about preparation is for suckers - Dayvid's options are so versatile he's practically a role unto himself.

1st Encounter: 6 Fire Mephits and 2 Flying Hell Hounds

In this battle, I didn't really contribute much directly, but I was able to do what you stated.. and that's make sure everyone -else- did!

First off, I cast Fly on our heavy hitting Swashbuckler and she tore apart the mephits and hounds. One of the mephits was trying to escape to get Reinforcements and I used my Orb of Fire to daze it and thus, keep it from escaping.

2nd Encounter: 4 Rasts

These things were actually a pain in the butt. We had some bad rolls and the DM was able to make three out of the four Will saves on my Slow spell. One was upon me and tore my Mirror Images apart.

My Glitterdust was again saved against but I was able to use Benign Transposition and switched places with one of our other Swashbucklers who proceeded to tear the Rast a new one.

3rd Encounter: 4 Noble Salamanders and 4 Grounded Hell Hounds

Now THIS one promised to be difficult but here is where I entirely shined! You'd be proud!

First, while our warrior-monk was battling one of the salamanders, I trapped one of them and three of the Hell Hounds in a Freezing Fog. Of the remaining three Salamanders, one came for me and our Captain (the heavy hitting Swashbuckler), one came for our scout, and the other came for our First Mate (the Abjurant Champion Swashbuckler).

I was able to use my Sculpted Evard's Tentacles to place four ten foot cubes of tentacles under each of them. While the others wailed on the remaining critters outside, I turned around and used a Spiritwall to enclose the Freezing Fog!

Finding that the duration of the spells were both 12 minutes and the stuff outside was dead, the DM basically ruled that the three inside would eventually die to my wicked combo! Hehe!

But, seriously, the second party absolutely controlled combats. I remember one encounter involved them getting surrounded and ambushed by a group of Gythanki bandits on a barren stretch of an unfamiliar plane with the only terrain feature being the Mercenary and Pacifist Sphinx that they were riding who decided to take a nap when the action started.

Being surrounded by enemies (two of which had ninja levels which we all know are deadly against wizards who haven't got detect invisible up!) would seem to be a tricky encounter, especially with no walls to use blocking out enemies. But the party quickly readjusted to the situation, rushed one side of the fight, disabling as many as possible before covering themselves with solid fog to prevent retaliation.

The enemies wanted to avoid clumping together, so they kept spread apart while the party "fog cloud jumped" attacking one or two at a time before going after another. At one point in the fight every single Gith was stunned, held or tripped and there was at least 8 of them. In fact, the party only ended up killing one of them when the Nymph cdged one of the held opponents. She felt really guilty about that, particularly her player after I mercilessly added three minutes of gory details to the "Merciless display of cruelty". Good times.

I could go on, but I am hungry. Maybe after breakfast. :smallbiggrin:

Slayn82
2010-01-06, 08:07 PM
I agree wholeheartly with your view.

Most enemies don't have the resources to be that much resilient, and sometimes you dont even need to kill them all. This party you suggest is more of a strike force, hit n run based, a variation of the traditional Scry n die. Very efficient against troops and most monsters.

The only problem i would like to point is that sometimes you need BC, whose utility increases in those circunstances when the enemy is more powerful than the party, and the party is forced to engage.

Keld Denar
2010-01-06, 08:08 PM
BC is really determined by the spell. Solid Fog is a BC spell, lauded as one of the best because without FoM or Teleport, its a no-save, no SR, buy 2ish rounds until you have to face it again. Its really great when you have 2+ big targets. Fog 1 or 2 of them, and then eliminate the singled out one. Its not that good against one big foe, unless you need to buy rounds to cast other buffs, as it removes nearly all of your party's ability to affect the target.

Contrast Entangle. Entangle offers a save, and is lower level, but it doesn't hinder too much with your allies abilities to destroy your foes, especially if they have any ranged attacks. Its good against one big foe, lots of little foes, or any combination in between. Its almost part save/lose part BC in that respect.

I could go on some more, but as you can see, different BC abilities are good in different situations. Don't discount them, or you might get overwealmed with more than your alpha strike can take out.

SurlySeraph
2010-01-06, 08:11 PM
Let me state my assumptions:
[spoiler]1. The GM of the game plays the setting fairly, not railroading characters into a storyline or events.
- This is key, I acknowledge that my argument will fall apart if the campaign consisted of set piece battles. For this theory to stand, the players must be able to influence the campaign on a strategic scale.
- As a prime example, the Test of Spite dungeon used in "the Monkening" (was that the name?) is a series of set piece battles that this party will be hard-pressed to avoid.

Really now. A storyline, not a sandbox, is by far the most common kind of game in my experience.


3. A gentleman's agreement is in operation that prevents TO and such crazy shenanigans.
- In particular, I limit myself to using divination to answer direct questions only.

I don't find this objectionable in and of itself, but when you're proposing using a team consisting entirely of full casters/manifesters that includes a Cindy build and a Synchronicity-using Erudite, it seems to me that your proposed party uses shenanigans. Of course, I may consider TO to start at a lower level of power than you do.


It is my opinion that battlefield control in the likes of Web, Solid Fog and Grease, is not optimal when strategic options are present.
- SoLs, like Sleep and Dominate, are not included.

So you're saying that high-power direct damage is more effective than battlefield control when SoLs (aka the only way to actually kill your opponents other than direct damage) are removed. That's a lot like saying that Improved Trip is a great battlefield control option when there are no spellcasters around; it may be true, but you're discounting a huge part of the game to create that situation.



-> The key to a success is to work towards acheiving a particular goal and to nullify the enemy's ability to hinder you.
-> This often takes the form of simply eliminating key targets.

Oh, certainly. Which you would generally do with save-or-lose spells at higher levels, direct damage at lower levels.


-> A surprise round, or attacking with preparations, can often end a battle by granting the party the ability to attack without reprisal and without enemy short-term defences.
-> A burst of attacks, a nova as the term is called, during such an advantage is disastrous for the enemy and could easily end the battle right there and then.

Those are very big ifs there. Anticipate Teleport, True Seeing, and all kinds of other things can interfere with getting a surprise round.


-> Hence, a party built around 1 round novas and strategic maneuvering should be able to level any opposition in as short a time as possible by the members novaing one after the other.
-> Ideally, the party should aim to cripple the enemy before they can act, sacrificing stamina for an alpha strike if need be but holding some retreat abilities in case of emergencies
-> If done properly, and the strikers are built to cover various situations, they should be able to effectively render the battle a mop-up rapidly.

If it works, sure. If it doesn't, and they have trouble mounting an effective offense after the first round (which is unlikely given that they're full casters, granted), they're screwed. Your proposed strategy is "Heaven or Hell" - either achieving a flawless victory or getting ripped to pieces. Such a strategy can work, but you know what? Natural ones happen. DMs can get frustrated with their encounters being instantly wiped out and build them for staying power. And traps happen.


My point is that this style is able to completely demolish the round-by-round controllery style that usual batman builds use.


-> They then rely on one or two party members who specialize in the strategic options (almost certainly a Diviner and Knowledge skill specialist plus a social skills / "invisible man" character for infiltration)
so that they know which weaknesses the enemies have,
and to control pacing of encounters by bypassing or seeding misinformation, thus covering for the striker's lack of stamina by not wasting precious novas on non-priority targets.

I was nodding along until this. We're talking in purely mechanical terms, are we not? What rules are there for spreading misinformation? And if all the enemies know is that there's a strike force of wizards that bursts into places and kills everybody that's been going after their allies, how much is spreading misinformation going to help?


-> Strategic characters thus manage the party's transport, security and information gathering. It's their job to find out and anticipate what problems could arise. It is also their job to hinder enemy information about party movements and abilities.

How? Bluff checks to convince the enemy that the rumors about the teleporting magical SWAT team are untrue, and that it's actually a bunch of fighters that's been killing everybody?


This is counter to an efficient alpha strike strategy as you are wasting resources locking up the battlefield when enemy threats could just be eliminated outright.

Except when they can't be. Being able to fire 2 400-damage Orb spells a round is very powerful, but it's not going to kill a room full of orcs. You're assuming that you're going to always be facing relatively small numbers of opponents that direct-damage nukes can easily take out. Granted, you can pump area of effect damage for the same purpose to the same effect, but battlefield control is quite good at making sure anything that your initial efforts didn't work on still can't do that much against you, which direct damage can't do.

Essentially, you've envisioned a magical SWAT team of Batman wizards, relying on their ability to win with preparation to win in one round. This isn't all that novel. What's novel is that you're saying battlefield control - their means of keeping enemies away in case something goes wrong - is irrelevant, because they'll always kill everything instantly anyway. And that you're ignoring save-or-loses, possibly the most powerful weapons in a caster's arsenal, for a reason that I do not understand.

It seems to me that you're arguing for something that's already known as a viable strategy, plus arguing that people using this strategy don't need no stinking backup plan.

Fishy
2010-01-06, 08:22 PM
What's more effective than one character dealing massive damage to a target? Two characters dealing massive damage to a target.

The point of Battlefield Control is that it allows focus fire. The party can focus their resources on dropping their enemies one at a time, and can largely ignore anyone who is dealing with grease, fog or tentacles.

Good BC is like getting 5 surprise rounds.

Pluto
2010-01-06, 08:42 PM
In actual fact, PA-focused meleers with a way to convert melee to range (bloodstorm blade) could be a core for the direct damage option. Ability to nuke an enemy to death before they move is valuable as sometimes that is the most efficient method.

I don't disagree with you, but I believe there are at least two reasons that this would look better on spreadsheets than in play:

1.
Endurance.

Every party member shooting to kill from the start means that high-level daily abilities are likely to run out quickly. In contrast to games where the first party member to act aims to win the fight and the rest 'mop up' with lower-level or unlimited-use abilities, this threatens to make the Nova/Narcolepsy gameplay style prevalent.

2.
The DM.

If your party can end combat in the first round, every fight, you as the DM have four options:
a. Continue the game as planned. Every fight becomes a waste of both your time and that of your players. Statting enemies becomes less and less fruitful. Combat becomes a routine chore standing between the players and their XP.
b. Use enemies who just so happen to have resistances to everything the party can throw out. Credibility is stretched and players will probably be irritated to see the truth of the Red Queen.
c. Use equivalent counter-tactics. The only thing preventing a TPK is chance. You'll probably avoid this because you spent way too much time building your campaign for you to throw it away in Initiative Roulette.
d. Alter the nature of the game to render the players' tactics useless. Press them for time so Nova/Narcolepsy isn't an option, prevent 'killing things' from being an acceptable answer to the party's troubles, etc.


So I while I agree that having the whole party immediately leap for the throat is probably the best approach tactically, I don't think it's the best approach for a real game.

Kallisti
2010-01-06, 08:52 PM
@^ Exactly. You're relying on getting one attack-free round to blast, when you could get as many as it takes. What does your party do when things go bad and there's more than they can handle quickly? Flee?

Serenity
2010-01-06, 09:15 PM
The group I currently DM for, the Wizard in particular, are very good at scouting and setting up ambush blitzes; they're basically an adventuring SWAT team. And key to that has been area of effect spells like Web, Solid Fog, Cloudkill, Black Tentacles, and others which lock up or decimate enemies, and completely throw a wrench in any attempt by the opposing group to respond. The wizard player likes to call his Stinking Cloud 'magical tear gas.'

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-06, 09:20 PM
There are many ways the DM can plot-counter this without being unfair or railroading. DM can press you for time by threatening things the characters hold dear. DM can bring up more powerful enemies (which, since this is a setting being played realistically, will be prowling around) beyond your ability to nova. DM can hit you with another strike force (which you can defend against, just not as well as the BC people). DM can just say "No, screw you" and banzor this style of gameplay.

I'm not saying that OP is incorrect - I haven't thought about it long enough to make a decision. I'm just throwing out a few flaws that come off the top of my head.


prevent 'killing things' from being an acceptable answer to the party's troubles

Some systems go that way. The PCs are so epic at killing that they can pursue their roleplaying challenges. This style of play might make it come earlier, but... *shrug*

jseah
2010-01-06, 09:53 PM
Surly Seraph:
Hmm... I phrased it badly. I meant that I did not classify save or lose spells such as Sleep as BC.

I did not mean to exclude Save or Lose spells. In fact, SoL spells can be a viable tactic in such a party.
For example, a high DC action nova wizard could put out two or three SoLs in a round, making one or two enemies negligible in the fight or take down the defences of enemies to allow the nuke to get through.
SoL and SoDs are the mainstays of destroying enemies that are inefficient to nuke.

-----
In this case, I assumed TO to be things that required abusive rules reading, not simply stacking on metamagics or repeating an effective amplifier (link power synchro)
Those things unquestionably work even under strict readings (but not under arbitrary nerfs)


Runestar, Keld Denar:
I'm not saying that Battlefield control has zero purpose. It still does something. My opinion is just that very temporarily hindering enemies is less useful and more inefficient than outright disabling or killing them and thus that is what should be focused on.

In reference to Solid Fog, Grease and Entangle breaking enemies into smaller chunks, the purpose of the single nova at the start is to take out as many of the priority targets as possible and simply exit after the objective is complete.
Perhaps it runs counter to D&D's kill-em-all attitude, but you don't actually need to kill all enemies. Just preventing them from stopping you will do.
eg. If you're trying to steal a specific artifact from a cabal of evil clerics, you could nova with SoLs and disable them before simply waltzing in and swiping the thing and leaving them to pick up the pieces. Traps and such is the province of the strategic team (the skillmonkey to be precise, or if you can steal the passwords).
They might be back for revenge, but your strategic team should be able to identify leadership and key positions to nuke (or kill while disabled).


Surly Seraph:
For massed low-level enemies, the easiest way is to simply avoid targeting them. They're not priority targets and do not have the resources to keep up with your strategic team nor pose (individually) a threat to your strike team. Just bypass them, as Invis. / Fly / Teleport / Mind Blank (as you go up in level) are so good at doing.
The bigger fish, ie. the commanders and supplies, are your main targets. Rather than face an enemy strength, you just strike at the key areas and let them crumble.


Slayn, Surly Seraph:
If an enemy can withstand an all out attack, which is optimized to be significantly stronger than most normal attacks (for that 1-2 rounds anyway), then what makes you think normal attacks can wear it down efficiently?
Rather than risk a loss, you retreat and make a better plan.
A target that is too strong to take out is too strong to face head on. You need to find another way to weaken and destroy it, or bypass the need to destroy it.

And risk in battle is unavoidable but can be reduced to as little as possible. A quick nova to have the best shot at victory than disengaging once complete gives less time for enemies to respond and hence reduces the number of possible screw ups and complications.
Complications are not something you want.


Surly Seraph:
On the question of strategic maneuvering, gathering and seeding misinformation is easy.
1. You need more information that your enemies (aka. more divination spells, better NPC network, a spy?)
2. Rotate your tactics. Mind-affecting SoL today, DD nuke tomorrow. And pretend to be different ppl acting for different reasons. It's easy to pretend there are two parties when there's really only one.

Of course, keeping counters to counters are important.
eg. Enemies put up an anticipate teleport. You know they can (but not if they have done so), so you either gather information if they have taken the precaution or plan as if they did and have contingencies otherwise. Teleport is more a strategic spell than a way to jump in and kill everything. Leave discretion to get you where you need to.

Of course, an enemy could counter your information network, but that's where the battle really lies. Since attacks in D&D can be made pretty damn lethal, getting attacked is a failure. The battle then becomes a chase where both parties try to get the upperhand and spring a crushing attack before the other side does so.
Really, the main point is that D&D3.5 in a realistic setting is more about a battle of information and strategy rather than a tactical wargame. Something I don't see often.
Identify key targets, dispatch them and leave.
Battlefield control being inefficient and thus sub-optimal is more a conclusion from that. Things that amplify tactics and conserve resources is a losing game, when you could simply cut away the base of enemy resources and avoid losing your own. Oh, they excel in a seige situation, when the enemy commanders have you locked into a place you HAVE to defend. But at that point, they employ the same above strategy and simply cut you to pieces, being a static target with known objective.

I may be stating something that is known (ie. you need casters to keep up), but I'm trying to say that D&D isn't about the tactical battle.
That the overall war matters more than exactly what went on in the little skirmish.
It seems to be something that is working against CharOp, especially in challenges like The Iron Siege. (I am not familiar with epic rules, however, so don't ask me to play that =P)


Foryn Gilnith:
I'm not sure how BC might help defend against a quick strike strategy. After all, once they nova, if the objective can't be completed, it's time to leave.
Either you're dead/incapacitated/retreating or they run.

And monsters able to withstand a nova must be really complicated indeed. After all, a nova represents essentially an entire encounter's worth of resources compressed into one or two rounds.


Kallisti, Serenity:
If you can't handle something, yes, it's time to go. But it's quite often that that "one-free round" is enough to 'win' the battle.

It's not like your ubercharger sucks in melee. Or that the metamagic wizard doesn't have a low level blast spell or a summon to throw out. (darkfire?)
And often, there's only one or two things you really MUST do in a battle. Killing enemies isn't one of them.
eg. Get past that door (and prevent them chasing), get that item, kill this specific guy. Then just do it and aim to complete it as fast as possibly before anyone can interfere.
Focus on the target, not on a clean sweep. IMO, you save more time and resources that way.

It's that emphasis on the "one-free round" pays more in that it's far more efficient to get that round and so resources should emphasize getting it rather than prolonging a maybe/if the enemy can be cordoned.

SurlySeraph
2010-01-06, 10:25 PM
Thanks for the clarification. For the strategy you're proposing - Scry, blast everything that can hurt you or that needs to die, grab whatever you're there for, and get out - focusing on destruction over battlefield control is definitely a good idea. In terms of pure tactics, focusing on novas has the potential to be very effective. However, I don't think most campaigns can be played out more as a series of assassinations or smash-and-grab robberies than as a series of battles. Scenarios where you just can't get information on the enemy beforehand aren't too hard to set up; the cultists won't let your infiltrator into their compound, it's deep underground so you can't scry, etc. And scenarios where you need to have staying power, like field battles are easy to set up. As mentioned above, time-sensitive scenarios where you don't have time to prepare can also happen.

It seems to me that you've set up a scenario where battlefield control is pointless, and then saying that since battlefield control isn't optimal in that scenario it's suboptimal overall. I could just as well say that nova'ing is suboptimal because it is a bad approach when you're besieged in a location you must defend, or when you have to destroy an army, or when you have to raid a place that you can't get any information on. The fact that it's a bad idea in that situation doesn't mean it's a bad idea in other equally common situations.

jseah
2010-01-06, 11:02 PM
I see your point. If I cannot find ways to apply the force correctly, then the efficiency of these tactics drops far more than other strategies.
IE. a lot of the efficiency comes from time to prepare and information, not on a general battlefield kit.

Yes, this is true. The playstyle relies alot on prior scouting (I was thinking that one player would have a character built specifically for the strategy game) and use of very powerful but specific tools to create a path to the objective.
So yes, I have to address those concerns or find a way to apply the strategy effectively in those situations.

----------------------------------

No information is very rare. If need be, a sub-objective can be created for the strike team to take out an accessible target so that the infiltrator can impersonate him/her.
With every strike, you will learn something of what their capabilities are, and can gain an opportunity to slip a spy or sensor into the compound.
- Go in, demolish a wall or two, kill guards and cause a giant ruckus, and in the confusion slip in a prying eyes sensor
- If something like Brain Spider gets detected and removed at a checkpoint, the checkpoint or security process becomes a target for the strike team

Something blocking you gathering information? The block becomes your target. Your strike and home team have to work together. Strike team opens the way for the home team to get intel, which points to further targets.

Although, a smart enemy (which I AM assuming) will recognize this as an attempt at probing his defences and take measures to shore them up and find you to counter-attack.
Sounds like a multi-stage battle against an equally intelligent enemy who will try to block your efforts. XD

Now, in comparison, a tactical focused party, aimed at clearing encounters with as little resource expenditure might be able to bash their way through more layers of protection.
If they have to retreat for any reason, the smart enemy will counterattack and harass them, and doing this is easier than finding the strike team who have dedicated characters to protect them from that.
So if they can get through all the barriers and get to the objective, they'll have to fight their way in, destroying opposition as they come.

The strike team destroys one barrier, then scouts ahead for the next barrier, until they reach their objective. They get to skip or render trivial by preparation certain encounters on the way in by better scouting, but at the same time are more open to attack in the meanwhile.

The normal party fights more battles, expending little resources over many fights. The strike team fights less battles, but expends more resources in each in order make a large enough breach to compromise the next layer.

----------------------------------

Field battles and long slogs aren't needed. In every large battle, there are important targets and unimportant targets. Just aim for command and control or the supplies.

Armies have requirements, take those away and you have no army.

----------------------------------

Time-limited scenarios are one of the harder ones for this team. They don't have the element of surprise as enemies will be on edge after the first strike. They don't get time to prepare specific counters. And with one character not built for combat, they either leave him behind (and lose what he can contribute) or risk having to protect one more person in case they cannot complete the objective.

So, if there are encounters that are unavoidable by any means the party has, and this one specializes in avoiding those it can, and there are too many of them within a strict time limit...
Yeah, this party is less likely to accomplish the objective than a normal party.

It falls to the players to do what they can to anticipate and avoid such situations occuring since it's highly disadvantageous. Could be an interesting strategic exercise, having to play the other end of the game.
Who are potential attackers? What are they likely to want to achieve? How do we prevent them from backing us into such a situation?

The best I can think of is to actively act to prevent getting into those situations.
Yep, that's one this party can't do.

Runestar
2010-01-06, 11:45 PM
My opinion is just that very temporarily hindering enemies is less useful and more inefficient than outright disabling or killing them and thus that is what should be focused on.

Except that killing them outright tends to require a disproportionate amount of resources to accomplish. And it doesn't do anything to hinder the foes while you are at it - they are still every bit as effective in attacking the fighter regardless of whether they are at 1hp or 200hp. Conversely, if the foe is just going to be standing there nauseated for the entire fight, then it doesn't really matter if it has 1hp or 200hp; it is going to be dead anyways.:smallsmile:

Let me paint a scenario. A 6th lv party runs into an ambush consisting of 4 ogres. The party wizard/sorc hits them all with a sculpted glitterdust. Now they are blinded. The ogres suffer from a 50% miss chance, so the fighters can take them on with less fear of retribution (no AoOs). They are flat-footed and grant +2 to-hit, so the rogue has no problem dealing SA damage, and everyone has an easier time hitting. And because the the ogres deal less damage overall, fewer resources need to be expended on healing afterwards.

Best of all - the caster isn't doing anything which cannibalizes the roles of any other player. So everybody gets a chance to shine and showcase what their class was built to do. :smallcool:

In this case, the ogres were as good as dead from round 1. The party merely had to go through the motions of killing them. I doubt a nova-party could have as easy a time, much less replicate this experience over the rest of the adventuring day.

The party fighter is already the best in terms of dealing damage (compared to a wizard at any rate, since he does not need spell slots to do this). So I see no need to compete with the fighter in this area. What the caster can do is complement him by disabling the foes, thus allowing the fighter to strike with impunity.

Optimystik
2010-01-06, 11:56 PM
What's more effective than one character dealing massive damage to a target? Two characters dealing massive damage to a target.

The point of Battlefield Control is that it allows focus fire. The party can focus their resources on dropping their enemies one at a time, and can largely ignore anyone who is dealing with grease, fog or tentacles.

Good BC is like getting 5 surprise rounds.

This summed up my position nicely.

Superior force is the Xykon approach. Control allows lower levels of force to prevail, simply because they are able to focus fire. This is why CC (crowd control) is vital to MMOs.

Mike_G
2010-01-07, 06:58 AM
Your idea is theoretically fine, but practically I doubt it would work.

Under ideal circumstances, they should be very effective, but you rely too much on being able to assure ideal circumstances. Odd stuff happens in combat. Look at any colonial war. No way could a British army with modern rifles and artillery get owned by some guys with spears and clubs. Except it happened.

The enemy can adapt and gather info the same as you can. They can spread misinformation like you can. Once you commit to your strike, if they lock down your escape, they can overwhelm your nova'ed party fairly easily.

This is a fine theoretical exercise, and a fine tactic for the quick strike, but an adventuring party should be ready to take on the unexpected encounter, since that happens quite a bit.

Optimystik
2010-01-07, 08:32 AM
I just noticed that the thread the OP is basing his hypothesis on is woefully out of date. But aside from that, it (like the OP) is espousing the virtues of stacking strikers to try and burn down enemies en masse.

This works exactly as well as it does in WoW - great against trash, but any semblance of strategy/control by the enemy brings it crashing down. If you get just one striker taken out of combat on your side, your entire offensive potential spirals - you become less able to focus fire and drop preferential targets, leading to more strikers being taken out, etc. Furthermore, any use of BC by the enemy can have disastrous results.

Alpha strikes/Zerg rushes do not require DM fiat to defeat - a one-trick pony (which the pure DPR party becomes) is easy to hobble.

jseah
2010-01-07, 08:49 AM
Runestar:
Firstly, the party focuses on not getting ambushed. While mistakes happen through poor play or circumstance, the first action to do in a unfavourable situation is to retreat and reassess.
In the case of meeting 4 bruisers where the party doesn't possess enough direct firepower to kill them, you demolish one or two and retreat. Now the ogres are in the position of having to face an enemy in the future that dealt significant lasting damage to them, having lost a portion of their power. If they are at all smart, and recognize that said enemy will harass them until they all die, their only option is to run from you.

Optimystik:
I am trying to argue that by compressing offense into a short period of time, you already negate enemy ability to respond since they don't have time to do so.
There is no need to lockdown enemies to focus fire when you can dump all your fire for the encounter into a very short time.

Mike_G:
Gathering information and seeding misinformation is part of the strategic play. An enemy that does so more effectively will be able to draw the players into an ambush. If the players are cautious, then there is little fear their escape will be cut off.
It's easier to run away in D&D than to prevent someone from running away.

Runestar
2010-01-07, 09:01 AM
Firstly, the party focuses on not getting ambushed.

And how feasible is that? NPCs can just as easily ambush you. For example, fiends can readily teleport into your midst etc. Unless we assume the foes are all waiting in separate rooms, waiting for the party to burst into the room to attack. :smallconfused:

Battlefield control works no matter what happens.


If they are at all smart, and recognize that said enemy will harass them until they all die, their only option is to run from you.

If they flee, you still get full xp for overcoming an encounter, don't you? :smallbiggrin:

Eloel
2010-01-07, 09:16 AM
It's easier to run away in D&D than to prevent someone from running away.
2 spells completely block all ways of running.

Dimensional Anchor, Quickened Grease/Web/Entangle.

Now the enemy is sitting there, unable to teleport or move away.

Heck, Hold Monster itself is a choice.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-07, 09:42 AM
Divination is great, but it's not perfect. Ways exist of negating surprise. You may not have LOS/LOE to every target the instant you port in. In short, things will go wrong a reliable percentage of the time.

When they do, a force that has sacrificed defense to pump the damage as high as possible crumples. Nuking stuff into the ground is great for when things do work out nicely, and is appropriate in some situations, but it isn't appropriate ALL the time.

What matters is total odds of success...it really doesn't matter much if it takes one round or five.

jseah
2010-01-07, 10:22 AM
Runestar:
And in such a game where enemies possess high mobility, ability to nuke and run in the same way as this party can, battlefield control loses it's ability to prevent enemies from engaging.

Fiends teleport in, summon something / toss SLAs and disappear the next round. Maybe drop an area damage over time.
A minute later, they're back with dispels and some nukes, or a disposable brute to keep you busy. And they vanish again.

It's like 4E kiting in 3.5e. Except instead of high move speed, it's a strategic form.
It's better to try and prevent ambushes by being in an unknown location, hiding your goals / identity and attempting to avoid divination. If enemies don't know where you are, or what you're doing, ambushing is difficult.
All of these are strategic goals.


ozgun92:
Dispel Magic
Freedom of Movement (eg. from Heart of Water?)


Tyndmyr:
Not everyone has a cunning Legacy weapon or walks around in dire tortise / minotaur form. While it might be believable that half the PCs have some form of anti-surprise, everyone having it is a stretch.

That said, I wonder how does an anti-surpise property work when being attacked by an unknown attacker?
eg. someone walking around Invisible (and you can't see) tosses a Fireball. That's a surprise round. Let's say the target is a dire tortise. Let's say the target wins initiative.
So the target goes first, but in that case, hasn't been attacked and doesn't see any threat. Um....?

Besides, wouldn't ability to act quickly, achieve the goal quickly, and get away be more of a defense than spending resources on a losing game? Mobility is a defence by not allowing enemies to target you efficiently.

Then again, I suppose BC could be useful in non-lethal suppression situations. Because sometimes killing things isn't allowed or runs counter to your goals.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-07, 11:05 AM
Tyndmyr:
Not everyone has a cunning Legacy weapon or walks around in dire tortise / minotaur form. While it might be believable that half the PCs have some form of anti-surprise, everyone having it is a stretch.

There is no need for everyone to have it. And it's not the only way to lose surprise. Being lied to on the divination is another possible way of jumping into a particularily bad situation. Likewise, there may be ambushes, traps, people out of LoS that can enter the combat without being surprised, etc.


That said, I wonder how does an anti-surpise property work when being attacked by an unknown attacker?
eg. someone walking around Invisible (and you can't see) tosses a Fireball. That's a surprise round. Let's say the target is a dire tortise. Let's say the target wins initiative.
So the target goes first, but in that case, hasn't been attacked and doesn't see any threat. Um....?

That's going to depend on the exact ability. If your magically warned of impending attack, then life is great. If not, and you have no way to detect the attackers, then hold action until you do.


Besides, wouldn't ability to act quickly, achieve the goal quickly, and get away be more of a defense than spending resources on a losing game? Mobility is a defence by not allowing enemies to target you efficiently.

Rounds are a disposable resource. There are enough rounds in a day that spending five on a fight instead of one is generally irrelevant. In a setting that would allow your attacks to work, time MUST be irrelevant.

Speed of fight is not proportional to resources spent, either. In particular, battlefield control is often a very optimal use of resources, disabling several opponents with a single spell. Melee damage is an infinitely renewable resource.

I don't really see anything in your build that inherently makes you more mobile than standard batman wizards, either. I mean, things like teleporting, using conjuration's Abrupt Jaunt and such are pretty much bog standard for batman wizards.


Then again, I suppose BC could be useful in non-lethal suppression situations. Because sometimes killing things isn't allowed or runs counter to your goals.

True. Plus, some things/builds are just incredibly resistant to damage in the first place. Unless you know it's immunities and such in advance, it's not hard to imagine something surviving the first round, even against orbwizards.

J.Gellert
2010-01-07, 12:15 PM
It all comes down to a combination of style of play/DM handling of battles/NPC tactics/monsters encountered.

Everyone will agree that all of this varies greatly from game to game, and from battle to battle at that. Against a sneaky DM, tactics are invaluable; against a more straightforward challenge, spending a round casting "web" might mean just a fancy maneuver with no tactical gain.

When you surprise your enemy, you want to kill/disable him fast. You don't need battlefield control. When your enemy surprises you, this is often reversed.

But how many DMs surprise you? In the majority of our games, it is us (the players) who go breaking the doors of the monster's lair. This dungeon is also the "default" of D&D - by no means the only way to do things, but hey, it's Dungeons and Dragons because that's what happens often.

Consider, what's the point of "Evard's Black Tentacles" if your encounters go like this:
"The door breaks, revealing a 25x25 feet square room. Around the treasure chest stand 4 ugly orcs, one is loading a crossbow. In the corner stands a lone goblin, dressed in priest's robes."

Really, in a dungeon... All your "battlefield control" is going to accomplish is to prevent your frontliners from reaching the enemy.

PS: That would work in an all-caster group, I guess. Or by giving your meatshields certain immunities.

valadil
2010-01-07, 12:44 PM
You're assuming you get an ambush. This allows you to focus fire on a single enemy for the surprise round, knowing that the other enemies cannot act yet. I'd argue that the ambush is your battelfield control. It's serving the same purpose of limiting enemy actions so that you can deal with them one at a time.

Whether or not you get an ambush is up to you and your GM. If you manage one, I'd say your hypothesis is correct because the enemy is already losing a turn to the surprise round. If you can't get an ambush, a battlefield control spell like Solid Fog may work just as well.

Telonius
2010-01-07, 12:55 PM
You're assuming you get an ambush. This allows you to focus fire on a single enemy for the surprise round, knowing that the other enemies cannot act yet. I'd argue that the ambush is your battelfield control. It's serving the same purpose of limiting enemy actions so that you can deal with them one at a time.

Whether or not you get an ambush is up to you and your GM. If you manage one, I'd say your hypothesis is correct because the enemy is already losing a turn to the surprise round. If you can't get an ambush, a battlefield control spell like Solid Fog may work just as well.

I agree with this. The whole point of a Battlefield Controller is to make it so that some or all of your opponents are unable to respond effectively to your attacks, while your allies pick off the targets, most dangerous targets first. A surprise round also achieves that.

Another_Poet
2010-01-07, 01:21 PM
I think you're right but only if the whole party wants to build toward this and understand how it works.

The advantage of a batman/controller caster is that he/she can support and play nice with a party of people who are pursuing their own glory. Two blasters and a skill monkey, or two assassins and a druid, or whatever. A barbarian, scout and necromancer cleric. Any set of fellow party members benefits from having a controller wizard backing them up. The controller can make up for a lot of failings by buying time, forcing enemies into other characters (or away from other characters) as desired, tipping the odds, and changing the conditions of the battle (oh but now you can't SEE us!).

The alpha strike team you describe is a team build, whereas the batman is a single character build.

A full team of alpha strike casters is superior to a batman-oriented team but a single alpha strike caster placed in a randome hodge podge of characters will do nothing except outshine the melee types and compete for max damage output (i.e. the killstealer arguments). Batmen play nice with others.

ap

jiriku
2010-01-07, 01:34 PM
A damage nova is an effective tool. However, can any tool really truly be optimal for every circumstance?

Your hypothesis seems to be essentially "A party optimized for the purpose will always be able to win the strategic game against its foes, thus it will always be able to get the drop on them tactically, in which case, damage nova is the way to go."

Thoeretical concerns I would have:

1) Even the best-laid plans occasionally fail. And players are notorious for coming up with stupid ideas and thinking that they're good.
2) Unexpected situations eventually arise, and "we would run away" isn't always an optimal tactic in those situations.
3) No matter how good you are, there's always someone better. No degree of optimization will enable to you to "always win" that game of stragic warfare.

Practical concerns I would have:

1) The typical gaming group includes players who lack the experience, expertise and/or inclination to play well-optimized damage nova machines.
2) A DM's job is to challenge you. If you reduce all encounters to 1- or 2-round novas, the DM is likely to alter the environment in some fundamantal way so that your tactic is no longer universally effective.
3) Parties in low-level play may lack the tools necessary for effective scouting, stealth or retreat. Much play occurs at lower levels.

As I see it, the inevitable result of these factors is that you eventually find yourself in a situation where your formula of "damage nova" or "retreat and plan a damage nova" isn't optimal for the situation. I'm not saying it sucks, I'm just saying it isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. At times, a damage nova is the best tactic. At other times, BC is more appropriate. In still different situations, turtling or evading or some other tactic might be best. You need a toolbox containing many different approaches.

jseah
2010-01-07, 07:28 PM
I think I will change my position. BC is useful in certain situations that require a long-term effect over a specific area. (eg. a seige, a defending party, superior enemy forces without mobility)

And it doesn't actually cost very much to use. The aforementioned metamagic blaster wizard could easily scribe all the staple BC spells into his spellbook. With uncanny forethought and a selection of the choice BC spells and some rarely used utilities, you can easily spontaneously cast BC if really needed.

Which should go a long long way to improving the party's ability to cripple opponent's ability to pull off a successful ambush.


Since it costs little resources (uncanny forethought is very good except in feat starved builds and scribing cost is very very low)
the party can quite easily accommodate BC as a backup.

JaronK
2010-01-07, 07:35 PM
Battlefield Control is extremely powerful, and most BC spells are multiuse anyway. Consider the fact that Grease forces balance checks, allowing Rogues, Ninjas, Factotums, and the like to greatly increase their damage potential while throwing many enemies out of the fight. Solid Fog can trap an enemy inside a Cloudkill, ensuring that they can't get to you and are dead by the time the fog dissapates anyway.

Direct alpha strikes only work when you have the advantage. Tactics designed around having the advantage are dangerous... you need tactics when you find yourself in a disadvantaged position. After all, plenty of things work when your enemy doesn't even know you're there.

JaronK

Tyndmyr
2010-01-07, 07:57 PM
Consider, what's the point of "Evard's Black Tentacles" if your encounters go like this:
"The door breaks, revealing a 25x25 feet square room. Around the treasure chest stand 4 ugly orcs, one is loading a crossbow. In the corner stands a lone goblin, dressed in priest's robes."

Really, in a dungeon... All your "battlefield control" is going to accomplish is to prevent your frontliners from reaching the enemy.

PS: That would work in an all-caster group, I guess. Or by giving your meatshields certain immunities.

Presuming this is a level appropriate encounter, you can usually target your BC to limit the amount of stuff fought at once. In the specific instance of black tentacles here, you could literally target all five of them, stop the priest from casting, and probably grapple a coupla the fighters.

Of course, you'd target it so at least two orcs are at the edge of the spell, allowing your fighters to merrily finish them off with little to no danger. Any ranged types can plink at those further away. It also does damage to them while keeping them grappled. Plus, if the spell ends up being a hindrance, you can dismiss it.

Siosilvar
2010-01-07, 07:58 PM
EDIT: Somehow I managed to miss the entire middle of the thread before posting this. No idea how that happened.

To preface this post, I'm just going to say that deciding any kind of playstyle is "wrong" is rather derogatory. I'm going to try to restrain myself...

Also, all of your sample characters, jseah, are "TO".


-> The key to a success is to work towards acheiving a particular goal and to nullify the enemy's ability to hinder you.
In what way does battlefield control NOT nullify the enemy's ability to hinder you?


-> A surprise round, or attacking with preparations, can often end a battle by granting the party the ability to attack without reprisal and without enemy short-term defences.
-> A burst of attacks, a nova as the term is called, during such an advantage is disastrous for the enemy and could easily end the battle right there and then. And battlefield control can give you that ability, or stop it from happening to you.


-> Ideally, the party should aim to cripple the enemy before they can act, sacrificing stamina for an alpha strike if need be but holding some retreat abilities in case of emergencies Does "cripple" include "remove the ability to respond"?


-> If done properly, and the strikers are built to cover various situations, they should be able to effectively render the battle a mop-up rapidly. As can battlefield control effects. If you're fighting one ogre, he goes down quickly. Then you can snag the next one as he makes his way out of your controlled area. And the next. Etc, etc.


My point is that this style is able to completely demolish the round-by-round controllery style that usual batman builds use. Sure, if they get the drop. If you don't? Round 1, welcome to Solid Fog. Round 2, etc, etc.


-> Battlefield control (and strictly battlefield control only) serves to lock down large areas of the battlefield, splitting enemies up and rendering them ineffective.

This is counter to an efficient alpha strike strategy as you are wasting resources locking up the battlefield when enemy threats could just be eliminated outright. If your alpha strike is efficient enough, then yes. Otherwise, preventing some of the enemies from doing anything allows you to focus-fire on the remainder. An [effective] alpha strike completely destroys one target. [Effective] Battlefield control removes three from the fight until you're ready to deal with them.

tl;dr summary:

Good scouting and information can prevent enemy ambushes. Alternately, get ambushed, have the wizard use the first round after the attack to effectively stop the fight, regroup, and then fight one enemy at a time.

Alpha-strikes and pre-combat advantage effectively decide an entire battle due to the rocket-tag nature of combat. True, but pre-combat advantage is generally less effective than post-combat advantage. Which would you rather have: One standard action (surprise round) with which to destroy your enemies, or a minute per level with which to deal with them one at a time?

jseah
2010-01-07, 08:45 PM
JaronK:
The point is that the advantage of a surprise round or preparation is very very large in D&D. And hence, significant character resources should focus on acheiving that advantage and exploiting it.
And when you have the advantage, speed of goal completion and reduction of risk both point to making combat as short as possible.
Of course, that does assume that you have the advantage. Hence why I suggest some flexibility (uncanny forethought is just one example) so that the party could sacrifice part of their nova when needed.


Tyndmyr, Firkraag:
I must question why the players are facing such an encounter. There has to be a reason for the players to go risk a pitched battle somewhere.

A bunch of armed orcs in a room guarding a chest full of valuables.
If you're after the money, the sneak can try stealing it, or you abrupt jaunt over, pick the item up and DD out. Don't forget to scan them for protections.
If you want them dead, nova the important ones (eg. the cleric) and disengage. Then come back again. Priority is on those that enable the enemy to chase you (ie. spellcasters and scouts)

Either way, kiting works.
The basic strategy against an identified opponent could be as simple as run in, nova, run out before they can muster an effective response. Rinse and repeat until they're all dead.


Siosilvar:
Perhaps you meant to say that you weren't going to dismiss my playstyle as "wrong", so I should also clarify that I did not mean to say that the standard adventuring party is "wrong".

Also, we probably have very different conceptions of what is considered TO. I am merely advocating focusing on simple CO concepts, like Action Economy, SoL/D and DD. You don't have to use infinite loops or crazy stuff, just stack character resources so that they can be employed in as little time as possible.

I won't address each of your points individually, just in general.
In much the same way as the 4E thread went, the poster there advocated a party capable of kiting opponents and using scouting to make the tactic work. I am advocating nearly the same thing, except with 3.5's far more flexible ruleset to kite not on a tactical scale but on a strategic scale.

As for using BC to let the characters take their time...
Spending a minute on each battle for the enemies to straggle out of a crippling zone to their deaths is risky. You're in hostile territory, fighting a battle. Spending more than 5 or 6 rounds (half a minute or so) could easily start to attract attention and more hostile forces.
You can take your time in an isolated fight. Doing that in a dungeon could alert nearby monsters to your presence, which could mean more monsters approach as the first being destroyed.
A simple short burst before moving on (whether they're dead or not) leaves much less time for enemies to react (on-scene and off) and hence less possibility of complications.

What you COULD do, is use BC to lock them down completely (Tentacles + Stinking Cloud say) then simply ignore them and proceed to the objective before they escape. (which isn't any time soon)
That's just a variation on the SoL nova, but more applicable to massed enemies all of whom are a considerable threat. (little threat mooks can be safely bypassed, BC or not)

JaronK
2010-01-07, 08:49 PM
JaronK:
The point is that the advantage of a surprise round or preparation is very very large in D&D. And hence, significant character resources should focus on acheiving that advantage and exploiting it.

And my point is that if you can do it, you've won already anyway. Talking about the tactics to use in that situation is like talking about how to beat up a one armed midget when you have an assault rifle.

I mean damn, I can take an 11th level Factotum and instantly kill any Great Wyrm Dragon if I know where he is and he can't detect me until I'm in range for a kill. And I've done things like that before (yay Darkstalker!). But at that point, you've got them. This is why it's far better to plan for situations when it's neutral or the enemy has the advantage. Those are the ones you NEED to plan for.

JaronK

jseah
2010-01-07, 09:01 PM
JaronK:
Yes, precisely. That's why you should aim to get that advantage more often. If you could turn Neutral situations into an Advantage and exit Disadvantageous situations, then you have got a far easier time than bothering with tactics.

JaronK
2010-01-07, 09:03 PM
JaronK:
Yes, precisely. That's why you should aim to get that advantage more often. If you could turn Neutral situations into an Advantage and exit Disadvantageous situations, then you have got a far easier time than bothering with tactics.

Well sure. But that has nothing to do with whether battlefield control spells are good and everything to do with why stealth and planning beats headlong kick in the door every day (unless you're stealthy right up until you kick in said door).

I mean, I fully understand the advantage of planning and surprise. I'm a Shadowrun player!

JaronK

jseah
2010-01-07, 09:14 PM
Oh but it does. Because planning and surprise can be best taken advantage of by action novas or high-powered attacks, BC is less useful in those situations. Thus optimizing to use character resources to plan well and amplify the advantage of planning is more efficient than optimizing lockdown.

Sure, it's a good backup or an occasional situationally appropriate tactic. And that wizards are easily flexible enough to take some BC without compromising too much.
Hence why I decided to modify my position to having BC as a backup. Although running away is preferred if the enemy gets the jump, some times you cannot.

JaronK
2010-01-07, 09:22 PM
Oh but it does. Because planning and surprise can be best taken advantage of by action novas or high-powered attacks, BC is less useful in those situations. Thus optimizing to use character resources to plan well and amplify the advantage of planning is more efficient than optimizing lockdown.

Not so. I've absolutely taken out massively over CRed encounters by disabling most of the encounter in the surprise round and then cleaning up. Heck, I've taken out the DM's pet super caster by sneaking up with the party and dropping a solid fog on his guards while dropping a bear on him (god I love bags of tricks) in a silence field (with a Factotum jumping in for the kill). Before he could act he was nearly dead, grappled, poisoned, and silent, and then he couldn't do anything but die in the next round. Meanwhile his (melee based) guards didn't even get out of the fog until we were already gone (with the target's corpse in our possession... no sense letting someone else raise him later).

If we'd given them a chance to fight, we'd have been screwed, as we couldn't kill them fast enough.

JaronK

Glimbur
2010-01-07, 09:30 PM
You suggest having a strike team and a "home" team, unless I misread you. Then there is the scout team. You also advise having one character focus on preventing the party being found, which is probably part of the home team. How many characters does this plan call for?

jseah
2010-01-07, 09:54 PM
JaronK:
Sounds pretty well done for an ambush. That said, if you did not use the Solid Fog but a DD or SoL attack, you could have downed the caster in one round (if everyone else acted the same way) and simply left as the guards tried to counterattack.

Then again, the target is a caster that failed to prepare properly. Hard to lose that fight. XD


Glimbur:
Obviously, changes occur depending on the number of characters you have. Mainly having people double up on certain roles.
That said, this plan probably won't work with solo characters.

A 4 character setup Could be:
Home team - Diviner wizard and party Taxi, has lots of knowledge skills
Scout - Invisible man (eg. shadow whisper gnome) Or infiltrator (eg. changeling factotum)
Strike team -
Nuke (eg. SoX caster, DD caster, ranged Cleric, bloodstorm blade PAer)
Multi-action (Action Novas, Summoners)

Additional characters could double up in roles or cover both undetectable scouts and infiltrator roles.
The most easily lost character is the Nuke. So 3 man teams could have the only true offensive character be the Multi-action character. Or they could drop the Scout in favour of more offense.

Of course, the multi-action could conceivably nuke using lots of small attacks that add up to a powerful blast. The two roles aren't as distinct as the Home Team / Strike Team division.

The entire party could conceivably go as one unit, the Home team provides valuable extra actions that could be used to move party members or on-the-spot divination scouting. (clairvoyance, prying eyes, etc)

JaronK
2010-01-07, 09:59 PM
JaronK:
Sounds pretty well done for an ambush. That said, if you did not use the Solid Fog but a DD or SoL attack, you could have downed the caster in one round (if everyone else acted the same way) and simply left as the guards tried to counterattack.

Then again, the target is a caster that failed to prepare properly. Hard to lose that fight. XD

Heh, he thought he was well prepared, he wasn't. But downing him with DD wouldn't have been a good plan, as the guards would have been on us before we got away. That's the point of BC... you pick who's allowed to fight.

Though your point is sound. When the target has failed to prepare properly, you basically just win.

JaronK

Bagelz
2010-01-07, 10:31 PM
so i'm going to try and sum this up and dumb it down at the same time.
since the best defense is a good offense, then:
Instead of controlling the battlefield I will kill things before they can kill me.
I will insure that they cannot kill me first by taking time to [list of rules you will follow that will surely give you the advantage] and making sure i can [list of key abilities]

This is a solid min/max strategy for most occassions.

while this will certainly kill off some enounters before they can even hit you, an kill off most while keeping you safe, you are like any other minmax as opposed to balanced, creating one or more weaknesses to acheive you're goal. (a min/maxed powercharger fighter or barbarian gives up skill points and will save and multiple attacks for high burst damage for example).

your particular weakness is that you do not have all roles filled, and therefore if a particular encounter can deny you [list of rules] or can [list of key abilities] better than you, you will surely lose.

not saying you shouldn't build a party like that, infact is sounds like an excellent idea to me. Just pointing out that, like all min/max, is is not flawless or the best under all circumstances.

Runestar
2010-01-07, 10:45 PM
I am not saying said tactic doesn't work, just that it is not practical, in that the overall plan is too fragile and unforgiving of play errors. There are so many things the npcs (or rather, the DM controlling them) can do to disrupt this.

Or perhaps you can give us an example of a sample party who specialises in going nova and quickly dealing tons of damage in the first round?

jseah
2010-01-07, 10:50 PM
JaronK:
Well, I was thinking it would be possible to achieve the objective (kill the mage) and simply retreat afterwards. You can burn a Dimension Door or something similar. That said, BC might actually have been an optimal choice based on the enemies you affected with it. (melee-only bruisers / mooks)

But yes, basically, prior advantage is so high that you might as well try to get it as often as possible.


Bagelz:
You can be forced to retreat. In fact, a temporary retreat is on the list of standard strategies.

And yes, I do not claim that this style is strictly superior. There are situations that such a party cannot handle efficiently. (hold the fort scenario is the most basic example)
Essentially, the party would attempt to defend a location/static object by trying to eliminate opponents before they strike. I would advocate this since attacking is easier than defending in 3.5, and if an enemy has time to seige you, you more or less lost already.
Having an army on your doorstep is not a situation the party is equipped to handle and will probably end up abandoning that position.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-07, 11:08 PM
You suggest having a strike team and a "home" team, unless I misread you. Then there is the scout team. You also advise having one character focus on preventing the party being found, which is probably part of the home team. How many characters does this plan call for?

Hell, if I have a small army of high level wizards, I can chuck tactics out the window entirely and still win.