PDA

View Full Version : Save Or Sucks VS Buffs



Aurion
2007-07-27, 09:00 PM
As an arcane class or an cleric, which do you like to put your spell slots towards more heavily. Do you like to turn your party into an awesome whirling force of death, or turn your enemies into insignificant pests. Or if you don't really know either way, which do you think is more helpful and why? Personally I prefer buffing my party because it usually results in less healing up afterwards and in general the rest of the party taking out the enemies in less time.

MrNexx
2007-07-27, 09:39 PM
I prefer buffing for a slightly different reason than you... Save or Suck spells have, well, saving throws. Which your opponents can make. Buff spells simply work. So, throwing a lot of buffs on your party, and a couple cripplers on the enemy, is preferable to me than throwing a lot of cripplers and a few buffs.

The downside to buffs is usually duration. If I have to spend several rounds buffing in a combat, blowing a lot of spells, the save or suck guy may have crippled everyone with one spell.

ByeLindgren
2007-07-27, 09:43 PM
I know this is the obvious, unnecessary reply, but they're both good in different situations. That's why Bats has both. Fighting a bunch of relatively stationary Giants? Slow. Fighting a bunch of spread out Drow Clerics? Haste.

In general, I look at power as relative to everything else. A successful debuff can (in certain terms) be a relative buff to the party.

Tengu
2007-07-27, 09:45 PM
Buffs are better for clerics, and save-or-suck for wizards, in my opinion. There are few exceptions, for example Haste and Greater Invisibility.

daggaz
2007-07-27, 09:48 PM
One of the better tactical threads, ever.

BardicDuelist
2007-07-27, 10:05 PM
Well the only "save-or-sucks" I ALWAYS prepare are actually just "miss-or-sucks." Ray of Enfeeblement (with metamagic all over the place), Ray of Clumsiness, Ray of Stupidity, and Shivering touch (especially with the house rule that Energy Subsutition can change the subtype immune to this, I know it's cheesy).

I tend to prefer buffs to save-or-sucks in a lot of situations, but that is probably heavily influenced by the fact that our DM likes to fudge a lot, especially saving throws for his creatures. Buffs always work, and he tells us the AC after our first hit so there is less fudging.

Bards were the first casters I ever played though, so that also probably heavily influences me.

serow
2007-07-27, 10:15 PM
I prefer preparing buffs.
My party never says no to it.

Dausuul
2007-07-27, 10:25 PM
As an arcane class or an cleric, which do you like to put your spell slots towards more heavily. Do you like to turn your party into an awesome whirling force of death, or turn your enemies into insignificant pests. Or if you don't really know either way, which do you think is more helpful and why? Personally I prefer buffing my party because it usually results in less healing up afterwards and in general the rest of the party taking out the enemies in less time.

As a divine caster, I buff almost exclusively. As an arcane caster, I favor debuffs--arcane casters are generally better at those--but I try to keep a couple of buffs in reserve, in case I can't find a weak spot to debuff.

The art of debuffing is to know your enemy's weak points and target them. Against a dumb brute of a monster, aim for its Will save; against a caster, aim for the Fort save. Enervation is handy if the target has all good saves (e.g., an outsider). Et cetera.

On the other hand, there will always be times when you don't have the debuff you need, and that's when a good old-fashioned haste or bull's strength is worth having. Then, too, if the PCs are the ones initiating combat, you'll often have some time to buff before the battle begins; no sense wasting free rounds!

BardicDuelist
2007-07-27, 10:33 PM
no sense wasting free rounds!

Too true. When a character waits for somthing, or doesn't act (common with level 1 wizards it seems), I never understand.

Even a crossbow bolt with a crappy to hit modifier can crit. If you are out of bolts, pick up a freekin' rock, or somthing.

Chronos
2007-07-27, 11:42 PM
Given the choice, I'd take the buffs, becuase (in multiple senses), they always work. The save-or-sucks allow saves and spell resistance, and if they fail, they don't usually do much (or nothing at all, if spell resistance works), but buffs are reliable. Also, you need different save-or-suck spells versus different opponents, and you might not have the right ones prepared if you don't know what you're facing. Do you prepare Otto's Irresistable Dance, or Disintegrate? Dance is more likely to work versus a humanoid, but useless against an undead. You always know who and what your other party members are, though, so the same buffs will help them in any situation you might find yourself in.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-27, 11:48 PM
I'm of the school of thought that ascribes to Divine buffage and Arcane suckage myself. It's the natural evolution of the classic Divine heal/Arcane hurt dynamic.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-07-27, 11:52 PM
I prefer to buff for strictly metagaming reasons; everyone loves the buffing mage who makes their characters more powerful, but that's not usually the case with the debuffing mage who ends an encounter (or effectively ends it) with a successful save-or-suck/die.

ByeLindgren
2007-07-28, 12:10 AM
[...] the same buffs will help them in any situation you might find yourself in.Not quite. While buffs are more reliable than debuffs, you can still prepare/cast a buff that doesn't really matter (mind blank against a bunch of non-enchanting encounters). Buffs are also more prone to a high level NPC caster's Dispel Magic, so stacking buffs on someone often has a diminishing marginal benefit.

At least for arcanists, buffs are more reliable because the debuffs usually have more significant effects. Kiting slowed enemies (or even just getting rid of their full attacks) is often much more advantageous than getting an extra attack and some speed.


I prefer to buff for strictly metagaming reasons; everyone loves the buffing mage who makes their characters more powerful, but that's not usually the case with the debuffing mage who ends an encounter (or effectively ends it) with a successful save-or-suck/die.Isn't that a bit of a superficial interpretation of save-or-sucks on the part of your fellow party members? I can see the reasoning if a Fear makes everyone run away, but if they're all Glitterdusted, it's the same as Improved Invisibility+See Invisibility to the guy in the melee. Besides, sometimes the caster needs to pull out the big guns just to save the party. Haste turns a challenging encounter a reasonable one. Confusion can turn a TPK into an outright win.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-07-28, 12:18 AM
Superficial, yes. Still, if the person next to me feels that his bigger, tougher fighter is saving the day, it's more fun for him than if he feels that his fighter is merely finishing off a disabled monster. I still know who supplied that extra power, but if it's more fun for him, it's a win-win situation.

BardicDuelist
2007-07-28, 12:56 AM
I like a good mix, and certain spells are a must, but overall I favor the buffs.

I favor the batman approach, but when all things are viable options, I will buff before I use a save-or-suck.

My general approach is this: Buff allies, debuff enemy, use save-or-suck on whatever they are having a hard time with. Generally use celerity and shivering touch if somthing is too hard (one shotting the things you are supposed to run from is fun).

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-28, 01:16 AM
Debuff is better vs bosses, buff is better vs mooks.

Think of it this way. A boss is almost always standing on his own somewhere in the back, or out in the front. Mooks may be clustered together, or spread out, or just so damn many that you'll never get them all in the kill zone. Further, a boss will be bigger, tougher, etc. than the party. Take him out, and the battle is half won. If you buff your party, it takes more time.

Crude demo:

Vs Boss: Sickened/Nauseated+Dazed=incapable of actions+easier to hit(lose saves too). Ray of Enfeeblement=unable to move/attack(depends on how much you can get him down vs how much he starts with) Enervation works like a mix of the 2, since the -BAB is equivalent to the -STR(sans the increased encumbrance)

Vs Mooks: Pump up the Fighters' Cleavage and let them go to town. Or drop an AoE on them, etc. Heck, let the Dervish fly through them like a Tasmanian Devil on drugs.

Morty
2007-07-28, 04:16 AM
I actually prefer debuffs, because I like to screw enemies myself instead of buffing rogue and ranger to do it better. But I prepare few buffs too. I don't touch battlefield control with a 10-feet pole.

Jack Mann
2007-07-28, 05:33 AM
I sometimes ran into the opposite problem as Phwarr. When I'd just buff, my allies would often think I wasn't contributing much to the battle. Some would understand just how much I was helping, but some would complain that I wasn't doing anything to the enemy, so why was I getting a share of the treasure? Early on, they preferred it if I used a fireball... Until they realized that they'd have to wait until after that to charge into battle, or they might get hit too. With debuffs, they could see that I was hurting the enemy.

Thanks to this, my playstyle tends to mix in a certain amount of debuffs and buffs, with some moderate battlefield control (when I'm in a group that's willing to work with me on that, anyway).

nerulean
2007-07-28, 08:04 AM
Debuff is better vs bosses, buff is better vs mooks.

I couldn't disagree more. Maybe it's because our DMs have all wised up to the fact that we use save or sucks fairly heavily when we play casters, but if there's a lone boss flying around you can absolutely guarantee that you won't get an encounter-ending saving throw past him. I throw out the kill spells in mook combat because there's a far higher chance they'll actually fail the save and it means I get in an equal share of the kills with the rest of the party, so no one thinks I'm slack and not pulling any weight. Then the buffs come out for taking down the actual boss, which is always a team effort in our groups.

PaladinBoy
2007-07-28, 10:13 AM
I'll use whatever's appropriate to the situation, but I prefer buffs, battlefield control, and sometimes even blasting to using save-or-suck spells or other debuffs. Most of that magic just strikes me as more reliable....... lower chance of having something completely worthless. Whereas a successful save or a poor ranged touch attack roll turns my powerful debuff into a wasted round.

Dausuul
2007-07-28, 10:16 AM
I couldn't disagree more. Maybe it's because our DMs have all wised up to the fact that we use save or sucks fairly heavily when we play casters, but if there's a lone boss flying around you can absolutely guarantee that you won't get an encounter-ending saving throw past him. I throw out the kill spells in mook combat because there's a far higher chance they'll actually fail the save and it means I get in an equal share of the kills with the rest of the party, so no one thinks I'm slack and not pulling any weight. Then the buffs come out for taking down the actual boss, which is always a team effort in our groups.

Encounter-ending save, no, but not all debuffs are encounter-ending. I know I keep harping on it, but enervation is one of the best anti-boss debuffs there is; ray of enfeeblement is also very good, as are various others. They won't finish the fight by themselves, but a boss with 4 negative levels is a lot easier for the rest of the party to handle.

Deepblue706
2007-07-28, 10:42 AM
Save-Or-Sucks are generally my prefered spells, but I do feel the need to acknowledge how great Buffs can be. When you're up against many enemies, casting "slow" on each of them takes a lot more time than simply casting "haste" on one of your allies. Obviously, this shows how useful buffing can be when you want certain effects.

But, sometimes Save-or-Sucks can't be duplicated by an equal and opposite Buffing action. And, some of the effects of Save-Or-Sucks are easier to make use of, in my opinion.

Stoneskin is a great defensive spell to be cast on the Fighter, who expects to be wading through hordes of enemies (or maybe the Caster himself, just in case some get passed him) - but I'd rather simply cast Confusion on the bunch and try to save the effort of real combat, and the chances of getting hurt when the spell gets discharged because the damage soaked has reached the limit.

Buffs need to be made use of, to see their full potential, as well. If an ally whom you just buffed becomes incapacitated, you obviously have lost continued use of the Buff's power. That said, Buffs can and should be done before the fighting starts, so generally, they should still see good mileage.

One also has to note that while some Save-Or-Sucks lose usage at higher levels (too low a DC), buffs can remain reliable (even if you're getting better ones too).

But, again, I prefer Save-Or-Suck, because of my explanation above, and the fact that I simply get more enjoyment out of having a direct impact on enemies.

bosssmiley
2007-07-28, 10:50 AM
Personally I tend towards Buffs as a cleric/druid, save-or-sucks as an arcanist. It seems to play more to the way their spell lists are structured, as well as feeding my love of the old 'blessing vs. blasting' cliche. :smallwink:

Curmudgeon
2007-07-28, 11:02 AM
With prepared spellcasters I like to concentrate on long-duration buffs that can be cast outside of combat, and have a bunch of wands and scrolls to handle various battlefield situations. But then I play combinations like Cleric/Rogue, so my emphasis isn't strictly spellcasting.

stainboy
2007-07-28, 11:21 AM
The "encounter ending save" issue is why I never focus on debuffs. If I'm DMing, and early in the fight a party member lands a spell on a boss that completely cripples him, the fight becomes anticlimactic, which means I haven't done my job. I load my boss monsters up with every form of save-or-suck protection imaginable. I try to set up situations where it's possible for the party to remove said protection - "ok, if we dispel him, then sunder that amulet he's wearing, then we can hit him with something that'll take him out of commission" - but the path of least resistance will generally be buffing the party to high heaven and reducing the boss's hit points to zero.

Since make it very hard to land debuffs on bosses, I assume other GMs do too, so I don't bother making characters who rely on debuffs to be effective.

geez3r
2007-07-28, 11:26 AM
It also depends on how large your party is, as my DM found out. We had a party of 8, 9 including a dragon our druid recruited (a *lot* of natural 20's were rolled that day). I was a Transmuter and I excelled at all the buff spells. Once I got "Mass" spells, I would buff the entirety of the party and have them run wild for a while.

Buff spells are good when you have a large party. Use de-buff on those particularly bothersome enemies. De-buff only work until the foe dies. Buff lasts so long as your party lives, which is usually until the duration expires.

AtomicKitKat
2007-07-28, 12:03 PM
It's less about "ending the encounter" and more about putting the boss down a peg. "Hahahahaha! I am 5 levels above all of you, and therefore considered a 'level appropriate encounter'! Surrender now and *hit by Enervation* Oh shi-"

Thanatos 51-50
2007-07-28, 12:27 PM
Buffs make your party stronger, and still put the enemy at a disadvantage, and the only way they can take care of it is by Dispelling or debuffing.

I'm all for buffing before the battle (as well as divination or more mundane methods) to open up with as many advantages as possible.
Quickly administering a beatdown can really tank enemy morale.