Understanding tactics: The tactical mind

[Godskook]

Ok, that last Evocation thread got me thinking, and I haven't seen a thread like this at least for a while, so I'm going to give it a shot:

When it comes to tactics, you can't think in any of the 'normal' terms that we're used to thinking in. "20 damage" is meaningless to a tactical mind. To the tactical mind, what's important is things like "Limited enemies movement" or "incremented a death counter". Common tactical values are:
-Action Advantage
-Battlefield Control
-Knowledge Economy
-Superweapons
-Debuff
-Back Doors
-Incrementals

Action Advantage
It is important to realize how powerful this is. Your group of fighters is attacked by 4 orcs. You could fight them man-to-man, but you'd drop all 4 in roughly the same round, and it probably won't be the first. Or, you can focus-fire and kill them, starting with the fastest. This deprives them of actions, which lessens their ability to react to your pressing advantage. There are many ways to affect the action ratio, and almost every class can do it. Good examples are casting haste, tripping opponents(forcing actions spent standing up), summoning critters, death, etc.

OotS example: O'Chul's lecture

Battlefield Control
If Action Advantage is all about how *many* actions, BC is about forcing actions to be spent in certain ways. Good examples include something as simple as positioning squishy players in the back or as complex as dropping a fog cloud when you know your fighter had blind-fight. The important thing is knowing that more actions have been made the way you want them to be made.

OotS example: Xykon's trap system

Knowledge Economy
When combat usually only lasts for less than 5 rounds, being able to force a surprise round in your favor gives you a huge advantage over your enemy. And that's only one application of this wonderful tactical concept. Other examples include disguising the melee brutes as casters(and vice versa), cloud-spells + blindfight, silent image to show an image of a dangerous dragon

OotS example: ABD's ambush

Superweapons
The big one here is CoDzilla, but the important thing is if you bring something to the fight that is flat-out superior to what your opponent brought, you should win. DMs tend not to like these much, but they will show up. Actually, DMs might put a few non-PC ones in the game from time to time just to throw the players a curveball. Mostly included for completeness' sake.

OotS example: Black Robe V

Debuff
Debuff is almost exactly like BC. The major difference between the two tactics is that BC controls the battlefield and Debuff controls the enemies. I'll admit the distinction is rather fine, but in practice it is rather clear. Glitterdust is a debuff. Fog Cloud is a battlefield control. See the difference? Basically, Debuffs are there to directly reduce the effectiveness of the enemy. Blind the enemy's melee, and they're worthless. Same thing if you silence the casters. Specifically, examples are web, grease(prone), disarm, grapple, dispel, or intimidate.

OotS example: No more spells

Back Doors
Back doors are when you've got a 'quick' way of killing things. Typical back-doors are ability damage and negative levels. Back-doors only count as back-doors until the enemy starts defending against them, and then they're just an exotic form of incremental. Helpless->Coup, Enervation, Dex-damage against dragons, Dominate Monster.

OotS example: Redcloak's rebuke undead

Incrementals
If you've been around these boards for a while, you should know by now, HP damage sucks. It just doesn't live up to the tactical power of any of the above options, but at the same time, you'll usually be required to kill at least a couple things one dagger stab at a time. Avoid having this be 'the plan' at all costs. Also note: If you're capable of killing things in a single action, that's a SoD, not an Incremental, and falls under Action Advantage.



Now, you may have noticed that there's a lot of overlap in this list, and a single option falls into several categories all the time and a few more in specific situations. That's intentional. None of these concepts are islands to themselves, and trying to eliminate categories will typically piss people off and make the game boring. So the tactical person doesn't focus. He diversifies, but also emphasizes multiple threats. An Orb of Fire is a multi-threat spell that, in certian situations can increase the threat rating further. It offers Action Advantage, Incremental, with the possibility of greater action advantage if used as a readied action to interupt another's spellcasting. Fireball, unless readied is merely an Incremental threat, and one that is especially vulnerable to the opponent's BC. Grease is another great spell, offering action advantage, battlefield control and debuff.

[Chrono22]

Excellent advice! But I think one important bit needs saying (even if it isn't tactical).
Something that's just as important as using the above tactics is creating the circumstances that make them possible! A deep knowledge of terrain advantage bonuses, situational modifiers/penalties, object hardness, some 'tricks', and a decent amount of creativity are key.
The biggest thing to keep in mind about strategy, is that the battle starts before you roll initiative.

[Gralamin]

This isn't listed as 3.5 specific, so I'm going to reference 4e, 3.5, and even some RTS games.

I am also going to make a distinction at some points for Good Tactics for "Winning" and good tactics for having "Fun". This isn't to say winning isn't fun - I'll address it more when I get to it.

Ok, that last Evocation thread got me thinking, and I haven't seen a thread like this at least for a while, so I'm going to give it a shot:

When it comes to tactics, you can't think in any of the 'normal' terms that we're used to thinking in. "20 damage" is meaningless to a tactical mind.

I disagree with you already. 20 damage is meaningless. 20 damage to 100 hp enemy means that enemy is now about 20% closer to having no actions.

To the tactical mind, what's important is things like "Limited enemies movement" or "incremented a death counter". Common tactical values are:
-Action Advantage
-Battlefield Control
-Knowledge Economy
-Superweapons
-Debuff
-Back Doors
-Incrementals

Action Advantage
It is important to realize how powerful this is. Your group of fighters is attacked by 4 orcs. You could fight them man-to-man, but you'd drop all 4 in roughly the same round, and it probably won't be the first. Or, you can focus-fire and kill them, starting with the fastest. This deprives them of actions, which lessens their ability to react to your pressing advantage. There are many ways to affect the action ratio, and almost every class can do it. Good examples are casting haste, tripping opponents(forcing actions spent standing up), summoning critters, death, etc.

Since this isn't a 3.5 specific thread, I'll point out that this is pretty much the reason that in 4e warlords are by and far the best offensive leader - They screw with Action Advantage.

Also, the problem with Focus Fire is it requires a large amount of concentration to achieve. Take Starcraft, for example, where you could have 10 Zerglings fighting 10 Zerglings. If you focus fire each of those, you may win quicker, but it will require a lot of concentration. Concentration is a resource. Indeed, in such a situation, it may be better to approach like this:
Form a line of zerglings until you encounter the enemy group. Have the line collapse in on the enemy, and attack whichever one you reach first. In this surround and conquer situation, focus fire is often inefficient.

So my advice here is to have a good understanding of when to use focus fire and how much you should focus. Killing one at a time isn't always optimal.

Battlefield Control
If Action Advantage is all about how *many* actions, BC is about forcing actions to be spent in certain ways. Good examples include something as simple as positioning squishy players in the back or as complex as dropping a fog cloud when you know your fighter had blind-fight. The important thing is knowing that more actions have been made the way you want them to be made.

Heres the other reason in 4e Warlords are so amazing: They control their allies side of the battlefield better then just about anyone, and eventually their foes as well.

As noted above, a lot of what I said was based on Battlefield Control situations - Good battlefield control can easily top the Action Economy. When used in Concert however, the sum is greater then the parts.

Knowledge Economy
When combat usually only lasts for less than 5 rounds, being able to force a surprise round in your favor gives you a huge advantage over your enemy. And that's only one application of this wonderful tactical concept. Other examples include disguising the melee brutes as casters(and vice versa), cloud-spells + blindfight, silent image to show an image of a dangerous dragon

Knowledge and Intelligence is definitely important.

Superweapons
The big one here is CoDzilla, but the important thing is if you bring something to the fight that is flat-out superior to what your opponent brought, you should win. DMs tend not to like these much, but they will show up. Actually, DMs might put a few non-PC ones in the game from time to time just to throw the players a curveball. Mostly included for completeness' sake.

I dislike Superweapons as a tactical concern. More precisely, you should worry all about your Enemies superweapons, and know as much as you can about them. In the mean time, concealing your superweapon is often a good strategy - By controlling the knowledge economy in this way, you can often change the tide of an entire battle by unleashing your trump card.

Debuff
Debuff is almost exactly like BC. The major difference between the two tactics is that BC controls the battlefield and Debuff controls the enemies. I'll admit the distinction is rather fine, but in practice it is rather clear. Glitterdust is a debuff. Fog Cloud is a battlefield control. See the difference? Basically, Debuffs are there to directly reduce the effectiveness of the enemy. Blind the enemy's melee, and they're worthless. Same thing if you silence the casters. Specifically, examples are web, grease(prone), disarm, grapple, dispel, or intimidate.

Debuff is a lesser category, since it basically breaks down like this:
Debuffs that cause Battlefield Control.
Debuffs that cause Action Advantage.
Debuffs that do other effects.
The last category is relatively small of good things, usually containing damage over time, removing enemy abilities, and making their actions worse. The other two categories are part of what they cause.

Back Doors
Back doors are when you've got a 'quick' way of killing things. Typical back-doors are ability damage and negative levels. Back-doors only count as back-doors until the enemy starts defending against them, and then they're just an exotic form of incremental. Helpless->Coup, Enervation, Dex-damage against dragons, Dominate Monster.

Back Doors are also something that I dislike as a tactical concern - its more of a "cheat". A good fall back when you can't figure out a better way, but usually very uninteresting and unfun in the larger tactical game. For Example, putting a dragons Dex to 0 and just killing it removes a good deal of other tactical concerns, and interesting opportunities. Great if your only goal is to win, but possibly bad if your goal is to have fun.

That is not to say some won't find that fun - It's just that in the context of an encounter as a tactical game, in which you attempt to defeat a relatively worthy opponent, winning in few moves can be less fun. As an Analogy, I'd say winning Chess in 3 moves isn't fun, though it is possible. You are probably playing Chess for fun, and logically more interesting moves leads to more fun.

Incrementals
If you've been around these boards for a while, you should know by now, HP damage sucks. It just doesn't live up to the tactical power of any of the above options, but at the same time, you'll usually be required to kill at least a couple things one dagger stab at a time. Avoid having this be 'the plan' at all costs. Also note: If you're capable of killing things in a single action, that's a SoD, not an Incremental, and falls under Action Advantage.

Note: in 4e, This is a good tactic, since most conditions are harder to get and a less effective then death (and SoD are rare). Incrementals as a plan are best aided with some of the above - Anything you can do to make it easier to win should be done.

Now, you may have noticed that there's a lot of overlap in this list, and a single option falls into several categories all the time and a few more in specific situations. That's intentional. None of these concepts are islands to themselves, and trying to eliminate categories will typically piss people off and make the game boring. So the tactical person doesn't focus.

I disagree. The Tactical Person can keep focused, and its often better to do so. The game is often played with a group - so having multiple specialists in certain tactics, aided by an overall strategy. In addition, this makes everyone feel needed, which leads to a better gaming experience.

He diversifies, but also emphasizes multiple threats. An Orb of Fire is a multi-threat spell that, in certian situations can increase the threat rating further. It offers Action Advantage, Incremental, with the possibility of greater action advantage if used as a readied action to interupt another's spellcasting. Fireball, unless readied is merely an Incremental threat, and one that is especially vulnerable to the opponent's BC. Grease is another great spell, offering action advantage, battlefield control and debuff.

The point you seem to be getting at here, however, is still good: Having abilities that work on multiple tactical concerns at once is very good tactic in itself.

----
In Conclusion, I disagree with a lot of your post, but only minorly - You seem to be treating this as a 1 vs 1 scenario. I prefer looking at it as a 5 vs 5. Either way, most of the advice doesn't contradict, just requires small corrections for the difference in scenarios we are looking at. In 3.5, it will often be the case that it is group vs 1 (or even 1 vs 1). In 4e, its usually group vs 1, group vs 2.5, group vs 5, or even group vs 10. In RTS it can vary wildly. Understanding Tactics require a look at all of these situations.

[Math_Mage]

OotS example: No more spells

Better OotS example: My defenses! My flight spell! I feel so...woozy...

[Runestar]

I disagree with you already. 20 damage is meaningless. 20 damage to 100 hp enemy means that enemy is now about 20% closer to having no actions.

And in the meantime, he is still attacking your party at 100% efficiency.

This is why direct damage is not considered optimal - it does nothing to reduce the enemy's effectiveness in attacking you.

And the reason why battlefield control rocks. It doesn't matter if your enemy is at 1, 100 or even 1 million hp if he is just standing there dazed and taken out of battle. He is not attacking, and thus not depleting your party of any resources. The wizard does not need to waste any resources dealing damage, because the fighter has the comparative advantage in this area (good damage usable at-will) and will eventually get around to finishing the job.

[Gralamin]

And in the meantime, he is still attacking your party at 100% efficiency.

This is why direct damage is not considered optimal - it does nothing to reduce the enemy's effectiveness in attacking you.

Immediate results are not the only important part of Tactics. And it is notably only not considered optimal in 3.5; Many other games it is very important.

[Lapak]

And in the meantime, he is still attacking your party at 100% efficiency.

This is why direct damage is not considered optimal - it does nothing to reduce the enemy's effectiveness in attacking you.

And the reason why battlefield control rocks. It doesn't matter if your enemy is at 1, 100 or even 1 million hp if he is just standing there dazed and taken out of battle. He is not attacking, and thus not depleting your party of any resources. The wizard does not need to waste any resources dealing damage, because the fighter has the comparative advantage in this area (good damage usable at-will) and will eventually get around to finishing the job.

See, you are including HP damage in your equation here, yet dismissing it in your introduction. Take the other extreme: four casters loaded with nothing but save-or-sucks. They glitterdust a foe to blind him, hit him with a Web, do a moderate amount of Dex damage, and Feeblemind him all in the same round.

If he can still attack them for hit point damage - even at only 50% effectiveness - and they do nothing to actually finish him off, he'll kill them eventually. Often, the situation requires incremental damage in combination with whatever else you're doing, and you can't just put that aside so offhandedly.

[Math_Mage]

See, you are including HP damage in your equation here, yet dismissing it in your introduction. Take the other extreme: four casters loaded with nothing but save-or-sucks. They glitterdust a foe to blind him, hit him with a Web, do a moderate amount of Dex damage, and Feeblemind him all in the same round.

If he can still attack them for hit point damage - even at only 50% effectiveness - and they do nothing to actually finish him off, he'll kill them eventually. Often, the situation requires incremental damage in combination with whatever else you're doing, and you can't just put that aside so offhandedly.

And this is where I jump in and say, "wait a second, it looks like the OP is not talking about what you are talking about."

As far as I can tell, Godskook's post primarily addresses the wizard's role in a balanced party. I mean, the only item he addresses that *isn't* wizard-related is tripping. You, on the other hand, are considering these tactics as they apply to an *entire party*. This is probably a more valid way to reason, but you're still talking past each other and that's why there's a problem.

[Runestar]

Often, the situation requires incremental damage in combination with whatever else you're doing, and you can't just put that aside so offhandedly.

Yes, but my point is that damage is secondary to whatever a wizard could otherwise be achieving with his spells. You have the fighter for that, why bother wasting slots duplicating what your tank can accomplish for free?

Blinding a foe with glitterdust for instance, means the foe has a harder time hitting the fighter. So the fighter should take less damage overall (which in turn means less resources spent patching him up afterwards). He hits the foe more easily. In addition, the rogue can reliably get in SA damage. This higher damage output should result in the foe going down faster.

Or slowing 4 giants with a slow spell, followed by a sculpted glitterdust (which was in fact what happened my red hand of doom game). Now they are really broken down into bite-sized chunks for the melees to take down at their own leisure.

[Lapak]

And this is where I jump in and say, "wait a second, it looks like the OP is not talking about what you are talking about."

As far as I can tell, Godskook's post primarily addresses the wizard's role in a balanced party. I mean, the only item he addresses that *isn't* wizard-related is tripping. You, on the other hand, are considering these tactics as they apply to an *entire party*. This is probably a more valid way to reason, but you're still talking past each other and that's why there's a problem.

I don't agree - several of the examples (four fighters, one dagger stab at a time, tripping, putting squishy players in the back) indicate that the entire party should be leaning this way as much as possible. I think that's not true, and that a more balanced approach that includes significant hit-point-damage potential makes for a stronger party.

EDIT: I'm not disagreeing that battlefield control, debuffing, and so on are not of primary importance for casters. I'm debating whether or not they are of absolute importance for the party as a whole.

[Godskook]

Immediate results are not the only important part of Tactics.

No, but they are the most powerful.

And it is notably only not considered optimal in 3.5; Many other games it[Non-immediate results?] is very important.

I challenge you to name one. RTS games are not among them. Nor is MtG. Nor Chess. No strategy game I know of has Incremental tactics as the premier tactical option. Well, maybe checkers. Err... nope, not there either. That's BC followed by Superweapons.

As far as I can tell, Godskook's post primarily addresses the wizard's role in a balanced party. I mean, the only item he addresses that *isn't* wizard-related is tripping. You, on the other hand, are considering these tactics as they apply to an *entire party*. This is probably a more valid way to reason, but you're still talking past each other and that's why there's a problem.

Actually, I was addressing the individual of any class.

Tanks do BC by forcing opponents to 'waste' actions attacking them or going the long way around.

Glass Cannons(The *GOOD* ones) capitalize the Back-Door and Action Advantage markets a good deal of the time.

Healers.....This is why healing sucks in D&D. Healing doesn't keep pace with damage, so in order to heal you must actually give up action advantage to your foe.

Take a fight my Pbp group just had:

Monk steps forward, blocking enemy's only melee-user from having access to our side's casters. A solid BC tactic.
My Conj/Rogue moves into melee range of enemy casters, and then Benign Transpositions with our group's Melee-er, a Paladin, putting myself safely behind the Monk again. This was a great BC tactic which was used to hopefully gain an Action Advantage on the Paladin's turn. Paladin full-attacks+cleave and drops one caster and wounds the other. And we have both an Action Advantage plus some Incremental to sweeten the deal. All this before the enemy has a single turn. Enemy tank does exactly what we want but gets lucky enough to do some Incremental. Caster attempts a Debuff and fails. The others do some Incrementals, I Debuff the Tank with Glitterdust and the Paladin kills the other caster on round 2. That's followed up by another round of everyone whiffing against the tank doing nothing better than Incremental till he dies.

[drengnikrafe]

I challenge you to name one. RTS games are not among them. Nor is MtG. Nor Chess. No strategy game I know of has Incremental tactics as the premier tactical option. Well, maybe checkers. Err... nope, not there either. That's BC followed by Superweapons.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that firing for non-immediate results is never the optimal choice? Let me introduce you to a concept called "Attrition". Outlined as one of the best strategies in some RTS maps (especially those with a low resource count), this strategy consists of biding your time with the knowledge that, through proper tactics, they will eventually have no resources, while you still have plenty. I had a friend who used this strategy exclusively. He was tied for effectiveness with the person who built and mobilized huge armies in record time... at the very top of the gaming pyramid.
It could be considered BC and then Superweapons, but more often than not I simply saw moderately defensive playstyle with aggressive counterstrikes at tactical points, followed by average power weapons that appear strong at that time.

[lsfreak]

He's not saying non-immediate results are always poor. He's saying non-immediate results, when your alternative is to get the same or nearly the same result immediately, are never optimal.

Damage an enemy over several rounds to kill him, or blind him?
Run up to an archer, or make a wall between him and the fighting so he can't do anything?
Trade blows with meatshield, or keep him tripped so he can't attack/move?

[Godskook]

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that firing for non-immediate results is never the optimal choice?

Situationally? Sometimes. Theoretically? Best guess is never.

Let me introduce you to a concept called "Attrition". Outlined as one of the best strategies in some RTS maps (especially those with a low resource count), this strategy consists of biding your time with the knowledge that, through proper tactics, they will eventually have no resources, while you still have plenty. I had a friend who used this strategy exclusively. He was tied for effectiveness with the person who built and mobilized huge armies in record time... at the very top of the gaming pyramid.

Actually, the list above isn't comprehensive nor meant to be.

The strategy you mention appears to be a niche form of Delay, which is specifically one I meant to add at some point today.

Also, don't be fooled by the name, Superweapon doesn't require as much power as it implies. Having an unopposed King in Checkers is a Superweapon. Honestly, the RTS version of the category could equally be called an Arms Race

[Saph]

He's not saying non-immediate results are always poor. He's saying non-immediate results, when your alternative is to get the same or nearly the same result immediately, are never optimal.

That's rarely an option in 3.5. Unless the enemy's defences utterly suck, the choice will generally be between "hit him for some damage with a high probability" and "try for a non-damage effect with a lower probability".

And in 4e, basically every battle is decided by attrition. You reduce the enemy's collective HP score faster than they reduce yours.

Drawing a line between save-or-die damage and incremental damage is also a bit arbitrary. In practice you very rarely know whether an opponent's HP is low enough that a hit is going to kill him (and even if you do, dicerolls will generally introduce a random element).

Finally, I think the OP, like the forum, is too focused on arcane casters and especially on wizards. For a fighter, quite often doing steady damage output IS a more effective strategy than trying to trip/disarm/whatever the beastie.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that firing for non-immediate results is never the optimal choice? Let me introduce you to a concept called "Attrition". Outlined as one of the best strategies in some RTS maps (especially those with a low resource count), this strategy consists of biding your time with the knowledge that, through proper tactics, they will eventually have no resources, while you still have plenty. I had a friend who used this strategy exclusively. He was tied for effectiveness with the person who built and mobilized huge armies in record time... at the very top of the gaming pyramid.
It could be considered BC and then Superweapons, but more often than not I simply saw moderately defensive playstyle with aggressive counterstrikes at tactical points, followed by average power weapons that appear strong at that time.

I may be making false assumptions here, but I get the impression that the main point is that attrition (the brand you speak of anyway) is about as fun (ie, good for the game) as the "superweapon" option. Waiting for one's foes to defeat themselves strikes me as being yet another way to take the fun out of the game in a tedious attempt to win what cannot really be won. Just like how god mode gets boring once the novelty wears off, attrition is naught but a boring waste of time when measured up to a more dynamic style of play full of immediate affects and opportunities to generate memories via collective storytelling.

Note, I am NOT an rp diva. While not remotely like the mad scientists in CharOp, I take pride in building well. However, my main goal in character crafting is to ensure that the thing I do well either adds to the group experience or, at the very least, stays out of the way of the collective's good time.

[Lapak]

I challenge you to name one. RTS games are not among them.

Easy enough. AD&D, 1st edition, medium-to-high level play.

By the time you reach around 12th level, the saving throw values of your opponents are so high that hitting them with a save-or-lose, save-or-suck, or even most battlefield control spells in that edition becomes increasingly pointless. Grappling was suboptimal, tripping was an optional rule and so were called shots. Optimization of hit point damage delivery to allow for superweapons was relatively limited. The end-all and be-all of combat in 1st edition was hit point damage. You could kill most enemies twice through hit point damage before a save-or-lose attack got through.

And what you seem prepared to call Delay is Attrition with another label slapped on it. We have equal resources; I can drain your resources through incremental damage faster than you can drain mine; therefore I win. Calling it something else doesn't MAKE it something else.

[drengnikrafe]

Attrition is one style. Your assumption seems to be that people think the same. While many people think similarly, and plenty would find it a boring style, I, personally, find it quite enjoyable. I treat it similarly to mastering things you are learning. I will grant you that there are likely few people who think similar to me, especially in this. It also occurs to me that this will probably grow old, but so long as you pepper in other styles, it will retain it's fun. If every character you make uses one of the strategies outlined here exclusively, the game will lose it's fun.

To Godskook: Yes, you're right. I don't have enough experience in theoretical tactical excersizes to know the names of greater categories of strategies, I only have firsthand experience.

[Godskook]

That's rarely an option in 3.5. Unless the enemy's defences utterly suck, the choice will generally be between "hit him for some damage with a high probability" and "try for a non-damage effect with a lower probability".

Eh? Probabilities? Since when is casting a Wall of Force have a variable success rate? Fog Clouds? Entangling Exhalation(against non-evasion foes)? Hell, Grease even has mandatory immediate effects. And then there's Summon Monster and others. For melee types, something as simple as positioning can have powerful tactical backing(prevent charges, force AoOs), again with no save.

Drawing a line between save-or-die damage and incremental damage is also a bit arbitrary. In practice you very rarely know whether an opponent's HP is low enough that a hit is going to kill him (and even if you do, dicerolls will generally introduce a random element).

I draw that line because it *is* there. Knowing that you can deal more in a single full-attack pounce than a particular enemy has HP means something different than when you don't know. Sure, if you're dealing with increment-level damage, you won't normally know how much HP the opponent has left, but 800 damage is enough to drop pretty much any caster you're going to come across until epic play, and there's at least a few builds that drop that much damage casually.

Finally, I think the OP, like the forum, is too focused on arcane casters and especially on wizards.

Wizards are the thing I'm most familiar with in terms of D&D. However, I'm not basing my comments on what I know of D&D, but rather porting them from my other gameplay experiences. This includes quite a few things.

For a fighter, quite often doing steady damage output IS a more effective strategy than trying to trip/disarm/whatever the beastie.

Are you speaking of fighter as in the class, or are you speaking more generally towards all melee-types(including ToB classes)?

To Godskook: Yes, you're right. I don't have enough experience in theoretical tactical excersizes to know the names of greater categories of strategies, I only have firsthand experience.

Dude, I hope I'm not coming off as an arrogant prick. I'm just slapping terms together with the concepts that don't already evoke different concepts.

[Saph]

Eh? Probabilities? Since when is casting a Wall of Force have a variable success rate?

Teleport Without Error. Most outsiders have it as a SLA.

Fog Clouds?

Blindsight or other sensory abilities.

Entangling Exhalation(against non-evasion foes)?

Freedom of Movement.

Hell, Grease even has mandatory immediate effects.

5 ranks in Balance.

Get the idea? Most things in D&D have a counter. Sometimes it's a hard counter like simply being able to teleport around a force barrier or being flat-out-immune to a status effect; sometimes it's a soft counter such as having high enough saves that a SoL has a low chance of landing. Very few things are auto-successes, and if they are they're generally lower-power effects.

Monsters also generally do not walk around with their statblocks on a sign above their head. Hence, when you chuck a Slow or Grease or Stinking Cloud or Hold Monster or Ray of Enfeeblement at something, you rarely if ever know whether it's guaranteed to work. (If you DO know all the monster's weaknesses, it's probably a sign that the fight isn't likely to be a very challenging one in the first place.)

I draw that line because it *is* there. Knowing that you can deal more in a single full-attack pounce than a particular enemy has HP means something different than when you don't know. Sure, if you're dealing with increment-level damage, you won't normally know how much HP the opponent has left, but 800 damage is enough to drop pretty much any caster you're going to come across until epic play, and there's at least a few builds that drop that much damage casually.

Ah, in that case your advice isn't going to be much use in normal games (since the vast majority of people don't play with 800-damage uberchargers for a variety of good reasons). You should probably note that somewhere.

[drengnikrafe]

Dude, I hope I'm not coming off as an arrogant prick. I'm just slapping terms together with the concepts that don't already evoke different concepts.

I naturally get irritated at people who deftly defeat my ideas. Something about subconscious feelings of inadequacy.
Be glad. You're adding to this discussion in a meaningful way. I didn't.

[Godskook]

Teleport Without Error. Most outsiders have it as a SLA.

So? The goal was to prevent the opponent from attacking, and if they're spending the action teleporting, then I'd say mission accomplished.

Blindsight or other sensory abilities.

Not a variable. Fog Clouds just fail against such creatures.

Freedom of Movement.

See above, although in this case, it is quite often difficult to tell who has it.

5 ranks in Balance.

Check again. The part I'm referencing doesn't need a balance check either.

Get the idea? Most things in D&D have a counter. Sometimes it's a hard counter like simply being able to teleport around a force barrier or being flat-out-immune to a status effect; sometimes it's a soft counter such as having high enough saves that a SoL has a low chance of landing. Very few things are auto-successes, and if they are they're generally lower-power effects.

I agree in principle. Tactics are about give and take, strikes and counterstrikes.

Monsters also generally do not walk around with their statblocks on a sign above their head. Hence, when you chuck a Slow or Grease or Stinking Cloud or Hold Monster or Ray of Enfeeblement at something, you rarely if ever know whether it's guaranteed to work. (If you DO know all the monster's weaknesses, it's probably a sign that the fight isn't likely to be a very challenging one in the first place.)

Yeah, but knowing what specific options to use on which opponents is a form of Knowledge Economy.

Ah, in that case your advice isn't going to be much use in normal games (since the vast majority of people don't play with 800-damage uberchargers for a variety of good reasons). You should probably note that somewhere.

I did......

Also, Uberchargers and Mailmen are just one case where this happens. It also happens whenever the mooks are just cleave-fodder to the fighter, or in many other situations. The point is, "Killing Creature" is different from "Dealing Damage", and one is tactically more important than the other, in general. Great Cleave exists precisely because the game assumes that the DM will periodically send creatures against the players that the fighter can reliably kill more than two of in a single full-round attack.

[Kylarra]

It's worth pointing out that some systems, WW's ST system comes to mind offhand, do impose penalties based on how many of your "health levels" or equivalent you have remaining, so the 1hp is as good as full hp efficiency detraction from direct damage doesn't hold true in every system. I realize this is primarily a D&D forum, but I wanted to throw it out. (SWSE sort of straddles the line with its condition track, particularly the one based on massive damage, and 4e also has bloodied at half hp which makes some powers more and less effective against/for you).

[Godskook]

Easy enough. AD&D, 1st edition, medium-to-high level play.

By the time you reach around 12th level, the saving throw values of your opponents are so high that hitting them with a save-or-lose, save-or-suck, or even most battlefield control spells in that edition becomes increasingly pointless. Grappling was suboptimal, tripping was an optional rule and so were called shots. Optimization of hit point damage delivery to allow for superweapons was relatively limited. The end-all and be-all of combat in 1st edition was hit point damage. You could kill most enemies twice through hit point damage before a save-or-lose attack got through.

Sounds like Action Advantage would play a rather large role in combat at those levels, then. Other than that, I'll take your word for it, as I'm not familiar with how the system worked at all.

And what you seem prepared to call Delay is Attrition with another label slapped on it. We have equal resources; I can drain your resources through incremental damage faster than you can drain mine; therefore I win. Calling it something else doesn't MAKE it something else.

How, pray tell, are you ensuring that your incremental damage is faster than theirs?

[Superglucose]

I agree with saph. Saying "targetting HP is suboptimal" is a bit misleading.

What would you rather me do than Disintegrate, Finger of Death? Never mind that it allows a fort save and is easily stopped by a fourth level spell that is easy to come by.

Also:

So? The goal was to prevent the opponent from attacking, and if they're spending the action teleporting, then I'd say mission accomplished.

That's not how the action economy works... spending 1 action to stop 1 action is a net wash, and the only thing the GM needs to do to make your day horrible is to have monsters who use your wall to their advantage or bring more monsters to the fight than you have.

Or even equal monsters.

[Greenish]

How, pray tell, are you ensuring that your incremental damage is faster than theirs?

Bigger sword.

[Godskook]

I agree with saph. Saying "targetting HP is suboptimal" is a bit misleading.

What would you rather me do than Disintegrate, Finger of Death? Never mind that it allows a fort save and is easily stopped by a fourth level spell that is easy to come by.

Disintegrate carries enough natural damage just by caster level to kill most humanoids of equal level with bad fort saves, so given those choices, I'd go with Disintegrate. But those are very specific spells, rather than abstract tactics. Just because something is theoretically sub-optimal doesn't mean that in some situations it won't be the best choice available. Sometimes, the best choice you can make is to simply swing your sword a few more times. It happens.

That's not how the action economy works... spending 1 action to stop 1 action is a net wash, and the only thing the GM needs to do to make your day horrible is to have monsters who use your wall to their advantage or bring more monsters to the fight than you have.

Or even equal monsters.

Walls are battlefield control, not action economy. Spending an action to limit an opponent's actions in a relevant way is a great BC tactic. Putting up a wall that prevents attacks from enemies that are too dangerous to allow attacks from is good. Dividing the enemy so that your team can kill off one half while the other half spends actions becoming relevant is good. Walls are all about the old saying "Divide and Conquer". Sure, there's situations where dropping a wall is not the best option, but overall, it is a pretty good one.

[Hallavast]

An Orb of Fire is a multi-threat spell that, in certian situations can increase the threat rating further. It offers Action Advantage, Incremental, with the possibility of greater action advantage if used as a readied action to interupt another's spellcasting. Fireball, unless readied is merely an Incremental threat, and one that is especially vulnerable to the opponent's BC. Grease is another great spell, offering action advantage, battlefield control and debuff.

Emphasis mine.

I'm not sure I understand. How is fireball more or less subject to battlefield control than orb of fire?

[Godskook]

Emphasis mine.

I'm not sure I understand. How is fireball more or less subject to battlefield control than orb of fire?

If the enemy spreads out, you can no longer target multiples.
If the enemy uses your own tanks as anti-fireball shields, you must sacrifice some of the friend's HP in order to target them all.

Orb of Fire has less to worry about in this regard, requiring only that you have LoE/LoS and that your target isn't 'in melee' yet.

[Melayl]

I challenge you to name one. RTS games are not among them. Nor is MtG. Nor Chess. No strategy game I know of has Incremental tactics as the premier tactical option. Well, maybe checkers. Err... nope, not there either. That's BC followed by Superweapons.

Actually, in most of my MtG games, incremental damage (one point at a time, no less) has often been the difference between victory and defeat.