Talisman wrote:~Swift-action casting time (no wasted actions)
~Cast in the pre-battle buffing stage (not always possible)
~Worth sacrificing a full attack (in which case the spell's effect had better be at least equal to a full attack).
Any warrior spell that does not do one of those is, as Bigode noted, a trap to waste your actions in.
Might be worth mentioning that a warrior class that had spells close-but-not equal to spellcasters' (eldritch knight for a sort-of example; I know its physical combat ability isn't all that, though), or
few spells actually equal to spellcasters' (
pact maker) would be different valid approaches.
RandomCasualty2 wrote:Yeah, though really, I think the prebuff stage is something we want to try to eliminate, as it unbalances combats in terms of the attacker, and also allows theoretically infinite buffs, which is just plain dangerous, since every buff you print can get stacked on via prebuffing.
Swift action casting seems like the mechanic we should most try to adopt, either that or swift action sustaining.
Swift action casting has precisely nothing to do with your main point, actually. And your main point's weak: nowhere it's said buffing automatically means unbounded stacking,
and attacker advantage can be accounted for, for example with all the advantages that being in one's grounds should have.
sigma999 wrote:Swift action buffing is something Koumei and a few others (and me) here discussed here a while ago concerning Psychic Warrior fixes, and I believe the consensus was strong that it's a greatly preferred alternative to prebuffing routines. Can't remember which thread though.
While swift actions are good for other reasons, they don't preclude pre-buffing in any way, unless all durations are at most 1 round, in which case you're actually talking about ToB boosts and stances, and you might do better using that terminology.
sigma999 wrote:I've played 3 Paladins (1 was AD&D) and saw similar results, but rather than use spells in combat at all I instead saved the slots for post-combat fixes or other useless gimmicks. In battle they pretty much played out as a greatsword Fighter, a monk, or mace/shield Cleric in each of 3.
A warrior that worked in some non-retarded way in combat but actually had only non-combat spells would be interesting as well; in fact, one might argue something like that's even needed to make a physical character that doesn't behave a lot like a rogue (not to mean rogues aren't physical; I mean "to make another that plays differently from them) out of combat.
