To Pre-Buff or Not to Pre-Buff: THAT is the Question

[Lyric Suite]

Question to all the no-rest is too teh hard scrubs here: name one game that has encounters you can't overcome without pre-buffing.

SCS at the highest setting is the only thing i can think of, and even there you don't really need more than an handful of spells (like in the Saverok fight in BG1, where buffing yourself does jack shit because the mages have so many defences that buffing does shit all unless they are long lasting. So much so the best way to beat the fight is walk in with invisibility on and let the mages buffs expire lmao).

Of course, SCS is a mod intended to make the game harder beyond what was originally intended, so i don't know if it counts. I still do a no-rest rule even on my SCS runs because that's just how i roll.

 

[Norfleet]

If an RPG, let's take Icewind Dale as an example, is designed in such a way that can result in a typical party very easily being overwhelmed by unfair numbers and strength of enemies that one normally wouldn't expect to see in the PnP equivalent of said game, then you're skewing how it must be played in favor of both the metagamer (*scoff*) and the savescummer (*spits*). Icewind Dale is guilty of this on occasion, but most notably in its Trials of the Luremaster expansion. Even the base game itself has fights that almost demand pre-buffing if the party is to survive.

I never actually used prebuffing in IWD, I mostly relied on this one tactic. I'd scout the area with a cloaked thief, and then, head right into the middle of the crowd, drop cloak, activate the dagger that casts Resilient Sphere on you. As the only enemy in sight, every enemy would immediately go and swarm around and attack that target, despite being unable to harm it in any way.

NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED

If you're not willing to shell your own position, you're not willing to win.

 

[laclongquan]

It is fun but I think you are going to tire off it after the twentieth time. There's no blood raising action, no threat. And in a combat heavy game like IWD, fun need to be enduring, not shortlived.

The classical strategy of forming meatshield to stall enemies outside of caster's personal distance, then bombard them with AoE like fireball is more like it. It's more exciting that way because one misclick and friendfire will splash over your meatshield.

 

[Desiderius]

Nah anything that reminds me of FarmVille MMOs is not fun. Fighters are for killing, not picking their nose while the Mage does all the work.

And Scouting is always a thrill a minute whether the plan comes together or goes horribly wrong.

The best use for nukes is for cleaning up those messes or countering an ambush where all your prebuff shields are down.

 

[Norfleet]

The classical strategy of forming meatshield to stall enemies outside of caster's personal distance, then bombard them with AoE like fireball is more like it. It's more exciting that way because one misclick and friendfire will splash over your meatshield.

In IWD, I'd do that on purpose, by immunizing my meatshield against damage with Resilient Sphere. This let me drop all the artillery I wanted indiscriminately while having all of my enemies surrounding ground zero.

Do summons count as a pre-buff for the purpose of this discussion (if only in practice: cast ahead of time for offense/defense bonus)?

No, summons don't count. I summon even out of combat with no foreknowledge that combat will occur just to use them as scouting, whereas pre-buffing is something that you do when you KNOW combat will occur. I summon on map entry just to deploy scouts, regardless of if I ultimately found combat. They are also extremely effective at disarming traps, which means you, again, deploy them even without knowing there will be combat.

 

[Fenris 2.0]

To cast a few dozen Buffs before a Battle is silly.

 

[laclongquan]

Nah anything that reminds me of FarmVille MMOs is not fun. Fighters are for killing, not picking their nose while the Mage does all the work.

If you play in easy diff, then yeah, casters can do all the work and fighters just sit there picking nose.

Highest difficulty has the meatshield desperately hold back the waves while casters desperately throw spells. They do damage but enemies are. SO. TOUGH.

Proof? Highest difficult and HoF mode of Icewind Dale2, the tally of kill XP show halberd fightercleric has more kill xp than anything else, 18-19%, because he stand on frontline and can cause more damage, kill more easily than the casters, who mostly share 14-15% kill xp. Even the fighter thief Deep Gnome can score 17%, higher than average, because arrows can reach more easily and sometimes can steal a kill from fighter cleric. The archetype paladin with sword and shield actually has only average kill xp because her role is to stand the tide. She can not cause more damage than the longhandle weapon user or reach farther than the thief using bow.

 

[Tavernking]

Pre-buffing is satisfying, but every game that allows for it should avoid having too many combat encounters...

 

[waken]

I've had this conversation many times but i need to remind you that buffing is based on a real archetype: blessing before a battle was actually a thing in the middle ages.

Still is a thing.

 

[Lacrymas]

Ugh, it's as if nobody ever reads anything that is posted on here. Let's get some things out of the way.

1. "The BG series did pre-buffing and resource attrition perfectly so there was no need to change anything!"

No, it didn't. You always, ALWAYS had the option to rest and recharge whatever you wanted, effectively removing any sort of resource attrition that might've been intended (which we know it wasn't, BG was a dumbed down game for casuals). There wasn't a single fight in the whole game which required you to empty your entire spellbook to force you to think whether to use the spell slots for buffs or damaging spells. Both of these things combined means the Vancian system was mangled and wasn't used at all for the purpose it was created.

2. "Nobody complained about pre-buffing in ye olden days!"

Even if this is absolutely true (which it isn't) and nobody ever complained, that doesn't mean it's not a degenerate mechanic that only serves to waste time and only ever truly rewards metagaming even if done perfectly. If done perfectly, you wouldn't be able to scout out a fight, change the spells, rest and then do the fight, you'd be locked in your choice for a duration of time/the whole dungeon, so only metagaming can ever be rewarded. When there is no pre-buffing, at least you get the knowledge to not use that spell you've memorized in that fight when you scout and save it for later. Sawyer might be the first person to ever notice it and that wouldn't make it less valid.

3. "It's action economy!" (in the sense that it frees you to do other stuff during combat)

There are other ways to eliminate buffing to let you do other things in combat, whether that is permanent auras or feats, lack of buffing in general, permanent buffs you get from quests, etc. There's no need for it to be a time-waster the way it is now. It also removes a defensive layer in combat, you can only ever use your spells offensively if this is taken to the logical extreme. The exceptions being healing spells and if a buff runs out in combat, which people praise, but that can be applied to all buffs to always add that bit of choice. Which leads to -

4. "It adds a tactical choice!" (and it's conspicuously only when a buff runs out in combat)

I don't know why people do this, purposefully ignoring their own arguments. You praise the addition of tactical choice, but condemn it when it's actually present. It's only ever a choice when there is another, equally valid, choice to make in its place. That means that you EITHER buff OR do something else, not have the option to do both at the same time, which pre-buffing allows. The counter argument here is that it's resource conservation to choose to not use the slots for buffs, but that is not an inherent pro in pre-buffing. You can still have spell slots AND no pre-buffing, like PoE showed. Let's transpose this to a D&D game with no prebuffing, you choose Armor, Burning Hands and Blindness, so you are now free to cast those spells in combat. You cast Armor in the first fight (instead of before the first fight) and bam, that spell slot is already used. You could've chosen 2 times Burning Hands instead of Armor. There is no argument here because this can be present when there is pre-buffing and when there isn't. I.e. this is irrelevant.

5. "You can choose not to pre-buff if it's that tedious; or there is no need to pre-buff for every fight, so there is no tediousness involved!"

I didn't know not using the system to your fullest advantage is a virtue. I really don't know what else to say here, the argument is basically that it is tedious but you can make it not tedious by not using it. How is this a defense and not an indictment?

People only like pre-buffing because it makes them feel smart compared to people who don't pre-buff. Like they've found the Holy Grail. It's a shiny veneer that seems intelligent because it makes you win fights, but in actuality it enabled everyone to win by increasing the stats of your characters to such high levels before combat that it's almost impossible to lose without actually having to do any thinking or make any erudite choices.

If you have any other arguments, come at me.

 

[Faarbaute]

Ugh, it's as if nobody ever reads anything that is posted on here. Let's get some things out of the way.

1. "The BG series did pre-buffing and resource attrition perfectly so there was no need to change anything!"

No, it didn't. You always, ALWAYS had the option to rest and recharge whatever you wanted, effectively removing any sort of resource attrition that might've been intended (which we know it wasn't, BG was a dumbed down game for casuals). There wasn't a single fight in the whole game which required you to empty your entire spellbook to force you to think whether to use the spell slots for buffs or damaging spells. Both of these things combined means the Vancian system was mangled and wasn't used at all for the purpose it was created.

2. "Nobody complained about pre-buffing in ye olden days!"

Even if this is absolutely true (which it isn't) and nobody ever complained, that doesn't mean it's not a degenerate mechanic that only serves to waste time and only ever truly rewards metagaming even if done perfectly. If done perfectly, you wouldn't be able to scout out a fight, change the spells, rest and then do the fight, you'd be locked in your choice for a duration of time/the whole dungeon, so only metagaming can ever be rewarded. When there is no pre-buffing, at least you get the knowledge to not use that spell you've memorized in that fight when you scout and save it for later. Sawyer might be the first person to ever notice it and that wouldn't make it less valid.

3. "It's action economy!" (in the sense that it frees you to do other stuff during combat)

There are other ways to eliminate buffing to let you do other things in combat, whether that is permanent auras or feats, lack of buffing in general, permanent buffs you get from quests, etc. There's no need for it to be a time-waster the way it is now. It also removes a defensive layer in combat, you can only ever use your spells offensively if this is taken to the logical extreme. The exceptions being healing spells and if a buff runs out in combat, which people praise, but that can be applied to all buffs to always add that bit of choice. Which leads to -

4. "It adds a tactical choice!" (and it's conspicuously only when a buff runs out in combat)

I don't know why people do this, purposefully ignoring their own arguments. You praise the addition of tactical choice, but condemn it when it's actually present. It's only ever a choice when there is another, equally valid, choice to make in its place. That means that you EITHER buff OR do something else, not have the option to do both at the same time, which pre-buffing allows. The counter argument here is that it's resource conservation to choose to not use the slots for buffs, but that is not an inherent pro in pre-buffing. You can still have spell slots AND no pre-buffing, like PoE showed. Let's transpose this to a D&D game with no prebuffing, you choose Armor, Burning Hands and Blindness, so you are now free to cast those spells in combat. You cast Armor in the first fight (instead of before the first fight) and bam, that spell slot is already used. You could've chosen 2 times Burning Hands instead of Armor. There is no argument here because this can be present when there is pre-buffing and when there isn't. I.e. this is irrelevant.

5. "You can choose not to pre-buff if it's that tedious; or there is no need to pre-buff for every fight, so there is no tediousness involved!"

I didn't know not using the system to your fullest advantage is a virtue. I really don't know what else to say here, the argument is basically that it is tedious but you can make it not tedious by not using it. How is this a defense and not an indictment?

People only like pre-buffing because it makes them feel smart compared to people who don't pre-buff. Like they've found the Holy Grail. It's a shiny veneer that seems intelligent because it makes you win fights, but in actuality it enabled everyone to win by increasing the stats of your characters to such high levels before combat that it's almost impossible to lose without actually having to do any thinking or make any erudite choices.

If you have any other arguments, come at me.

How about, because its fun to have options? Especially before you have allready played a game 7 times and figured out the optimal way to play. Who gives a shit at that point?

I immidetly got a sinking feeling when I booted up Pillars of Eternity for the first time and realised Sawyer, the arch retard, had arbitrarily decided wich spells could be cast outside of combat.

 

[Lacrymas]

How about, because its fun to have options?

Not having pre-buffing is what leads to options like I argued in that whole thing. Allow pre-buffing only on easy difficulty and below. That would be fine.