Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5632061" data-attributes="member: 82106">Mmmmm, I have to conclude that you misunderstand the nature of tactics. Tactics isn't about a +1 or a +2. Tactics is much more than that. It is about bringing into existence the situations which accrue advantages to you, and deny them to the other side. It also involves 'higher level' types of advantages such as concentration of firepower, and abstract advantages like initiative (in the tactical theoretical sense, not the game mechanics sense). In the real world it would also include concepts like morale, which in the game is hard to quantify since it is up to the DM.Yeah, I think there's a whole other dimension to tactics that you're missing. In fact most of what people call 'tactics' in 4e is just bonus mongering anyway. It is tactics in the sense that doing A, B, and then C gives you more damage, but it doesn't relate all that much to the more interesting aspects of true tactics. So, for instance, using an FS to delay the arrival of one opponent in a spot where it can execute its plan could be a fine tactical objective and worth much more than the details of what square a monster is in, which a fighter could influence. If that extra turn gives the PCs on the spot a chance to make attacks on whatever monster they are concentrating on now without dealing with the other monster (say its OAs or conditions it might lay down if it were there) that is a real concrete tactical advantage that far outweighs a +2 somewhere. The best debuff is no attack at all for example. I didn't actually claim it did, I was mentioning Stinking Cloud there IIRC. The point is none of this gets at the point, which is that the new FS motivates monsters to move, the old one doesn't in as many cases. New one is more about control, old one is more about damage. The point holds.</blockquote>

Verification