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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6757836" data-attributes="member: 6790260">That's a new one--I've never heard of getting "lost" (in the "I have no idea what's going on!!" sense) in stuff like Page 42. It's only a couple pages of rules, plus (IIRC, I'm too lazy to dig out my 4e DMG) a couple of tables, right? And, in theory anyway, the players need never actually look at those rules at all--they're just a useful tool in the (4e) DM's pocket."Tactical" things, for me, need...a certain kind of build-up, I guess is the best way to put it.1. They need to be elective, not passive. Extra crit range, or always being able to make 2 attacks when you take the Attack action, can't be "tactical." You aren't choosing to use them, they simply happen as an automatic part of stuff you would definitely always be doing (making attack rolls).2. They need to have meaningful trade-offs. "Use it now, or use it later" is not a particularly meaningful trade-off. A true opportunity cost, e.g. "get a small but potentially-pivotal benefit right now, or an undefined but potentially-large benefit later" is one kind of meaningful trade-off. Another kind of trade-off is electing to take on a greater risk in the hope of a greater reward, or going for a safer but less-rewarding path.3. Where applicable, they need to have alternatives that are roughly similar in breadth and power. I would not consider it a "tactical" choice to choose between an ability that provides a largely situational benefit (e.g. "bonus damage to undead creatures") and only works under uncommon circumstances (e.g. "when you make a save against a Fear effect"), and another ability that provides a very general benefit (e.g. "hit bonus") and works under extremely common circumstances ("when you make a melee attack.") The fewer alternatives available, the more it is necessary that all of them be, again, roughly similar in breadth and power--though an increase in one can be partially made up for by a decrease in the other or vice-versa, it's a touchy thing.4. Their frequency should be inversely proportional to their power. Spells are almost always really powerful things, so a character casting more than two spells in a single encounter (whether combat or not) is something of a Big Deal. Maneuvers, on the other hand, almost always affect just a single attack roll, and (at most) inflict a status condition for a single round, possibly less. Thus, for them to reach a similar tactical level, they need to come up more often than spells--sometimes substantially more often. (Hence why I noted, above, that maneuver dice actually fall behind number of spells cast, despite being distinctly less powerful than 3rd or even 2nd level spells most of the time.)5. They need to involve the expenditure of a resource. This one's a bit of a no-brainer, and kinda merges with both #2 (resource expenditure = opportunity cost) and #3 (resource can be spent on different, but commensurate, things). I suspect a lot of people see the presence of resource expenditure as wholly sufficient for a class to be "tactical," but I couldn't disagree more. I see resource expenditure as not at all sufficient, but very much necessary, for a class to be "tactical."</blockquote>

Verification