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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheLoneRanger1979" data-source="post: 6757860" data-attributes="member: 6804148">Ah, that's not what i meant by lost. Not in that set of rule, but in all the rules in general. When i think of 4E, the first thing i remember about the classes i played, is all the pages of power cards and all the fine details of their working <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As for the rest of the post, i think i now understand why you think the way you do. From the 5 points (requirements) you noted for the "tactical" dimension of a character, it would follow that the BM is indeed not as tactical as many people would think (though still not tactical-less.... is that even a word?). For me though, the word tactical has a somewhat different meaning that somewhat inter crosses with yours, but inly partially. The first thing that comes to mind (and the least relevant to DnD) is the meaning of tactical as a military in nature (i.e. tactical knife, tactical vest). On the board (or table) on the other hand, this description doesn't quite fit so well. So when i mean of tactical, i actually mean of the way (as in means) by which one conducts the strategic goals. Now to just be more clear, by strategic i mean in part what you mean by tactical. Like resource management. Mages above all, to me were always the most strategic of classes. They best worked with long term goals, mostly because of the limited resources but the high impact of those same resources. But strategic also means (to me) the final result of the general intent (in this case passing a skill challenge or winning an encounter). So where do tactics figure into all this?Well, the tactics are the how strategy works into the turn by turn mechanics. I.E. if the general strategy for your party in battle is to channel the enemies into a killing zone, where your casters can bombard it with large number of AoEs or high DP(round/turn) attacks/spells, then the tactics are how do you do it. One way would be to draw them out to your (prov) tank(s), and then once engaged, do your thing. Or alternatively you can flank them on either side and contain them to a certain area. Or you could scout ahead and engaged the from BVR. As such, the tactical classes would be the classes that make these transitions "smoother" or "enable" them. In 4E this was the "controller" class (the mage). (For that i never forgave 4E, but let's not dwell on that). In more general RPG terms though, these would be the classes that can move around the field more effectively, enable others to move, hinder movement, enforce special conditions on targets or allies, and so on.To me this instantaneously screams rogues! And in 5E i see them as the most "tactical" of all the classes. I can see the arguments that some of casters also possess some of the spells needed for tactical ventures. However, the very nature of the limited resources they field, makes them in my eyes more of a strategic asset. Where does the BM figure into all this? The way i see it, the BM is the "tactical" version of the fighter. Is it the most tactical class in the system as it now stands? Not quite. But it certainly is the most tactical of the fighter archetypes. The Eldritch Knight being the most strategic of course and the Champion being the most direct (hands on) type. This doesn't mean that there are no strategic considerations to the BM as well. The limited availability of the SD (as you mentioned) is the primary culprit here. Compare it to the rogues more readily available pool of skills and proficiencies. However, given the more renewable nature of the SD when compared to the spell slots, i still think the BM is closer to the tactical role, then the caster. Objectively the BM is probably somewhere 1/2 way between a caster and a rogue. Still not to shabby for a fighter though (that originally just bashing things on the head mostly - mechanically wise) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />EDIT:Indeed. This is very close to what i had in mind in my original statement. To be honest, it would be very hard to make a real leader type character in a table top RPG. It will require a very cooperative group, GM and very skillful RP-ing on part of everyone. Kudos to the people that have pulled it off (i know some), but it is never the less a challenge for more green or even average players.</blockquote>

Verification