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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 6343462" data-attributes="member: 205">I agree with your point here.  I'm just struggling with how it's in the DM's purview to reward tactical play if that reward isn't already within the game rules.  Do you give out Inspiration points for making the right maneuver pick?    Sure, it's pretty damn impossible to measure precisely.  But battles come down to two basic considerations; you're either knocking off the opponent's hit points or you're preventing them from knocking off yours.  The champion presents a pretty simple baseline, because he pretty much does damage.  A battlemaster who's giving buffs to other players is more complicated to determine, because of the variation in party composition.No, but the tactical player is going to compare two subclasses to each other.  I'm not worried about player A, who loves tactics, comparing herself to player B, who doesn't.  I'm worried about player A weighing the options between battlemaster and champion and discovering that the battlemaster is strictly inferior to the champion in what they can contribute, unless the battlemaster is played perfectly.  What I'm saying is you can't have an option to attract tactical players by saying "Look, it's so shiny with all these maneuvers!" and not expect them to measure it and say "Yea, it has some maneuvers, but the champion still does twice as much damage.  I'm choosing that."  One of the main characteristics of a tactical player is that they're going to look at the results, not just the process. Again, it has nothing to do with a player A vs player B.  It has to do with class A vs class B.  It's about making your choice as a tactical player of what to play.  It's about being aware that to a tactical player, results matter.  It's not just about having complexity for complexity's sake.</blockquote>

Verification