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: 6343621" data-attributes="member: 205">So, yes? <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=":)" />It's hard to measure with any sort of precision, sure.  But it's not hard to note quantitative differences in effectiveness.  Look at comparisons between the 4e vampire and the 4e ranger.  That's the sort of differentiation I'm worried about.  I actually really like the 4e vampire, because it oozes flavor, but I have a really hard time choosing it in a game that goes beyond mid-Heroic.I'm aware of the distinction between strategic and tactical.  But even tactical players make considerations when they build their character.  I don't know too many players of any sort who simply want to play whatever pre-gen is put in front of them.Actually, the article mentions almost the exact opposite point.  But I think you're missing my point here.  I'm simply saying that for the tactically-minded player, the fact that the Battlemaster gets more available tactics isn't enough.  It also has to perform at a comparable level to a Champion played by the same player.  Obviously, there are numerous caveats here, the most obvious being that effectiveness is really tough to measure.  Right now, I have no reason to think that the Battlemaster won't be awesome and be my personal choice for my Fighter..  But, to my mind, the expectation above is what it must fulfill to be considered as successful.</blockquote>

Verification