Mobility Tactics vs Offensive Tactics; what's the point?

[Ectar]

Insofar as I can tell, no ability, feat, or class feature interacts with the level 1 Tactic classification. So why bother separating them?

I could see a world where at level 1 the Commander gets 2 mobility tactics and 2 offensive tactics or maybe a feat that has an effect when you use a Mobility Tactic or something. So could be design space left blank for future iteration?

I dunno; seems unnecessary atm to break 'em up into categories if those categories don't mean anything besides broad strokes description.

[Easl]

I figured they did it for readability. It's kinda nice, IMO.

[Perses13]

There's several prerequisites for commander feats that seem to only be there for restricting the multiclass archetype (Combat Medic, Deceptive Tactics, etc.). Its possible the mobility and offensive split is there for a similar reason.

[The Raven Black]

My guess is that there will be a question in the survey based on this split.

[exequiel759]

That was something I noticed too. Either they forgot to add that distinction to the higher level ones or didn't think it was needed since there were so few of them except for the initial ones.

In either case, I honestly think they could remove it unless they plan to use them for something. Something like "You can prepare 2 offensive and 2 mobility tactics" or something like that. I would prefer for them to entirely remove them though.

[shroudb]

I also wonder if there's the possibility to expand the tactic limit later on with a feat or something, like "the first mobility tactic that someone benefits from doesn't count towards the 1 tactic per round limit" or something.

Apart from that, I guess it's mostly for neater bookkeeping?

[Mellored]

My guess is they where experimenting with "Take 1 mobility, 1 offensive".
But then dropped the idea.

Easl wrote:

I figured they did it for readability. It's kinda nice, IMO.

except Shields Up doesn't fit under either.