Battle system

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

OrwellianHaggis

Jul 31, 2014 10:33:01

Anyone heard any more news about this? Is it still being developed or has it been binned? 

#2

Novacat

Jul 31, 2014 11:02:58

Lolwut?

#3

Slyck314

Jul 31, 2014 11:13:50 		Just the one L&L and I think there was a tweet. I don't know if it will he a chapter in the PHB or the DMG.
#4

kalil

Jul 31, 2014 11:38:31

I wouldnt hold my breath tbh

#5

Slyck314

Jul 31, 2014 11:48:52 		Why not? I got the impression it was a simple translation of the existing rules to a different scale. I think he even posted that the chapter was already written.
(Reply to #5)

DavidArgall

Slyck314 wrote:
#7

Azzy1974

Jul 31, 2014 12:33:55

OrwellianHaggis wrote:
#8

Slyck314

Jul 31, 2014 12:36:11 		I felt the original Battlesystem was successful. And even then to complicated for my needs. I just want a simple elegant system that can be quickly picked up when needed but will sit on the shelf most of the time. The article seemed like they were pointed in just the right direction.
#9

CCS

Jul 31, 2014 12:37:24 		It's not terribly hard to come up with a simple, abstract, mass combat system. Especially if you're not trying to sell it as a stand alone game (ala Warhammer).
#10

seti

Jul 31, 2014 12:43:51

I'd hope it'd be a separate book.* I don't want the DMG to lose all the pages it'd take to do it right. Like most interesting new things discussed for 5e, if it happens at all, it will be in 2015 or later. I personally care more about psionics, campaign settings, classes and races that didn't make it into the PHB, and a DMG that actually has lots of the optional rules modules they've been bragging about. 

 

In the mean time, what I've done to run that sort of thing in D&D is take a different game and play that for a session, lol. There are tons of good battle games out there. If your campaign needs a war that's not just DM narrated, do that.

 

 

 

*Because: a) not everyone wants it. b) To do it right, it'd take 60+ pages, and c) as someone said, all the spell stuff alone is complex and probably would take another 60+ pages.

#11

pukunui

Jul 31, 2014 13:55:19

The Battlesystem mass combut module will be in the DMG.

#12

Sword_of_Spirit

Jul 31, 2014 15:46:42

seti wrote:
(Reply to #10)

CCS

seti wrote:
#14

TiaNadiezja

Jul 31, 2014 20:47:57

Exalted has excellent mass combat rules and they only take a few pages in the core book.

 

Pirates of the Spanish Main is the most fun I've ever had with a dedicated minis wargame and its rules fit in a tiny flyer.

 

I don't think we have to worry about Battlesystem eating the DMG.

#15

Jbickley00

Jul 31, 2014 21:10:35

Dnd was born from a decent mass battle system, chainmail.

#16

Sturmunddrang

Jul 31, 2014 21:47:20

Slyck314 wrote:
#17

TiaNadiezja

Jul 31, 2014 22:06:43

Sturmunddrang wrote:
(Reply to #17)

Cennedi

TiaNadiezja wrote:
#19

TiaNadiezja

Jul 31, 2014 23:02:21

Cennedi wrote:
#20

Luis_Carlos

Aug 01, 2014 0:03:11

For mass battles my suggestion is the "squad" like monster subtype. It works like the swarn monster subtype but you can use for humanoids or big monsters. 

#21

fjw70

Aug 01, 2014 8:40:19

5e was never promised to end the edition wars or unite the player base, but it's hard to see if it meets the promises it did make since the core books aren't out yet.

#22

Kalani

Aug 01, 2014 10:04:07

From what we are lead to believe, the battle system will function very similar to the normal combat rules. As such, it will not require more than a few pages to cover the basic rules. I expect however, that this section will cover a full chapter and include rules for seige weapons, mass-battle feats, a list of common stands, veichles, etc. 

 

  • Units of characters (called a Stand) will replace individual characters on the battlefield, and rounds are measured in minutes, while squares are "20 squares on a side".
  • Stands can attack solo characters, making one attack/creature within the stand. Solo characters (such as PCs) can prevent this by joining forces with a stand. If they do so, enemy stands can still target them, but only make 1 attack/minute.
  • Solo's continue to make 1 attack/round (even when attached to a stand), while stands make 1 attack/minute.
  • Basically, for every 10 rounds of PC combat, one round of mass battle is fought.

 

I like this, its simple and evokes a feeling of importance to the PCs, whose actions can potentially  turn the tide quickly due to operating on smaller time scales.

#23

MechaPilot

Aug 02, 2014 15:57:53

Cennedi wrote:
(Reply to #19)

LupusRegalis

TiaNadiezja wrote:
#25

MechaPilot

Aug 02, 2014 23:50:34

LupusRegalis wrote:
#26

ChrisCarlson

Aug 03, 2014 7:44:06

You should have asked him which particular playstyle(s), specifically, aren't being facilitated...

 

Because I keep hearing that same whiney, "I'm not being catered to!" mantra, and I don't get it.

#27

Kalani

Aug 03, 2014 9:18:12

The irony is, these people are complaining prior to the rules being released and are therefore, complaining about unknowns.

 

A few posts above, someone mentioned that the Basic rules are not a living, frequently updated document..... By what sane rationale is this even true. 

LupusRegalis wrote:
#28

LupusRegalis

Aug 03, 2014 9:40:18

I'm saying they're not even planning to create an online SRD comparable to Pathfinders.  There's nothing spoiled about that, it's comparing one resource to another.

 

Passing judgement though, I definitely am.  I'm not impressed, and the previews we've been shown only reafirm that impression.

 

As to ChrisCarlson's statement;  You keep saying that, but every time someone explains to you why they feel that way, you get all huffy.  You like 5e, good for you.  Others see the problems.

#29

ChrisCarlson

Aug 03, 2014 9:45:05

LupusRegalis wrote:
#30

ChrisCarlson

Aug 03, 2014 10:14:03

LupusRegalis wrote:
#31

Kalani

Aug 03, 2014 10:42:00

All of those are fair statements of opinion. With that being said, I respectfully disagree that the Dev's are only catering to the traditionalist fanbase. In light of the overwhelming rejection and unpopularity of 4th edition (I liked it, but those that did were in the minority), the dev's were extremely careful to gauge the desires of the collective dnd community, and amassed a massive amount of player feedback from both the closed and open playtests, and the opinion polls conducted at the bottom of every article throughout the majority of the 5e design phase.

 

There were over 150,000 gamers who playtested 5e throughout its various playtest incarnations, especially during the open playtest (final two playtest packets). These playtesters came from all editions, and each had their own distinct styles and preferences. In addition to the wealth of playtester feedback, the Dev's also ran an exhaustive series of data-collecting polls in order to gauge the overall preferences and opinion of the collective Dnd Fanbase.

 

Given the fact that most of the people reading the website during said polls were 4E and 3.X players, it is a fair assumption that the voice of the "modern" Dnd community was heard, and accounted for in the design process. This is further reinforced by the fact that the percentage of lapsed dnd players who participated in the 5e playtest was smaller simply due to their lack of knowledge and/or interest in the playtest. As such, it is a fair statement to say that the majority of playtesters were also "active" dnd and/or pathfinder players.

 

The dnd community as a whole voted loudly in respect to 5Es design, throughout the entire process. As such, I cannot help but see your words as hyperbole. 

 

With that being said, I expect many mutually exclusive rules which did not make the cut, but which were still widely popular (such as alternative healing mechanics) will show up in the DMG as variant "modular" rulesystems that each group can mix/match to create a game they want to play, with all of them being considered equally valid options. As I said in another thread, it is my belief that the DMG has killed the Unearthed Arcana and stolen its stuff, adding legitimacy to the various modular variant systems.

#32

ChrisCarlson

Aug 03, 2014 10:46:00

Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #32)

LupusRegalis

ChrisCarlson wrote:
#34

ChrisCarlson

Aug 03, 2014 11:09:54

LupusRegalis wrote:
(Reply to #34)

LupusRegalis

ChrisCarlson wrote:
#36

ChrisCarlson

Aug 03, 2014 11:37:05

LupusRegalis wrote:
#37

Kalani

Aug 03, 2014 12:01:57

LupusRegalis wrote:
#38

ChrisCarlson

Aug 03, 2014 12:11:08

Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #27)

DavidArgall

Kalani wrote:
#40

Kalani

Aug 03, 2014 13:52:49

DavidArgall wrote:
#41

MechaPilot

Aug 03, 2014 14:20:27

LupusRegalis wrote:
#42

ORC_Cricket

Aug 03, 2014 18:50:09

We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.

 

You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct

 

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

 

Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.  

 

Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.