The grognards and anti-4th crowd have had their day with 5th edition.
Deliver the tactics module for the 3.5/Paizo and 4th fans.
A blurb or few pages in the upcoming Dumgeon Master's Guide will not suffice. Nor do the rules in the Player's Handbook suffice. It is easy to convert but it leaves much to be desired as far as tactical rules have been in the past.
Deliver a Tactics Module with officially sanctioned and written tactical rules. Acknowledge full fledged miniatures and grid combat. Deliver a module without the 'exploration' and 'role playing' "pillars" in it. Deliver more complex versions of monsters. Deliver feats, combat oriented class options, and let us purge what we don't like or need from the current rules- the exploration and role playing class options and feats.
I have less than no hope for this. At best it will be a tacked on afterthought, as opposed to an elegant and robust system. I would like to see what they produce so people can be disappointed and move on.
i think the idea of distinct 'modules' that you'd use to build a specific type of game has sort of fallen out of favor at the WotC offices. they've said tht they were surprised during the playtest to see that the majority of people actually want a pretty similar thing from 5e.
Wait, I'm a big fan of 4e, and yet I love the exploration/roleplaying elements of 5e!
In fact, 5e has turned out more fun to run for me as DM than my 4e and 3.5e and 2e games in the past, and every session is just a joy to play! And a lot of that is because we spend a ton of time on the roleplaying and the combat is streamlined. The tactics and combat don't steal the evening and make everyone tired.
hunterian7 wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
pukunui wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
As far as a "tactics" section goes, all I would like are: (i) a table of smaller bonuses and penalties eg: high ground +1 hit, flanking +2 hit, and so on, and (ii) a critical hit and fumble table.
What would a tactical module accomplish without an entirely different Monster Manual where 80%+ of the monsters aren't sacks of HP that only swing for damage?
pukunui wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
trebor_rjf wrote:
pukunui wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
pukunui wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I guess it depends on what you want in a tactics module. We have 8 pages of combat rules we know of in the DMG. The mass battle system is going to be free download. The battle rules would have taken chunk of those 8 pages. I do not think that environment or flanking rules would take more than 2 pages. If we are talking allot of +1 and +2 that would be large bonuses when looking at bounded accuracy. Most magic items are +1 and +3 is legendary. I think a way to deal with things like flanking high ground ect is advantage and disadvantage. This would not take more than a page or two. If you are talking about stretching out the proficency bonus to accomediate the +1 and +2 bonuses then this would take addtional paragraphs to look at AC and hit bonuses for characters, npcs, and monsters. I do not think that is the route they went. I think they just looked at things such as flanking and environment in the current bounded accuracy system which is fine with me (advantage and disadvantage).
As far as damage options. I think there will be called shots, lingering wounds, and massive damage. I am not sure about critical hits and fumbles tables. Like the battle system; critical hits and fumbles could take up to 3 to 4 pages depending on how detailed they are. We will see though.
I have said this several times but will say it again. I am very happy with 5e and bounded accuracy and advantage and disadvantage. I like the classes and feats and balance as far damage out put to the game. So even though I look forward to the DMG it is not a make or break book for 5e to me.
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
I doubt the 'Mass Combat' rules are anything more than a very slightly updated version of what's in the Companion Set (the C in BECMI). They won't go as far as Battlesystem did because Battlesystem was a rider for a minis sale push and we know they're not going to try that again (or at least, they've hinted as much).
I'm pretty certain there will not be a 'tactical module' at all, not in any meaningful way. There might be a couple of things like flanking and/or facing and bonii to hit from it (or advantage), but the entire system is designed to be devoid of grit as much as possible to avoid offending anyone other than 4E or hardcore 3E players because somewhere along the line it was determined that that segment + the older players who mostly dropped out is the key to sustainability. With the high reviews the game is getting here in the honeymoon period, they may be right. Only time will tell.
I'm hopeful that they can pull off a solid *tactics* module (and not just a tack on). If for no other reason than I'm happy with how 5e has turned out. It isn't 4e (that's good --and I'm speaking as a 4e fan here). It would be a mistake to *try* too hard hard I think. My impression is that the designers are taking their time with the game (IMO this hasn't always been the case in the past and I appreciate their deliberation now). Just get it *right* when the time comes. Speaking of 'right' . . .
shpelley wrote:
pukunui wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Dave2 wrote:
Mecha Pilot summed it up. A tactics module could include all sorts of cool things.
Replace role playing and exploration class features with combat ones.
Include skirmish rules for the minis released by Wizkids.
Rules incorporating the use of Dungeon Tiles: how to lay them out or have tables to randomly generate them.
Give SOLID advice and instructions on how to build combat encounters with miniatures and dungeon tiles.
Feats, feats and more feats.
A more variety of the staple monsters- goblins, gnolls, orcs, etc that provide more than what the MM offers. For example- Golblin Wolf Riders with appropriate stats or a Gnoll with heavy armor and a massive ball and chain with whirlwind stats.
And so on...
But, let's face it- there will not be a tactics module.
We still have no word on Dragon/Dungeon, we need a Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide (the core world of D&D), a Manual of the Planes and EVERYTHING else WotC has forgotten about producing.
Low overhead gives us the paltry release schedule we are seeing.
hunterian7 wrote:
There's a difference between minimal releases and 'book after book'. I'm hardly asking for that but a book every other month would be great- and not the adventure books.
Just because I want to solely focus on combat hardly means that we are playing a board game. We have plenty of narrative and role playing going on. We just don't like role playing and exploration being part of character classes. Well, we don't mind it. We just want pure combat options as well.
To make a sweeping statement that wanting pure combat options isn't D&D, and that it's a board game, is basically being stupid.
BTW- if you believe for one minute that they are massively slowing down the release schedule because the 'play test' revealed this as mass desire then you are missing the point about a business.
They don't have the resources to do a release every month. Have you seen the small staff that they currently have? It's a fraction of what it was in 2007. It's 25% of what they had in 2010.
They don't have the overhead, or staff, to pump out products. It's that simple. WotC states that it is because it's what the fans want because people like you believe them hook, line and sinker.
Bottom line- all WotC can release now are adventure books and 1 or 2 core books a years. That's paltry and notheathy for the game. Especially when all one has to do is look across the aisle and see all that Paizo has to offer- it's massive, it's FUN, and desired
by their fans.
So don't sit there and tell me that the playtesters wanted a WAY scaled down release schedule. It's simply not true.
hunterian7 wrote:
I suspect they would have got some feedback on less splat books. Mostly I think it is they can't produce more even if they wanted to. They have around half the staff of Paizo and Paizo uses freelancers a lot and they have a even smaller fraciton of the 3,0 staff which was 50+ apparently.
Still AD&D used to make 1 hard cover per year until 1985 give or take so there is that.
hunterian7 wrote:
I hope they actually write and publish a tactical and mass combat rulebook. Not just because they promised it, but also because we don't need 'rules' for role playing. Anyone can roleplay as much or as little as they want. Role-playing is all about creativity, ad-libing, and table discussion. Rules for RP is like rules for lovemaking. It's just a stupid idea.
We do need rules for tactical combat that make sense and don't contradict themselves or just hand-wave stuff off like "Well, you're DMing...Do what you want. We don't care and can't be bothered."
Also, it's rude to assume everyone likes sitting around, talking in funny accents, and pretending to be Monty Python when they get to gether to play D&D. Some people want a tight ruleset so there's less arguments and less "Just make it up. Whatever." from the Devs. When you spend 30-50 bucks on a gamebook (Or, more accurately, 90-150 for all 3 corebooks), you have expaectations of there being a complete game there.
Honestly, the Devs have been pretty lazy with 5e so far. I still like and will use 5e, but it's really sad that there's a ton of hand-waving being written by Mearls and Co. Professional game designers should design games professionally.
Wouldnt it also be rude to assume that roleplaying is sitting around talking in funny accents pretending to be Monty Python?
Admitedly hilariously rude.
To do a *tactics* module justice will require a book all its own I think. A few sidebars won't cut it. Not to say they won't have some guidelines in the DMG (I'm sure they will).
I imagine *tactics* as a system sorta like Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum, or Tome of Magic (with several new spellcasting systems). The game system works with or without the expansion, it's just something to have fun with.
I personally believe that staff is very small. So anything they put out is gonna take time. I don't want a rapid fire release schedule anyway, just a steady one. Definitely want the *tactics* rules. I'd love to see the Greyhawk settiing (longtime player but as venerable as that setting is, it would be brand new to me). After that, I'm pretty happy with 5e already 
; I'll just watch the slow-n-steady releases, and pick up what catches my interest.
The tactical module was delivered in 2008. It still works - and works well - to this day.
According to a source in Italy claiming to already have the DMG, facing and flanking rules at the very least are in it. So to some degree or another it looks like they will deliver the tactics module.
iserith wrote:
I think if there's a market for it and they feel the risk/reward of printing is good and they have a bit of business sense, they'll put together a tactics heavy (ie, with scenario generators) version. I know several people at my games store would buy them.
I dont want any splatbooks yet. In a year, one more player options book. Another year after that, another DM options book. And in between, lots of 3rd party adventures, please. That's all i want.
iserith wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Ok, to clarify (as it seems my overall point was misread/too ambiguous on my part), what I meant was that it isn't possible to do that via the rules as written in any of the books. Of course, houseruling/holistic DM adjudication makes that possible in ANY edition of the game (including 2e and 3e). There were, however, no rules in 4e specifically designed to allow someone to crawl up on the back of a larger creature. (Actually, there may have been one paragon path that allowed one power related to that concept, but I don't remember 100% for certain.) Meanwhile, the 5th DMG will have explicit rules for climbing up onto larger creatures and grabbing hold. That is all I was saying.
I'm not really liking the fact that WotC only wants to relase a few modules per year. One of the reasons I'm considering 5e is that I want to digest all the new modules and content. I want to play an edition that is currently supported.. In fact, I'd rather WotC work on publishing more modules over a tactics module. I'd like to see more effort spent on encouraging 3rd party content, the OGL, and even a new dungeon mag.
btw, it looks like WotC didn't like the other thread about the DMG leak. I guess we can take all that information seirously.
Cyber-Dave once again you were not participating in the game in question. It is erroneous for you to assume that the player in question "crawled or climbed".
draegn wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Timborama wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Timborama wrote:
draegn wrote:
Timborama wrote:
I'm usually with you, Cyber-Dave, but I think this whole exchange is not a good look for you.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
iserith wrote:
I don't want to stir up the pot, but I think there is a problem with citing powers from 4e as rules. To me, by the time you account for all of the powers (especially after adding outside the core), there are so many rules that are specific to one PC or monster but not another that it becomes nearly impossible for the DM to be mindful of the rules when adjudicating actions that others want to try. I like how 5e uses attribute checks as the basis for most actions, and feel that havinig generic combat maneuvers that everyone can use is much more conducive to consistent adjudication.
As iserith said, while you're normally a pretty keen poster, you really ought to just concede this one gracefully, Cyber-Dave.
First of all, look up Dance of the Stinging Hornet, PHB3. It literally does it all in a can, as basically a Ride the Giant Down + jump.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I don't remember any edition of D&D that explicitely explains how to ride an unwilling creature so I kind of agree with Dave here. I'm not sure it's a rule worth having though. It's one of the many corner cases that typically occur when playing a RPG. I find it a little malicious to try to draw conclusions on the quality of a game because "by RAW you can't do X". Unless X is one of the common things PCs do, I really don't think it's useful to put it in the rules. In 4e, the DMG uses the chandelier leap as an example of improvised action. In 5e, they picked riding a dragon. Riding a dragon is not in the PHB but in the DMG for a reason.
The discussion is starting to look like "4e sucks because you can't disarm" or "the 5e tarrasque is poorly designed because I'm too lazy to make up something".
Timborama wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
Redbeard2 wrote:
Redbeard2 wrote:
Tactics is about options, and 5E had some promise, but failed to deliver when considering maneuvers for martial characters. If there was a equivalent to martial ability similar to spells, then you can tailor it for whatever tactical/choice depth you want.
Uchawi wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
hunterian7 wrote:
draegn wrote:
WotC kind of took the stance of a passive aggressive DM; They didn't completely remove tacical features, they just made it cost a stupid amount because they don't have the balls to just say no.
It would not take that much to add tactics to 5e (unless you consider the Uno pile on interupt powers tactical.) True there are mechanical differences between 5e and 4e, but to me, the difference is more about the cost and limitation 5e places on tactical features. 4e made tactical abilities relatively free as part of the class. 5e has them severly limited and overvalued int cost. That seems like something that is easy to fix.
I’ve removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
You can read how to prevent edition wars here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28870729/
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.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Mistwell wrote:
seti wrote:
Diffan wrote: