I'm starting a new campaign and to be honest, I had hoped that the rules modules, such as the tactical module the developers discussed, would have been at least on the horizon by now. I haven't been following the forums much lately... what is the latest word on these? Have we heard anything about them since launch?
Our campaigns tend to last somewhere between 6 months and a year... so I'm wondering if there is any reasonable expectation of the tactical module coming out in time for us to use it in what might be our only 5e campaign.
Most of the modules the devs talked about - including the tactical module - are in the DMG. They just aren't labeled as such.
People got carried away with the idea of a "module" as a complete list of rules options. The edition is designed modularly and a lot of the modularity comes in the form of rules options found in the PHB, MM, DMG, and supplements like adventures and campaign settings. There are a variety of options for making combat more tactically complex in the DMG.
There are optional rules in the dmg that add some tatical options. There are nothing to write home about if you are not generaly happy with the defualt game as is.
It's in the DMG...where they said it would be.
Hurin88 wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Yeah. And the PHB also has a BUNCH of variant options. I'd say there's about one 3.5 'Complete' book's worth of variants in the PHB alone, and that isn't counting class paths.
I agree. I cant wait to get my hands on the books. I currently am on a very tight budget, so have been playing with the free rules and my friends phb. I want to get my hands on the very modular DMG, and start working out some harsher stuff for dark sun, including some changes to Paladin to make them Templars of the Kings.
I Think that 5e is looking like the easiest system to homebrew for, and for making house rule changes to fit your story.
Just add your own additional rules if you find the basic/DMG add ons are insufficient.
It has more tactical options than the previous 2 editions, so you should be fine.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
I hear you but I just don't see it. Poistioning and teamwork and just a lot less important in 5E than in 3E and 4E (not to mention PF and 13th age) unless the DM goes very much out of there way to set up encounters to give them more emphasis. In addition if you are playing a non-caster you will be almost always spaming basic attacks from 1-20.
Yes there are some optional rules but there are just presented in a laundry list fashion and seemed like there were developed in isolation from each other with little thought or playtesting regarding how they might interact together.
Tested out the flanking rules today and 10 orcs turned into a TPK vs 4 4th level PCs.
No one is going to agree on what modules means, just like you have endless arguments on hit points. But I disagree that 5E has more tactics options than previous editions. Based on it simple and abstract design, it removes alot of tactical choices from the game. Attacks of opportunity have been reduced is one example, interrupts have been curtailed, etc.
The word on modules? That word would be vaporware.
Wouldn't the word be mum?
. . . or bird?
Uchawi wrote:
If you want 4e feel and more room for tactics double player and foe hit points. Fights will last longer and give plsyers more incentive/opportunities to make tactical decisions.
You can still shove, trip, grapple, choose spells for effect, use battle master and monk abilities, cunning action (my favorite) and other tactical choices.
Truly, the reason why it feels less tactical is because most fights don't last longer than 3 rounds and the objective of many fights is just kill the foe. When there are other objectives, interesting terrain/encounter features and combats last for 4+ rounds, then tactics become foregrounded.
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
I'll give one example....
in 3e and 4E you can do more with opertunity attakcs and reactions and you can impose a good deal of battlefield control and signficant disadvantages on enemies. A good example of this in 3e would be spike chain fighter with improved trip and combat reflexes, or in 4e a fighter using marking mechanic. While there is the sentinel feat and a marking option in DMG, 5E offerings are much more scaled down.
In 5e you just hope you can fight in 5x5 hallway or a door frame in every combat, beacuse otherwise you options to keep enemies away from your allies is very limited.
5E is a good system to run 10 quick fights a game, but really does not do a go job with running 2-4 very tatcical set piece typ encounters a game.
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
thecasualoblivion wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
I think they got carried away with the idea of modules and the players came to expect to much in terms of what the modules could delier. The glacier speed release schedule is not helping things either in that regard. A few optional rules in the DMG which can wreck the game (flanking) do not help things either.
They also refered to the entire process as modular design, which basically meant that the chasis was simple enough to make it easy for people to plug and play optional rules and homebrew without having to re-code the entire game system.
Rhenny wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
HP Bloat was SERIOUSLY NOT an issue at all. In 4th Edition, your hostiles fell in four categories: Minions, regular monsters, elites, and solos. Elites and Solos certainly have plenty HP, sure, but minions? They only have 1.
A system in which you can consistently go up against 1HP enemies, from low-levels all the way to high levels, DOES NOT have HP BLOAT problems.
Condition tracking and out of turn combat is neither anything new to d&d, or all that different in 4th ed from pre4th ed. The only difference is that out-of-turn combat is more energetic and less passive... which is a good thing!
Zardnaar, the only two things I disliked from 4th Edition's power structure was that you had to give up previous abilities, in order to gain access to newer ones, and that you couldn't multiclass freely. Hybrid rules, thankfully, severely aleviated the last part.
Vahnyu wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Well, as long as we've reached an understanding that HP bloat wasn't a problem at all, unless you actually went out of your way to make it so, I'm fine with it. 
Zardnaar wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
CCS wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
I hear what you all are saying. In some ways I'm feeling that seeing the game tactically may require a slight change of focus for 5e. Since combat is swingy, an important strategy for 5e is to use stealth/ambush and surprise. To me, this actually makes combat seem more like real combat. Not that I need a fantasy game to emulate real life, but I am starting to like how stealth becomes more important.
In addition, the swinginess of combat, and how BA gives even lower level monsters a chance to injure higher level and viser versa, makes non-combat solutions or improvised solutions more valuable.
All this may add to overall strategy if not tactics. While positioning, pact tactics, sneak attack, shoving, aiding, grappling, battle master maneuvers, cunning action, split movement, etc. still encourage tactics when fights last more than 2 rounds.
Vahnyu wrote:
Merely as a reminder, the use of minions was in no way mandated in 4e; they were simply one tool in the DM's toolbox, and they could be entirely ignored if one were so inclined.
I consider the lack of at least a minion template to be a deficiency of 5e, as simply giving monsters the minimum number of HPs for the XdY+Z method listed in their stat block doesn't work with 5e monsters beyond a certain CR. You either end up with minions that die too slowly but have an actual chance of hitting the PCs, or you get minions that die appropriately but who have no real chance of actually hitting the PCs.
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Ignoring minions you still have things like 25 hp kobolds and low CR Dragons with around twice the hit points of an ancient AD&D Dragon. It takes a while to grind through those hit points. I got through the same amount of combats in 4E as I did in 3.5 roughly the diference was in the 4 hour sesison that is almost all of the session in 3.5 we had more time to do other stuff.
Neither 3E or 4E is that good in terms of combat speed compared with TSR D&D. 5E tneds to be somewhere beween 2E PHB and 3E in temrs of speed. Its not quite as fast as a basic game of 2E, a bit faster than 3E and probably similar in speed to a 2E game with a few optional rules being used.
MechaPilot wrote:
some stuff seems to come out as Unearthed Arcana articles
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Battlesystem.pdf
Orethalion wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
If you use the flat HP and Damage numbers given for monsters and don't give them criticals (or don't give them criticals until a certain level) the game becomes a lot less swingy and PC death is more likely to come as a result of a sustained beatdown rather than fluke luck.
Not to my tastes, but it is a simple enough fix for those who prefer the game to be played in a more "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" style.
Is that a "module"? No idea.
The first playtest packet started characters off with HP = to their Constitution score + 1 HD (no Con modifier), that is a good variant to beef up 1st level PCs.