D&D 5E So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever

Xeviat · Jul 20, 2019

What is it you feel you'd need to make things more tactical. I feel like running 3 deadly (not dadly autocorrect ...) fights a day, with a short rest after each, gives more opportunities for tactical play. The monsters in 5E are a lot simpler than they were in 4E, so I steal a lot of monster stuff from 4th and just massage the numbers into the right place.

Garthanos · Jul 20, 2019

dave2008 said:
Why do you think it would be difficult to add?

Because increasing the tactical element of play interleaves with every class used and any combat spell and every monster in use. How many bits and pieces do you have to interact with just for one element is what makes it difficult?

I already mentioned the bloodied condition I will point out more broadly why that example works. It can give us monsters who have tactically interactive abilities defenses and powers which change over stages of a combat what makes them inducing/encouraging different kind of choices and approaches by the players. There could more stages if one wanted to notch it up.

Honestly I am not asking for identical to previous editions. One hopes for better.

Garthanos · Jul 20, 2019

Xeviat said:
The monsters in 5E are a lot simpler than they were in 4E, so I steal a lot of monster stuff from 4th and just massage the numbers into the right place.

You named one right there dude... do you really think you can go and change virtually every monster an easy fix to the game?

Garthanos · Jul 20, 2019

Charlaquin said:
There were some pretty cool variant rules in the DMG, and that was it. .

And some are kind of innadequate like how second wind is very nearly un-used in 4e due to action economy and which is even more tied down in 5e. But it gets a variant?

Garthanos · Jul 20, 2019

ccs said:
Or you just do it yourself.

One of the appeals of the previous edition was it was very easy to DM...

Charlaquin · Jul 20, 2019

Zardnaar said:
It's there in the class design and optional rules in the DMG.

I think the fanatics took things a bit to literally. They said fans of 1E to 4E could play together not that it would be 1E to 4E.

I don’t think anyone expected the game to be able to play exactly like each other edition. But I don’t think anyone took the promise of modular rules too literally. Early on they were quite explicit about the idea of modular rules packets that could be plugged in or removed to tailor the experience more to your group’s play style, and those never appeared, beyond the handful of optional rules variants in the DMG. And to be fair, the optional rules variants in the DMG are a great example of what that kind of modularity could look like. It’s just a shame WotC never made any more products like that.

Garthanos · Jul 20, 2019

Zardnaar said:
5E version of Combat and Tactics perhaps.

That was a 192 page book... sounds pretty extensive.

Charlaquin · Jul 20, 2019

DEFCON 1 said:
And let's be real here... did ANY player really believe they were going to be able to play a single game that could replicate two different editions at the same time? If that was at all possible, the games would have had to have been so close already that we wouldn't have seen such wide disagreements about stuff that had been changed from one edition to another.

I didn’t expect them to succeed in making the edition able to be played like any other edition, but I did expect them to try, and I expected that some fans of each edition would be able to tweak the game in ways that they would enjoy, even if it didn’t perfectly replicate their edition of choice. I also expected that a lot of these modular rules packets would end up being DM-side, because the idea that each individual player in the same game could be playing a character that was like one from a different edition was obviously pie-in-the-sky.

Garthanos · Jul 20, 2019

Charlaquin said:
I don’t think anyone expected the game to be able to play exactly like each other edition. But I don’t think anyone took the promise of modular rules too literally. Early on they were quite explicit about the idea of modular rules packets that could be plugged in or removed to tailor the experience more to your group’s play style, and those never appeared, beyond the handful of optional rules variants in the DMG. And to be fair, the optional rules variants in the DMG are a great example of what that kind of modularity could look like. It’s just a shame WotC never made any more products like that.

I find the accusation that people want it to be exactly the same is ummm insert something not nice.

I mean really why not actually try to be better? 4e had some experiments later in the edition where a class could shift battlefield roles for instance swapping out your general fighting specialization dynamically. Not that they were totally locked down any way but explicit fluidity is good too.

dave2008 · Jul 20, 2019

Garthanos said:
You named one right there dude... do you really think you can go and change virtually every monster an easy fix to the game?

Yes, especially after playing 4e I have a wealth of easy options at my finger tips! To be honest, I lot of 4e monsters aren't as engaging as people claim. That being said, there was an excess of conditions and movement that could be fun.

I find in 5e it is best to us straight 5e monsters for mooks and then dress up a boss with a few 4e-isms. Strikes the perfect balance for me and doesn't require much effort at all.