Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
Honestly, if I were to use a system totally different from the D20-based ones, I would just use Basic Role Playing, or BRP, for it. But then, I like d100-based systems.
D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?
happyhermit
Adventurer
First of all, I said nothing even remotely like that. I said;
1. 5e by default has more tactical combat that many other ttrpgs.
2. I often see people making the assumption that if someone likes a thing then they would prefer that thing be taken to the extreme, and I think they are wrong.
That's not me being right, I said nothing like that.
So, you agree that 5e by default is less "Tactical combat" than some games, but more "Tactical combat" than others? That's what I said! Honestly I thought this was self evident but I should never underestimate the ability of the internet to look for an argument.
That you can make Fate more "Tactical combat" completely ignores the context of the post and what I was responding to which was the "default game".
Yes, you can obviously hack a game to make it more or less "Tactical combat", that should be self-evident as well so I am sure someone will argue that it's impossible shortly. Or, more likely make an argument that I am wrong about something I never said.
Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
Tactical combat in D&D? Use a grid layout for your map and miniatures, so you can measure everything down to the millimeter.
Non-tactical combat in D&D? Use a layout without a grid for your map and miniatures and guess all your ranges and areas and reaches.
Non-tactical combat in D&D? Use a layout without a grid for your map and miniatures and guess all your ranges and areas and reaches.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
You use miniatures?
You are wrong on point1 & point 2 depends on that being at least close to accurate in order to paint people wanting more as wanting an extreme... that's the problem.
5e is pretty low on the tactical scale, you'd be hard pressed to find many ttrpgs that are less tactical without diving into story focused narrative games like fate & BitD where the focus is so different that it's generally difficult to even compare them
Don Durito
Hero
5e has some tactical elements - it would be unplayable it if didn't given how long combat takes. Most of the decisions are basically just about how to use resources, although depending on how the battlefield is set up there may be more tactical decisions to make - eg, where to place a wall of fire.
Martial characters tend to have less, but even then...A Fighter with Shield Master and Sentinel has options like shoving someone so that they're next to another enemy and then moving after them to lock both enemies down.
4e had more tactical options of course, but it also took longer to resolve. What both editions have in common is that they're much more tactically interesting in a well designed battlefield. 4e combat in a featureless room, wasn't really all that.
I played a lot of 4e though, and I feel it's tactical depth is somewhat overrated (althogh granted there's more to it than 5e - the greater speed of resolution in 5e is also overrated though). What both editions have in common is that the more important decisions are made in character creation and advancement. Both games are far more strategic than tactical*. (4E had vastly more strategic depth than 4e - in that there were a lot more elements to combine and builds to try out) Bringing out tactical depth requires work from the GM to design interesting tactical encounters.
*In some respects 5e is actually more flexible here. In 4e you're stuck with three different encounter powers you can only use once, but if a Battlemaster finds himself fighting enemies on the edge of the cliff he can spam Pushing Attack for this combat and then not use it all for the next two combats.
Martial characters tend to have less, but even then...A Fighter with Shield Master and Sentinel has options like shoving someone so that they're next to another enemy and then moving after them to lock both enemies down.
4e had more tactical options of course, but it also took longer to resolve. What both editions have in common is that they're much more tactically interesting in a well designed battlefield. 4e combat in a featureless room, wasn't really all that.
I played a lot of 4e though, and I feel it's tactical depth is somewhat overrated (althogh granted there's more to it than 5e - the greater speed of resolution in 5e is also overrated though). What both editions have in common is that the more important decisions are made in character creation and advancement. Both games are far more strategic than tactical*. (4E had vastly more strategic depth than 4e - in that there were a lot more elements to combine and builds to try out) Bringing out tactical depth requires work from the GM to design interesting tactical encounters.
*In some respects 5e is actually more flexible here. In 4e you're stuck with three different encounter powers you can only use once, but if a Battlemaster finds himself fighting enemies on the edge of the cliff he can spam Pushing Attack for this combat and then not use it all for the next two combats.
Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
Miniatures is just a catch-all term for anything representing the characters and the monsters. Dice, coins, Hershey's Kisses that the player gets to eat when their PC takes down an enemy.
I use miniatures for 5e (or tokens when playing online). Not so much prior to 3.x. Just the occasional sketch on notebook paper - but I was also a student then and didn't have a dedicated gaming setup.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
You use objects to represent characters and monsters?
Parmandur
Book-Friend
We always used TotM for 3.x
Similar Threads
