Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lokiare" data-source="post: 6261682" data-attributes="member: 83996">Well since facing is the only thing that they mentioned when they talked about their tactical module, that's what I'm going on, unless I missed an article or two mentioning other features? I'd be glad to read any articles you can link that say its anything but stuff like 'facing'.When they announced the 'facing' tactical module to satisfy fans of the tactical aspect of 4E, that's when I pretty much knew they didn't have a clue what 4E fans were saying when they said 'tactical'.As to the ground up redesign, it wouldn't have to be a total redesign, but they would have to go through at each level and re-evaluate how each classes features dealt with the tactical side of things. For most caster classes, there wouldn't need to be a lot of changes, but for other classes who just stand there and hit things with a slightly different flare, they would need to change quite a few things.Anyone can role play a complex or simple character with or without the rules, which is why we focus on the rules. What is 'more to a character than just its rule-based game mechanics' is brought by the player, not the rules. WotC brings the rules to us and for the most part we can't change them with sweeping changes if we want any kind of consistency from table to table:"Yeah, I played a fighter that flipped around the battlefield dual wielding great axes and slicing monsters in half if I rolled 18-20 on the dice. 5E is great.""Huh, that's not my experience. I could only move or attack when using my one great sword. I would drop it on a 1-5 on the roll because it was so heavy and I rarely hit because the DM said my attacks were slow. My character eventually died of a heart attack because of too much exertion.""Stop being so negative, at least you are warm right? and look at all that light, you should be happy."Man talking to fireman about his house burning down "What?!? are you crazy? I just asked you to put the fire out, not give me a lecture on being positive."I'm not being negative. I'm looking at a building burning down and saying 'what can we do to stop this.'Look. I'm trying to salvage my play style from the next version of the game (which is supposed to support all play styles). I'm not insulting 5E or posting edition warring comments about it. I'm posting factual comparisons using numbers and my personal opinion of how that plays out. I'm not being negative, only critical. There is a huge difference. I'm being constructive by criticizing how the game works.If you have problems with my posts then please hit the report button. If not, then quit complaining and simply don't respond to my posts.Nope, sorry. You are reading things into my posts that aren't there. I don't care whether they call squares "5 feet" or "1 square". That's not tactics. That's jargon.I would also love a rule set that could be used for quick skirmishes and large tactical battles. Unfortunately 5E fails to do that and it has nothing to do with terminology.Nope, they sure don't do they? Of course I never asked for that in any of my posts, so nice straw man I guess(intentional or otherwise). I'll tell you at the end of your quotes what a tactical game is.None of that has much to do with tactics. Terminology doesn't being able to push, pull, and slide doesn't. What tactics are is:Wikipedia defines a tactic as "A tactic is a conceptual action implemented as one or more specific tasks."What tactics mean when we talk about D&D is the ability to choose different actions to reach a goal. In order to have tactics you have to have time to have a choice.With the various save or die or save or suck spells and effects in the game there is none of that. You roll a save and you either die or you live with no ill effects. Reaching your goal relies more on a lucky roll of the dice than it does on any choice you make.What 4E had (and I'm not advocating for a new 4E clone) was the ability and time to make a choice that would affect the encounter.For instance say a character in 4E triggered a Flesh to Stone trap while trying to steal a gemstone from the eye socket of a statue. In 4E Flesh to Stone takes 2-3 rounds. You fail the first save and you are immobilized, you fail the second save and you are restrained, you fail the third save you are turned to stone.So in 4E your Paladin can grant an extra save with bonuses to help mitigate the traps effects. A Cleric has time to simply remove the immobilized or restrained condition altogether stopping the transofrmation. There are hundreds of choices that can be done to try to stop the character from turning to stone.In 5E that same situation comes up, the character rolls a save and if the fail they are turned to stone. That's it, no tactics involved.Ideally they could simply redefine keywords for each play style:Gritty:Turn to Stone-Make a Constitution saving throw, if you fail you are turned to stone and have resistance to damage.Tactical:Turn to Stone-Make a Constitution saving throw, if you fail you are immobilized and make a second Constitution saving throw, if you fail you are restrained and make a third Constitution saving throw, if you fail you are turned to stone and have resistance to damage.Now that I've defined what I mean, please quit trying to construe me in a negative light.Actually constructive criticism is any criticism that can be acted upon to improve the situation. Thus my extremely detailed and factual criticisms (whether you agree with their validity or not) are by their nature constructive.</blockquote>

Verification