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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6262059" data-attributes="member: 37579">The reason there isn’t OAs due to movement around an enemy is because fine movement that provokes does not work without minis, so it has to be simple. One of the assumptions of a tactical module is more granular OAs. When 2e added more tactics, OAs were one of the first things added, this should be the case here as well. Moving away from someone’s front should provoke an OA (or the character could have the opportunity to forge the OA to turn). The whole point of rules modules is altering the base combat rules. Or rather, adding to the rules. If the game is designed to be modular, the designers should be able to change how movement, OAs, and the like work without needing to change classes. Think of it this way, classes refer to “Advantage”. The rules regularly refer to “Advantage”. But Advantage is only defined in the core rules and class options don’t modify what Advantage does. It’s basically a keyword. Which makes it modular. So you could strip out the “roll twice” mechanic and make it a +2 without affecting any classes. The game is unchanged. 5e makes it easy. You could dump d20s and go with 3d6 instead and the game would hum along with only one or two minor hiccups (in this instance, Advantage could be adding a d6, and stack). The constant sliding and shifting of 4e often didn’t add much either. There was a lot of movement for movement’s sake. Just because the designers didn’t want the static fights of 3e where everyone planted and full attacked (which were boring). I think 5e could have a nice middle ground in movement between the rooted combatants of 3e and the dancing fights of 4e. Having opponents run around enemies works, so you have to be in the right square to get a bonus not just beside your enemy. And having enemies disengage and move across the battlefield also works. And positioning matters, so you fight with your back against a wall or some terrain. I don’t think we need the slow facing of Battletech where turning eats movement. You should be able to 360 as part of movement. And, as mentioned before, you might be able to spin using your reaction (or as part of your reaction). The same could be said for ANY addition to the game that is not personally desired. But what does it add to the game?1) Defensive positioning matters2) Offensive positioning matters 3) Movement encouraged. 4) Encourages tactical thinking5) Encourages teamworkDoes it complicate things? Yes. But that’s the point. Tactical combat is by definition more complicated than Theatre of the Mind. In this case, complexity is a good thing. I was just brainstorming and giving examples. The balance is irrelevant as it’s just proof of concept: the names just make it easier than if I used <generic condition X> and <vague penalty Y>. Replace “daze” with a condition equivalent to “prone” or “forced movement”. But nastier penalties might come with penalties making them harder to pull off but thus more satisfying when they work. There’s lots of options. Forced movement, penalties to attacks, penalties to AC, penalties to saves, penalties to movement, grabbing, tripping, etc. There could even be a “power attack” option where you take a penalty to attack to deal more damage.I doubt the base game will have the combat maneuvers at all. Those kind of powers tend to hinder creativity and free form combat. It’s hard to justify allowing a character to spontaneously trip an enemy when there are a dozen powers that prone: if they wanted to trip they should have taken a tripping class feature. The maneuvers really fit an “advanced” game, and also the Tactical Module. Trip and bull rush are situational, but you can use them whenever you want without the penalty of 3e. (And, really, trip is pretty darn useful in most situations.) So when they are useful you have them at your disposal. Plus, having them be situational keeps them manageable so you don’t have a dozen options each round dragging combat to a crawl. And I would very much argue they promote “tactical” thinking. Being able to push an enemy at will (in place of damage or at a penalty to attack) means you can set-up a flank or take advantage of the terrain. Knocking down or immobilizing a fast opponent allows slower allies to get close. This is the definition of tactical teamwork. And, as they’re universal powers, everyone at the table knows them. This was a problem with the tactics of 4e where you didn’t always know from session to session what your party member’s powers were. Basically, instead of having two dozen individual powers with every possible combination of conditions and actions (of which you can pick five) you have a half-dozen options you can stack with a basic attack, building powers on the fly.Casters can do that a certain number of times per day. But sometimes they’re lacking a condition or effect they need. And certain subclasses fighters can impose the conditions without penalty as well, so there’s no difference there. It’s beneficial to have a power that allows you to do it, but you have the options if you lack a specific ability.The classes are (almost) balanced as is. Adding more options and powers to only some classes make them better than the spellcasters. It unbalances the game. So any additions in the Tactical Module would have to be independent of class and applied universally. Similarly, the universal powers would apply to monsters. This gives monsters tactical depth without rewriting the entire Monster Manual. Plus, the modules should work independent of content so it can be used with classes released much later in the edition's lifespan, in campaign settings where certain classes are missing, and the like. It cannot just be “the Fighter Module” because that will mean people playing in a world where everyone has some magical talent (and no “fighters” exist) cannot also have a tactical game. It’s strategic play. Giving up personal damage one round to allow your allies to do more damage or avoid damage taken. Really, this is no different from 4e. You have powers that just did damage, powers that did less damage but imposed lesser effects, and powers that did no damage but imposed harsher effects. Only instead of choosing one and having to stick with that choice every combat, you can pick-and-choose each round. This is taking that same thing and breaking it into component pieces allowing far, far more options with far less space. Sometimes it will just descend into always picking damage. The best status effect to impose on a creature is “dead”. But good tactical play should also involve the environment and terrain, and a good DM (provided with solid advice) can encourage the use of maneuvers.Again, the Tactical Module should be independent of class and race. I don’t even think there should be class-specific options, as that would mean if the DM wanted to play a tactical game you HAD to pick from certain subclasses or builds. Play style should not limit build choices. However, class and race are not an afterthought because the existing options still work. They can do everything they could before, only now they have a few more options. Enough to provide meaningful options each combat round. Yes, which is why it could/should be a slightly different module, albeit one that should work with the Tactical Module and can be paired together to add a 4e feel to Next. </blockquote>

Verification