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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6929566" data-attributes="member: 996">*.*Seriously, though, probably just generic in the sense of 'setting agnostic,' in contrast to SCAG.And there's one in the DMG, it's just based more on 4e critics' definitions of 'tactical.'  To be flippant:  "count squares like in 3e, but backwards for diagonals, and introduce facing."  Yeah, my game feels so 4e now.  ;PMore to the point, 4e 'tactical combat' wasn't just some rules about squares and movement, it was built on a foundation of combat-oriented Roles, neatly balanced attack powers, balanced/dependable encounter guidelines, and PC vs Monster capabilities tuned typical combats to last long enough for some tactics to actually be developed, applied, and even shift in response to enemy tactics.  (Apart from the tuning for typical combats to be 'long,' more than a round or few, and 'not static,' those same elements, were a firm foundation for almost any other style of play, really, though some would require the shakier Skill Challenges & Rituals, too.) While modules were a nice idea, and there might still be some potential there, the real room for 5e to run like other editions is in how the DM rules in play.  I've seen a DM run 5e that felt like 4e.  She more or less used 4e rules, to the point of using 4e terms, not as 'house rules,' but as situations came up that 4e didn't handle in the desired way, and she re-did the monsters substantially, and often on the fly, but she did it, and her players had fun with it, for about 8 levels, I think it was.  Really, the DM is the only limit on 5e.</blockquote>

Verification