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

[Garthanos]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "Tactical Module." For example, the bloodied condition is not something I would have thought as part of such a module. .

Bloodied is a pacing mechanism which changes and swaps out tactical choices. (Does that make bloodied tactical even though it itself isn't usually a choice I think so - see below for ways it becomes a choice too)

On the monster side of the screen monsters get powers that renew on bloodied conditions for instance it changes there choices I have player characters with powers and even skill functions that cannot be invoked or which are significantly better when invoked against a bloodied opponent and items which temporarily bloody enemies. I have a magic item which I reflavor/tweak into a martial technique that allows my character to control his own bloodied state so he can better control when he has access his racial powers.

As far as you using it and it not being a problem... well how many enemies play differently when bloodied? I have roleplayed them since 1e differently but i do not find that being quite the same. Do you have skills that play off of it? how many racial features or feats trigger off of it etc etc. i feel it all adds up.

This isn't saying i think 5e has no tactical elements already there was an implied promise of more...is the dmg all???? is sort of a sub question.

 

[Monayuris]

No problem. I'd've not replies if I'd noticed you taking down the post I was responding too...

Cool. Again I apologize for my part. We differ but I don’t mean to show a disrespect. I should do better to, in general, be less trigger happy to people with different views.

 

[dave2008]

Bloodied is a pacing mechanism which changes and swaps out tactical choices. (Does that make bloodied tactical even though it itself isn't usually a choice I think so - see below for ways it becomes a choice too)

I apologize, i didn't explain what I meant. I believe the bloodied condition has a tactical element, my point was I don't think it is necessary for a "tactical module." I think you can have a tactical module without having the bloodied condition.

As far as you using it and it not being a problem... well how many enemies play differently when bloodied? I have roleplayed them since 1e differently but i do not find that being quite the same. Do you have skills that play off of it? how many racial features or feats trigger off of it etc etc. i feel it all adds up.

It depends. I don't have to re-write the whole book, we just deal with the players we have so we don't have to deal with all of the possible issues or options. That being said, play is very different when our characters or monsters are bloodied because that is when you are in real danger. We have several other house rules wrapped into such as DR and death / dying.

Regarding monsters, I pretty much modify or custom make all of the significant monsters, so I can add bloodied abilities as needed.

This isn't saying i think 5e has no tactical elements already there was an implied promise of more...is the dmg all???? is sort of a sub question.

It seems the little bit that WotC has provided so far is all the have in the current plans. However, I think they want to leave most of the kit-bashing to 3PP and homebrew via DMsGuild.

 

[Garthanos]

Regarding monsters, I pretty much modify or custom make all of the significant monsters, so I can add bloodied abilities as needed.

Did that way back in 1e days but I am lazier now... reflavor seemed sufficient

 

[Tony Vargas]

I apologize, i didn't explain what I meant. I believe the bloodied condition has a tactical element, my point was I don't think it is necessary for a "tactical module." I think you can have a tactical module without having the bloodied condition.

That's fair. I mean, 5e /has the bloodied condition/, without having the "Bloodied" /Condition/.

So any rule you could write in 4e like "when the <insert creature> is not bloodied and attacks a bloodied enemy <bad things happen>" you could as easily write, in 5e "when the <insert creature>'s current hit points, not including temporary hit points are greater than half its maximum hit points and it attacks a hostile creature who's current hit points, not including temporary hit points are less than or equal to one-half its maximum hit points <bad things happen>"

Because 5e is simpler & more streamlined. ;|

It seems the little bit that WotC has provided so far is all the have in the current plans. However, I think they want to leave most of the kit-bashing to 3PP and homebrew via DMsGuild.

And actual homebrew. Part of the philosophy of the slow pace of release and reluctance to errata is that they are selling a /starting point/. If you move that starting point after the race has begun, that's bad. Maybe not as bad as moving the goal posts or mixing sports metaphors, but bad.

 

[Garthanos]

I apologize, i didn't explain what I meant. I believe the bloodied condition has a tactical element, my point was I don't think it is necessary for a "tactical module." I think you can have a tactical module without having the bloodied condition.

Not what I was saying I was saying so there is that. You wanted to know why I thought it would be difficult and that was an element I would like to see but also an example of how such an element could touch on wide varieties of other design elements and that is a reason tactical elements tend to not be easy squeezy lemon peasy

 

[Mistwell]

It's in the DMG, it emphasizes the grid, including flanking, adds /facing/ of all things, and lets anyone mark (or maybe that's a separate variant?).

Anyway, it credibly delivers the "grid dependence/tactical-boardgame" people who didn't like 4e complained about.

They did seem to be working primarily from criticisms of 4e.

2 & 3 prettymuch go together.

There also really was this claim, Zard alluded to, above, that players with different favorite editions could sit at the same table, playing characters that evoked what they like best about their edition of choice. It seemed an over-ambitious pipe-dream, at the time, and that seeming was borne out. Rather, the 5e Empowered DM can make 5e feel something like his favorite edition - especially if that edition was TSR-era - /absolutely including the way he ran said edition, with all the variants & assumptions and whatnot that made it uniquely awesome for his group, back in the day/.

(And, I do think 5e is kitbash-friendly enough to just turn on MCing, Feats, and add Feats, de-facto PrCs, reams of spells, make/buy rules, etc, and get it back to something like the early WotC era, 3.0/3.5, though it'd be a lot of up-front work, and y'know, PF is right there, so why bother?)

These were the three of the stated design goals, before the rules were written.

Goal #1: Reunification through Common Understanding

As part of the design process, the R&D team must boil down the RPG into its most basic component parts. Using those rules elements, the team must then build an easy to understand game system that incorporates the most iconic elements of D&D in prominent roles. Anyone who has ever played any version of D&D must recognize and understand its most important elements.

Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity

Traditionally, D&D editions have focused on specific play styles. This approach has fragmented the community over time. The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options. By looking at past editions and incorporating their elements as core or optional rules, we can allow players and groups to place the focus where they want it.

Goal #3: Reunification through Accessibility

D&D has traditionally required large amounts of time, a large play group, and a sustained commitment. The design process must focus on play time, group size, speed of play, and length of campaigns, with an eye toward reducing the minimum required from each area. Players who want a longer play time and so forth can easily scale up the game to meet their needs and opt into the various rules modules we'll provide or that they'll build themselves. However, our standard goal is to remove minimum group sizes, allow for a complete adventure in one hour of play, and satisfying campaigns in 50 hours of play.

Game Design

The new system must create a mechanical and mathematical framework that the play experience of all editions of D&D can rest within. One player can create a 4th-Edition style character while another can build a 1st-Edition one. Complexity and individual experiences rest in the players' hands. That experience is more important than the specifics of the math. In other words, if the math works but the game doesn't feel like D&D, we've failed. If the system is sound, but it can't replicate D&D's classic adventures or seamlessly support any of D&D's settings, it isn't the right system for D&D.

More importantly, we must look beyond the mechanics of the game to focus on the archetypes, literary tropes, and cultural elements that built D&D. We must build a fighter that resonates as a warrior, not one simply cobbled together with mechanics pilfered from D&D's past. The key game experience of D&D lies at the game table. Our work must start by focusing on the key elements of D&D and the unique traits of a tabletop RPG. The mechanics must support those two factors, not the other way around.

 

[dave2008]

Did that way back in 1e days but I am lazier now... reflavor seemed sufficient

Well, note I said "significant" monsters. I don't do it for everyday orcs and such. I don't remember making custom monsters at all back in 1e / D&D days. I really on started doing that with 4e and 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

And actual homebrew. Part of the philosophy of the slow pace of release and reluctance to errata is that they are selling a /starting point/. If you move that starting point after the race has begun, that's bad. Maybe not as bad as moving the goal posts or mixing sports metaphors, but bad.

you could definitely get a goal through the hoops right into left field over that issue...

 

[dave2008]

Because 5e is simpler & more streamlined. ;|

Ya, I think conditions simplify things, I wish they hadn't gotten rid of some. I'm looking at you Dazed