D&D 5E Tactical Combat Module, hasn't it always been there?

[Imaro]

A tactical rules module would require more than just the options in the DMG.

What exactly would it "require"?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

So what do you think about it? I can imagine how each one of those modules can be disliked, but all together it's hard for me to believe that this isn't already quite tactical and complex!

The idea of a "Tactical Combat Module" to me implies expanding the complexity of the existing combat rules, adding back in most of the options from previous editions, and then adding whatever new content the designers though would be a good extra.

This would include something like
1. Expanding the weapon list and differentiating them more (like in 3e).
2. Alternate Crit rules other than more damage
3. Tripping, sundering, and other combat options other than whats already there.
4. Beefier rules for verticality including flying.
5. Hex based combat.
6. Tactical mass combat.
7. An expansion on the Adv/Disadv system to encourage stacking multiple Adv.

I am one of those that do think that the designers bailed on their promise of adding in things removed with optional "modules". They have certainly added in things I consider "modules" (like ship combat in Saltmarsh) however it gets buried in with other content rather than expanded on and focused into a supplement in and of itself.

 

[atanakar]

I'm sorry, when did it become the DM's job to pre-emptively walk the players through the DMG? If I want to use an optional rule from the DMG, I'll show it to the players and discuss it. If I don't, I won't. Players who want to see what other options exist are free to buy their own DMG or borrow mine, but in my experience most players aren't interested enough to bother, and that's fine.

It's called session Zero. Nothing is hidden at my table. We discuss healing, combat options, how experience points will be gained, etc, etc.

 

[Imaro]

I am one of those that do think that the designers bailed on their promise of adding in things removed with optional "modules". They have certainly added in things I consider "modules" (like ship combat in Saltmarsh) however it gets buried in with other content rather than expanded on and focused into a supplement in and of itself.

Those totally focused supplements would probably sell a fraction of the amount the wider focused books do. It's simple business.

Also not sure how you can claim they bailed on their promise and give an example that said promise has been enacted in a sourcebook...

 

[Zardnaar]

People read modules as "sourcebook rewriting the phb classes".

That was never gonna happen.

 

[Gradine]

Yeah, I remember it being pretty commonly held that 5e's DMG ranks among the best of the genre, for all of those reasons

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Those totally focused supplements would probably sell a fraction of the amount the wider focused books do. It's simple business.

Also not sure how you can claim they bailed on their promise and give an example that said promise has been enacted in a sourcebook...

Quantity of sales has nothing to do with what a Tactical Combat Module might contain. I simply stated what I thought it COULD contain and added myself to the list of those who felt like they were let down by the failure of the 5e product line to offer the types of supplements the designers themselves indicated would be coming along later.

If you believe that adding a module or two in each release is "enough" then awesome for you. I'm glad you are getting the product that you are wanting. I personally have no interest in purchasing an adventure path or campaign guide just to have access to 10 or so pages of generic content I can pull from it so I do not consider the amount of options to be "enough".

Funny, that's how opinions work. They can be different. Who knew?

 

[Big Bucky]

I think the reason we haven’t seen tactical combat modules released is because that’s not a focus of 5e. They explicitly designed it to have simpler combat and less about exact positioning. Why would they go back to detailed tactical moves? It’s a different edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the reason we haven’t seen tactical combat modules released is because that’s not a focus of 5e. They explicitly designed it to have simpler combat and less about exact positioning. Why would they go back to detailed tactical moves? It’s a different edition.

But 5th edition was initially pitched as being modular, with a simple baseline that could be expanded upon with optional rules. And then those optional rules never materialized, save a handful in the DMG.

 

[Gadget]

5E has tactical rules the way the Transformers movies have a plot - yeah, technically something meeting that definition is present, it just doesn't seem like anyone has put any real thought into it.

Yes. This. In fairness to OP, I think many of the options in the DMG are overlooked when complaints are voiced, but I'm not sure they constitute a solid tactical combat module that some of the die-hards want. It is more like some designers spit-balling a few rough ideas to throw in there to "see what sticks." Some of the options, like the flanking rule, just are not that well thought out and not what many are looking for. Some others just need more refinement (and perhaps tweaks to the rest of the system) to make really work, like the altered the Rest mechanics. This would be especially disappointing for someone coming from 4e, which was accused of being a 'tactical miniatures' game. Probably also to hard core 3.x options aficionados as well.

I think that, at the end of the day, WOTC has shifted their focus away from such features, and it's hard to argue against success.