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

[Nebulous]

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.

I think what some people would like (well, myself) is basically a whole hardback of optional rules that can drastically change the game. A whole book of modules.

 

[Charlaquin]

My problem with "modular" systems is Feats. Until the monsters start using them, they still feel grafted on. All this tactical stuff is meaningless if the monsters don't take advantage of it somehow.

So give your monsters some Feats. Easy peasy.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

This about sums it up. Continuing with the perm advantage flanking advantage you have Facing That was originally another part of flanking that was originally offset by the old AoO rules

While the

Spoiler: old AoO rules

were fairly simple for movement, casting a spell or digging into your inventory would also trigger an AoO & many class/PrC features or feats would adjust what you could trigger an AoO off or what you could do with/without being subject to an AoO. Sure you can use the old AoO rules but then you are stymied by the fact that they extended the most magical container effect of a magic container still in the game to any crude mundane container.

If inventory interaction were all it was then you could fix that too.... but It's not that simple

Oops, but nothing uses those little tags so you now need to go through & decide which class & race abilities trigger an AoO & which don't while hoping you balance it right.
But don't forget that certain actions trigger them too

and many more I'm sure... But that's not it, you could do things that let you avoid those sometimes like so

or simply by casting certain kinds of spells

touch range spells exist with 5ft but touch attacks do not, where do you draw the lines.... are you as the gm prepared to rewrite all of this so far just to implement the rest of this one optional rule (and are your players willing to play Bob's resulting self published rpg?)because WotC decided to remove everything supporting it from the & make it an "optional" but unfinished rule rather than keeping the support & making optional rules for container interaction spellcasting, full move speed, & so on don't trigger AoO's?

But wait, we aren't done.. Lets say you do all that... now you have all manner of feats that grant you other things you can make AoO's against, feats you can take to do specific things that would normally subject you to an AoO without being subject to them. We aren't done though, 5e has a lot of feats & class abilities that were once balanced by AoO's that are now balanced by the action economy so add all of those to the list of things you as a gm need to rebalance & fix.

Speed factor is another boondoggle that makes the GM's role hell. Just like that UA "greyhawk initiative" it only works if you run combat like an auctioneer. "who's got 20+, 19, 18, 15-17, etc" but given the lead baloon reception greyhawk initiative got & anecdotal evidence of how it was discussed it's far more common for gm's to run combat similar to this.

As to some of the other ones?... I think you might be giving this too much credit

Pretty pointless looking rule since phb196 doesn't even mention that sorta cover from trying to shoot into melee But if you squint you get this

Unfortunately It's kinda pointless because hitting cover requires you to miss the target with a roll high enough to hit the AC of something probably in melee with it.

edit: if it was easy to simply port meaningful AoO rules into 5e we'd have a UA for it... but all the edge cases that need to be clarified would make it into a massive thing with a lor of balance concerns so we don't.

 

[jmucchiello]

So give your monsters some Feats. Easy peasy.

This is not an answer for someone running a pre-written module. Not all DMs have time to fiddle with monsters.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

There sure are alot of caveats in that statement if you take the time to actually read it.

Yep, and if things changed and they veered away from from their initial design goals because of whatever reason that is totally their prerogative. It doesn't change the fact that when 5e was ramping up it was advertised as having "modules" to increase complexity (up to the point of having to re-work a character to implement those modules) and any such content hasn't shown up yet...and very likely never is going to in this edition.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep, and if things changed and they veered away from from their initial design goals because of whatever reason that is totally their prerogative. It doesn't change the fact that when 5e was ramping up it was advertised as having "modules" to increase complexity (up to the point of having to re-work a character to implement those modules) and any such content hasn't shown up yet...and very likely never is going to in this edition.

There's a lot in that list they did do. If you don't like it that's something else.

Shirt rests can refresh in 5 minutes that's almost encounter powers right there.

They gave short rest type classes, they have rules for grid and flanking.

They promised tactical not to rewrite the game duplicating whatever.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is not an answer for someone running a pre-written module. Not all DMs have time to fiddle with monsters.

How much fiddling does it really take though? You’re talking about attaching an existing feat to an existing monster, not creating a custom monster from scratch.

 

[Imaro]

Yep, and if things changed and they veered away from from their initial design goals because of whatever reason that is totally their prerogative. It doesn't change the fact that when 5e was ramping up it was advertised as having "modules" to increase complexity (up to the point of having to re-work a character to implement those modules) and any such content hasn't shown up yet...and very likely never is going to in this edition.

I'm still trying to find the actual promise you were referring to...

 

[jmucchiello]

How much fiddling does it really take though? You’re talking about attaching an existing feat to an existing monster, not creating a custom monster from scratch.

The point I'm making is feats are just grafted on. They are not integral to the monsters. Monsters designed with feats expected would be different than monsters a random DM adds a feat to.

 

[Don Durito]

Most of the modularity in the DMG breaks down if you actually try to use it.

It's simply not ready out of the box. You need to use it, see how things affect other things, houserule, reiterate, try again.

Flanking for example, if it gives advantage, is vastly more powerful than in previous editions of D&D and if used severely reduces the value of class powers that give opportunities to gain advantage.

(Edit: it's also just too easy to flank in 5E giving it's movement rules, for flanking to actually provide real additional depth - and it was already probably too easy in previous editions.)