D&D 5E "Tactics are an Important Part of D&D" (a poll)

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I really enjoyed 4e and what it was trying to do, but while I could handle the bandwidth of that, 4e's way of showing how much more powerful characters got over the levels did make it hard for a lot of people to keep up- the increased complexity just falls over with a lot of my RPG-playing pals.

I find this very interesting, because most 4e characters never got as complex as, say, a high-level Wizard or Druid did in 3.5e. In fact, by comparison to 3e or PF, 4e was absolutely WAY more tame in terms of both the total amount of content published, and in terms of the level of inter-connectedness of that content. It had many powers and feats and such, to be sure, but a single character was usually unable to access 90% of those powers and half or more of those feats.

 

[Jer]

I find this very interesting, because most 4e characters never got as complex as, say, a high-level Wizard or Druid did in 3.5e.

My player who was playing a 3.5 Druid feels this. He still talks about how annoying the druid was to play by the time we retired that campaign and moved to 4e (around 12th level I think).

 

[TwoSix]

I find this very interesting, because most 4e characters never got as complex as, say, a high-level Wizard or Druid did in 3.5e. In fact, by comparison to 3e or PF, 4e was absolutely WAY more tame in terms of both the total amount of content published, and in terms of the level of inter-connectedness of that content. It had many powers and feats and such, to be sure, but a single character was usually unable to access 90% of those powers and half or more of those feats.

I think part of it was that 4e's complexity was more in-your-face, both because of the character builder and the fact that each book tended to present a laundry list of new feats. 3e/PF had a huge amount of complexity, but you had to go spelunking into an awful lot of books to really bring out the worst.

3e/PF, especially mid-to-high level, was way more complex at the table, for sure. 4e had much smoother methods of resolution, it just had a lot of individual options that needed to be tracked.

 

[Gradine]

Fun in the right kind of party? Sure. Necessary, to the extent that it would earn the title "important"? Nah.

 

[payn]

After another round of PF2, I was reminded I'm not a big tactics guy. If they are spectrums I'm probably an 8 for strategy and a 3 for tactics. I prefer the long term planning, exploiting situations, and taking advantage. I also like a little unknown improv tossed into the mix to spice up those well laid plans. Though, I typically prefer combat to be very quick and decisive. I live more for what happens before and after combat than for what is going on during.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

After another round of PF2, I was reminded I'm not a big tactics guy. If they are spectrums I'm probably an 8 for strategy and a 3 for tactics. I prefer the long term planning, exploiting situations, and taking advantage. I also like a little unknown improv tossed into the mix to spice up those well laid plans. Though, I typically prefer combat to be very quick and decisive. I live more for what happens before and after combat than for what is going on during.

This, to me, is the best evidence yet that D&D actually would benefit from a split of the line.

Make one game that is for the strategic folks, and another that is for the tactical folks. Since these are actually different design goals, different enough that fulfilling both often means doing badly at both, this could be a major benefit to the hobby. Don't force people who want a strategy-focused game to slog through combats they think should be (as you say) quick and decisive. Likewise, don't force people who yearn for the tactically-deep combats to slog through stuff that (in their eyes) feels like doing your taxes just so you can avoid being squished.

 

[payn]

This, to me, is the best evidence yet that D&D actually would benefit from a split of the line.

Make one game that is for the strategic folks, and another that is for the tactical folks. Since these are actually different design goals, different enough that fulfilling both often means doing badly at both, this could be a major benefit to the hobby. Don't force people who want a strategy-focused game to slog through combats they think should be (as you say) quick and decisive. Likewise, don't force people who yearn for the tactically-deep combats to slog through stuff that (in their eyes) feels like doing your taxes just so you can avoid being squished.

In a perfect world, I think you are right. I don't know if there is enough gamers to support two lines though. Seems like shooting for the middle was the best bet. I mean, after all, 5E is everyone's second favorite edition.

This discussion does remind me why I like Traveller so much. Its far more focused on strategy and combat is combat. Doesn't get more complex as the game goes on.

 

[Deset Gled]

I mean this seems like a superb example of strategy, not tactics. You even called it "a sound strategy". I think conflating the two terms is unhelpful myself, even though it is common.

Excuse me, sir. This is D&D message board, not a Six Sigma training session.

 

[Lanefan]

There's no "both" option, thus did not vote.

Because "both" is the answer. Tactics are an important part of D&D when they add to the drama-tension-etc. but are not an important part of D&D when they cause the game to grind to a halt for hours while the players (in character) make plans.

 

[ad_hoc]

Last gaming session we had an encounter that absolutely illustrated the importance of tactics. They stumbled onto some guardians and entered battle willy-nilly as they usually do. They all took a couple 30 HP hits and ran. The guardians were magical and only cared about defending the room they were in. They spent 10 (real-world) minutes healing and planning, then tried the encounter again with a sound strategy that made use of a bunch of their strengths and while they still took some lumps, they beat the guardians with only two people getting as low as half their HP.

Tactics absolutely make a difference, provided the party sticks to the strategy once combat actually starts. I've seen so many times where they say "we'll open with a fireball from the wizard," but then someone charges right into melee before the wizard has a chance to do anything.

This only works if they yell their own name as a battle cry.