D&D 5E What should be in the Advanced Tactical Module?

[Obryn]

I mentioned in another thread, there seem to be a few very distinct and deeply-felt reasons why people like 4e (if they do).

I suspect that for the "tactical combat" folks, a good module will do it.

For the more esoterically motivated, I wonder if the "4e-narrative" module is as impossible as is often presumed. However, that's probably a topic for another thread.

I expect there are folks it will work for. I think, however, that a lot of 4e's tactical combat appeal is inextricably tied to the strong metagame and/or narrative aspects, though. Maybe I'm wrong.

-O

 

[Ratskinner]

I expect there are folks it will work for. I think, however, that a lot of 4e's tactical combat appeal is inextricably tied to the strong metagame and/or narrative aspects, though. Maybe I'm wrong.

Without trying to be inflammatory, I know personally that there are some who play 4e as basically a tactical skirmish game and love it for it. Of course, its impossible for me to know what fraction of the 4e audience they represent. I assume there must be some distribution between the heavy-tactical, middle-ground, and strong narrative folks. Whether WotC has any better information on that, or some other enlightened plan of dealing with it...even less certain.

 

[RangerWickett]

Maces and picks vs. plate armor. Spears and thrusting swords vs. chain. Slashing weapons vs. flesh. Big weapons vs. big creatures.

I would like an optional system that encourages characters to carry a variety of tools for a variety of combat situations.

 

[DMZ2112]

My pie in the sky wish for the tactical rules module is that it will provide all the functionality of D&D4 combat adjudication without any of the hand waving. I think all that pushing, pulling, and turning upside down and shaking is great, but I really need to believe it is /possible/, and D&D4's less simulationist approach to action resolution never gave me that sense of security.

If you don't need this kind of hand-holding, that's great, and you can feel free to ignore any or all of it in 'my' D&D5, but for starters I would like to see a system that assumes tactical movement "powers" /cannot/ be used, and then itemizes the circumstances in which they work, rather than assuming everything is 'always on,' no matter the battlefield situation.

Oh, and I would /love/ to see the game go to five-foot inches instead of five-foot squares, thus negating all of this Pythagorean nonsense.

 

[DonAdam]

I want 1-yard squares.

 

[Obryn]

If you don't need this kind of hand-holding, that's great, and you can feel free to ignore any or all of it in 'my' D&D5, but for starters I would like to see a system that assumes tactical movement "powers" /cannot/ be used, and then itemizes the circumstances in which they work, rather than assuming everything is 'always on,' no matter the battlefield situation.

Yep, that's where we differ. Months ago, there are many threads about "player fiat." We all know how DM fiat works - it's a necessary part of D&D - but player fiat usually depends on spellcasting of some sort... in every edition other than 4e. So far.

That's a major component of the "narrative combat" I mentioned earlier. The players should get to make declarations about the game world or shared narrative without requiring the use of magic. (Please let's not turn this into a CaGI debate.)

I have a very strong feeling that Next's tactical combat will be how you describe, and it's a major reason why - so far - I doubt it will provide what this particular 4e player is looking for.

-O

 

[DMZ2112]

Obryn, do you not agree that a "combat logic" module limiting the effects of tactical "powers" would be an easy drop-in/drop-out for people who preferred a simulationist or narrativist feel to their combat, provided that the drop-in/drop-out was applied universally?

 

[RangerWickett]

When a fighter pushes an elephant, he startles it and threatens it so it takes a few steps back. When he slides an iron golem, he figures out its attack pattern and steps in a way to prompt it to lunge where he wants it to end up. When he trips an ooze, . . . well okay, that doesn't make any sense. But 'viscous fluid' as an enemy doesn't make much sense in the first place.

 

[Obryn]

Obryn, do you not agree that a "combat logic" module limiting the effects of tactical "powers" would be an easy drop-in/drop-out for people who preferred a simulationist or narrativist feel to their combat, provided that the drop-in/drop-out was applied universally?

I don't know, frankly.

I'm having a hard time picturing it. That's not to say it's impossible, only that I can't think of a way to do this without messing with some pretty fundamental system mechanics.

-O

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I agree with Obryn that a tactical module and a metagame module are separate things, appealing to different aspects of 4E.

Comparing it to magic does the concept a bit of a disservice, only because magic isn't narrative control in the metagame space. It entirely exists withing the setting. By keeping the concepts distinct in our minds, we can more readily see a metagame module that is truly its own.

First, metagame resources wouldn't be based on in-game time, but in narrative time. For example, players (not characters) could have at-will, session, and adventure resources. There could be generic metagame rules, but players could also build their own pool of powers. For example, at the beginning of an adventure, a player decides to choose the "Build a Relationship" adventure power. At some point during the adventure they can use this power to make any NPC develop some form of close relationship with them. The details would be worked out with the DM.

That's just one path the system could take. It could be a system similar to Fate, or Karma in old editions of Shadowrun, or even the Savage Worlds Adventure Deck.