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

[Manbearcat]

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

Narrativist play requires narrativist tools, just as simulationist play requires simulationist tools.

I think this is easily enough done and 4e already has functionality to this extent. The vast, vast majority of Martial Keyword powers are fundamentally Simulationist; causal logic is the driver and A > B requires little mental overhead. Its only issue is the temporal based resource schemes (martial encounter and daily powers).

You can have a simple core tactical module and use Keywords to cordone/silo the Simulationist Powers and the Narrative/Metagame Leveraging Powers away from one another. Easily enough done.

However. With the use of Keywords for clarity, expediency (and page count saving), the "these resource schemes look too 'gamey' and the books read like engineering manuals" complaints come out. Bridging that gap may require the use of purple prose in formatting the Simulationist powers (the simulationist version will probably need to be called maneuvers or tactics instead of powers so as to avoid the kewl powerz phonemenon) without the "immersion breaking, gamist jargon". The requirement of an abundance of purple prose may turn a large conveyance of "maneuver blocks" into a page-eating monster which will require the cutting away of essential material or upping the material cost to produce, and then sell, the books (and corresponding, uncomfortable meetings with the accounting dept).

Ok. Not easily enough done. I'm so glad I'm not on this project.

 

[Li Shenron]

Sounds like it will be more like a toolbox than just a module, i.e. a group of submodules each of which can be used/ignored individually. The common ground of most of them will be the use of a battle grid.

 

[Ratskinner]

However. With the use of Keywords for clarity, expediency (and page count saving), the "these resource schemes look too 'gamey' and the books read like engineering manuals" complaints come out. Bridging that gap may require the use of purple prose in formatting the Simulationist powers (the simulationist version will probably need to be called maneuvers or tactics instead of powers so as to avoid the kewl powerz phonemenon) without the "immersion breaking, gamist jargon". The requirement of an abundance of purple prose may turn a large conveyance of "maneuver blocks" into a page-eating monster which will require the cutting away of essential material or upping the material cost to produce, and then sell, the books (and corresponding, uncomfortable meetings with the accounting dept).

I dunno about "purple prose"*, but I think something more along the lines of how Dungeon World describes its moves might work. I would also note that the formatting blocks a la 4e can actually sometimes take up more real estate than if powers were just described with in-line text. There's tradeoff for that readability...more than one considering the things you mention.

What I'm not sure of is how to fit it in beside what seems to be 5e lighter sim vibe of maneuvers (if they stick around.) It seems to be that they'd somehow need to be orthogonal.....

Ok. Not easily enough done. I'm so glad I'm not on this project.

Cannot agree strenuously enough.

*Without loss of applicability to my statement above, it should be expected as a matter of course that amongst the participants in this imaginative leisure acitivity in which we communally indulge there are those who still pine for the return of obfuscatorily illuminating verbosity in their rules.

 

[Gorgoroth]

In completing this little exercise I've come to the conclusion that sliding is too open-ended a mechanic and should probably be eliminated, but that's another issue.

Sliding and unlimited pushing just make the game silly and absurd beyond comprehension. Especially for martial characters to do that at-will, without fail. That's just so fake. Even if there was an explicit magic reason to do it, sliding is still silly. Pushing, on the other hand...with also within reason

 

[Warbringer]

Sliding and unlimited pushing just make the game silly and absurd beyond comprehension. Especially for martial characters to do that at-will, without fail. That's just so fake. Even if there was an explicit magic reason to do it, sliding is still silly. Pushing, on the other hand...with also within reason

I really don't get this sentiment.

Look at any action orientated movie scene, combat is all over the place, from Errol Flynn, to Lotr and the Hobbit, to multiple HK movies .. combat is not static. If the mechanism is not there to move an opponent, then it is static (and as a competitive martial artist, trust me I can move you around the arena).

In fantasy ... yes this is exaggerated, the hero is the central player, the only deliminater then is can this only be done by magic. If so, all characters need to have access to a magical capabilities.

And FWIW, I haven't played 4e in 3+ years ... but incorporated the dynamic comabt into my own 3e extended ruleset.

 

[Manbearcat]

Even if there was an explicit magic reason to do it, sliding is still silly.

"Slide" an opponent is not literal. Its just "gamist jargon" to easily facilitate players interfacing with the tactical engine. You aren't putting a chute under the character and "sliding" them. You aren't magically compelling them or removing their autonomy...its just simulating the very mundane, yet dynamic, interchange between 2 martial actors on any field of "battle."

Sliding an opponent is the tactical engine's way of conveying; forcing an opponent to circle left, circle right, come forward and engage or back up. This happens in every martial exercise in the world from ball sports to cage-fighting. Fighter with big right roundhouse kick or left hook; forces (slides) opponent to circle in the opposite direction, left or right. Fighter with aggression that likes to close the distance and dirty box or take his opponent down; forces (slides) opponent back. Fighter with reach advantage or that likes to hit and run (a la Lyoto Machida); forces (slides) opponent forward to attempt to engage or close distance. A basketball guard with devastating first step quickness; forces (slides) opponent to back off. A basketball guard with an uncanny, quick release jump shot; forces (slides) opponent forward to attempt to crowd him.

I shouldn't have done that. What have I done...(please, no one mention THE MARTIAL EXPLOIT THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED)

 

[DMZ2112]

Sliding an opponent is the tactical engine's way of conveying; forcing an opponent to circle left, circle right, come forward and engage or back up. This happens in every martial exercise in the world from ball sports to cage-fighting.

I did not intend to go into detail, but I'll add to my previous statement that a "power" accomplishing any /one/ of these things would be perfectly acceptable in my book -- the problem with sliding is that it can be any or all of them at once.

 

[Dausuul]

"Slide" an opponent is not literal. Its just "gamist jargon" to easily facilitate players interfacing with the tactical engine. You aren't putting a chute under the character and "sliding" them. You aren't magically compelling them or removing their autonomy...its just simulating the very mundane, yet dynamic, interchange between 2 martial actors on any field of "battle."

Sliding an opponent is the tactical engine's way of conveying; forcing an opponent to circle left, circle right, come forward and engage or back up. This happens in every martial exercise in the world from ball sports to cage-fighting. Fighter with big right roundhouse kick or left hook; forces (slides) opponent to circle in the opposite direction, left or right. Fighter with aggression that likes to close the distance and dirty box or take his opponent down; forces (slides) opponent back. Fighter with reach advantage or that likes to hit and run (a la Lyoto Machida); forces (slides) opponent forward to attempt to engage or close distance. A basketball guard with devastating first step quickness; forces (slides) opponent to back off. A basketball guard with an uncanny, quick release jump shot; forces (slides) opponent forward to attempt to crowd him.

I shouldn't have done that. What have I done...(please, no one mention THE MARTIAL EXPLOIT THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED)

You know, the errata make that exploit much less obnoxious. Just sayin'.

But your examples are not true forced movement. If you have a reach advantage, that creates an incentive for your opponent to try and close the distance, but it doesn't compel the opponent to do so. The opponent might find it more advantageous to back away, buying time until an ally can come to her aid. The threat of a powerful right kick or left hook is better, but there are still options other than moving in the direction of your choice. One can try to block, or jump back.

In a D&D context, I think such maneuvers would be easier for many people to swallow if they set up a choice rather than a compulsion. Move closer or I get a free attack thanks to my superior reach. Move sideways or I deal extra damage if my attack hits. It's more tactically interesting, too.

 

[Manbearcat]

In a D&D context, I think such maneuvers would be easier for many people to swallow if they set up a choice rather than a compulsion. Move closer or I get a free attack thanks to my superior reach. Move sideways or I deal extra damage if my attack hits. It's more tactically interesting, too.

I agree actually and I would love this. This is precisely how "marking" works and it may be the most tactically rich (without too much complex fiddliness) part of 4e; real melee control. However, for some folks it passes their "fiddly" or "complex" threshold. An entire "forced movement" system that leverages mark's "catch-22" mechanics may be problematic for a large cross-section of the audience the designers are attempting to court.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Look, I liked 4e dynamic combats too, for a while, then I realized that the maneuvers in Pathfinder just made so much more sense, narratively and mechanically.

When you write " forces (slides) opponent back " and "forces (slides) opponent forward" do you mean pushing and pulling? I'm talking about sliding in an arbitrary vector, which to me sounds more like magnetism or the way the wind swerves my car a bit on the freeway, or perhaps two hockey players punching each other's lights out on the ice. For solid ground, and most of the stuff in The Hobbit, for example, there's always friction and the moves, while cinematic and exaggerated (and cool), seem plausible, sort of like the Harlem Globe Trotters. Pushing and pulling are valid things to do, sliding some ogre who weighs 5 times more than you do, three squares back, while remaining in your same same square yourself, beggars belief. Even when I saw The Avengers fight with The Hulk stopping that huge flying albatross dead in its tracks, that was awesome and cinematic and cool, but also totally fake and after watching it ten times, it kind of bugs me. Yeah, I write game physics for a living, sue me The player has a certain expectation from the game world physics, and even though D&D is even more abstract than any modern game physics, it should still at least in theory, attempt to keep munane matters feeling within the realm of plausibility. Sure if you get magic strength belts and so on, or cast Grease, great, but if I can do something at will without Grease spell, why should the wizard ever cast it? I can just keep sliding the ogre to the edge of the cliff until he fails his save, no matter any other concerns.

Do not want "auto win", physics-defying maneuvers. Shaolin monks, strongmen competitions, all sorts of really cool extreme things are possible, let's stick within that. "Sliding" has a distinct meaning, implying your feet are on the ground and it's slippery. If you mean something else, why not use a better term?