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

[DMZ2112]

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.

Marking is neither fiddly nor complex; it's just so gamist it makes my teeth hurt.

No, wait, I'm done using gamist/simulationist -- no one can seem to agree on what they mean.

Marking is absolutely one thing that I would houserule out of any D&D5 game I ran, if it is included in the RAW. If a front-line combatant wants to control an enemy, let him use his attacks to threaten it, let him use his movement to chase it, let him use his wit to taunt it, but for the love of all that is holy do not let him use a singular ability that negates the need for all of that.

Marking is not tactically rich, it's tactically /lazy/.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Well, that's what advanced tactical modules are for, isn't it?

Though one way to make it simpler is to present the opponent with a choice in the moment, usually along the lines of "Move here or get whacked." No keeping track of marks, it all happens right then, on the fighter's turn.

 

[Manbearcat]

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. <snip>

"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?

"Slide" means nothing in the game-world. Its the same concept as Hit Points, Saving Throws, Levels, Experience Points, Feats, etc; metagame vocabulary to facilitate play. The characters in the game world do not express what they are doing as "sliding" any more than they reference Hit Points to convey their luck, stamina, vitality, manifest destiny, training, "meat". Again, "slide" is just unified vocabulary (gamist jargon) for players to facilitate play; in this case specifically to communicate their intent and the resolution of their actions with respect to forced movement on a grid/battlemat.

Bob the gamer uses "Footwork Lure"; attacks his foe and successfully shifts one square and slides his opponent to his former square (presumably for tactical advantage or to remove tactical disadvantage). Bob's swashbuckling character in the gameworld is flanked by two enemies. He feints an opening, luring one opponent to attack, parries it and spins at the last second, exchanging positions with his off-balance foe...foiling the flanking attempt.

 

[Obryn]

Marking is neither fiddly nor complex; it's just so gamist it makes my teeth hurt.

No, wait, I'm done using gamist/simulationist -- no one can seem to agree on what they mean.

Marking is absolutely one thing that I would houserule out of any D&D5 game I ran, if it is included in the RAW. If a front-line combatant wants to control an enemy, let him use his attacks to threaten it, let him use his movement to chase it, let him use his wit to taunt it, but for the love of all that is holy do not let him use a singular ability that negates the need for all of that.

Marking is not tactically rich, it's tactically /lazy/.

Yeah, we're not going to see eye to eye on this. Marking is one of 4e's more dynamic abilities because it sets up two bad choices for an enemy and provides for some incredible control. It lets defenders defend without all the overhead of an "aggro" mechanic. DMs can ignore it and suffer the consequences; it's still up to them.

Far from being lazy, I find it simple and elegant. It works alongside everything else a defender can do.

I think that's the major play style difference. I think metagame mechanics, done right, are excellent ways - as I said, simple and elegant - to reinforce exactly the themes you're aiming to explore without a burdensome process-sim overhead. A Fighter who can mark works just like I think a fighter should - and certainly more so than previously. It's effects-based; the important bit is how it turns out at the table, not how it got there. Is the Fighter standing his ground while the ravenous hordes assail him on all sides, uselessly scrabbling against his armor? Problem solved.

... So how likely is it Next can come up with a set of mechanics that will satisfy both of us?

-O

 

[Gorgoroth]

Obryn, why can't "marking" be achieved as a maneuver? You use your reaction to swing at the guy if he attacks somebody else than you, and your swing is distracting too, thus giving him a -2 to hit your ally. There are already a few maneuvers like that. If he attacks you, use your reaction to parry him. If he attacks your friend, essentially get an attack of opportunity on him. There's nothing in there that requires magical or narrative suspension of disbelief. Sure, you only get one reaction per round, but it refreshes at the end of your turn.

Maneuvers are pretty much universally loved from what I've seen. Makes fighters fun to play (and actually somewhat similar to the 4e fighter, but still more realistic and constrained)

 

[DMZ2112]

... So how likely is it Next can come up with a set of mechanics that will satisfy both of us?

Through the use of rules modules? Extremely likely. But I would agree with previous posters in this thread who have said that the "metagame" module needs to be separate from the tactical module. I didn't really understand what they were saying until now, but yeah, if marking is a "metagame" ability, fook that sheet, my man.

 

[Obryn]

Obryn, why can't "marking" be achieved as a maneuver? You use your reaction to swing at the guy if he attacks somebody else than you, and your swing is distracting too, thus giving him a -2 to hit your ally. There are already a few maneuvers like that. If he attacks you, use your reaction to parry him. If he attacks your friend, essentially get an attack of opportunity on him. There's nothing in there that requires magical or narrative suspension of disbelief. Sure, you only get one reaction per round, but it refreshes at the end of your turn.

Maneuvers are pretty much universally loved from what I've seen. Makes fighters fun to play (and actually somewhat similar to the 4e fighter, but still more realistic and constrained)

It depends mostly on how it's handled, honestly. There was a thread about Fighters getting nice things a few months ago, and I didn't see anything that lived up to what the Fighter can do in 4e by default. So I wasn't impressed, but that's not to say it's impossible.

Marking is one mechanical implementation of a theme. There are other possibilities on how to represent it in play. But for the record, neither "realistic" nor "constrained" are on my priority list for a new D&D.

Through the use of rules modules? Extremely likely. But I would agree with previous posters in this thread who have said that the "metagame" module needs to be separate from the tactical module. I didn't really understand what they were saying until now, but yeah, if marking is a "metagame" ability, fook that sheet, my man.

Marking is less "metagame" than, say, bennies/action points/fate points, but yeah, it's definitely in the metagame space.

I'm thinking that a "module" for this sort of thing would really amount to "whole 'nother game," and that's where I'm running into a wall on the topic.

But look, lest there be any doubt, I want 5e to be the best 5e that 5e can be. I don't want it to be another 4e, since it's clearly not going to be any sort of "4.5" . But I also don't want it to be another 1e, 2e, 3e, or some unholy conglomeration of the lot. I don't want it stuck in any mechanics or assumptions that other, perfectly workable editions of D&D are better at. Quite seriously, the only way Next can win me as a customer is to do something new, radical, and different that I haven't seen in D&D before. I acknowledge - this may be impossible without alienating much of the rest of the fan base, but that's where I am. I'm okay being "left behind"; much like I said 5 years ago, it's not like WotC's coming to my house and burning my books. (Note - this last packet is the first evidence I've seen that Next is developing towards being its own thing rather than some kind of reheated D&D mash. At this point, it might get to be a game in the rotation, though probably not my weekly game.)

Tying it back to the topic (or at least the derail): As far as metagame mechanics go, the games I love vary wildly in their implementation, but I've found that - down the line - the ones I really like nowadays and really want to run tend to be heavier on the metagame side. Far from being lazy, I see this as elegant, simple, and clean - focused on the effects rather than the process. Case in point... I love Earthdawn. It's about the most "associated" game you can imagine, with essentially no metagame whatsoever. Really - every mechanic from spells to experience to hit points to karma has an in-world, character-observable justification. It manages to do this while letting "martial" characters be awesome (through...er...giving them magic, but whatever). But, when it comes down to it, there's no way I'm going to run it because in getting to that point it's become super damn complicated.

So that's why I'm a big proponent of the metagame's inclusion, here, and why we're going down this narrative tangent. If Next isn't that sort of game, it's a lot less likely to win me as a customer ... because I already have quite a few perfectly playable editions of D&D that are on the "low metagame" scale and I'd run them in a heartbeat. (Behind 4e, AD&D 1e and RC/BX/BECMI are my favorites; I'd like to run 1e again, but with two young boys, there just isn't the time.)

OK. /ramble. Time for some Bioshock.

-O

 

[Raith5]

I'll be perfectly honest -- I don't personally believe in compromise between the DM and the players. I'm an advocate of absolute DM authority. I think that's his role and I think it makes the game more fun (when it's done well). But at the very least, the rules have to permit narrative compromise, and dictating that a tactical "power" has a specific, non-negotiable effect on the battlefield interferes with narrative compromise just as much as leaving the effect of the "power" entirely up to DM fiat.

BUt that sounds like you dont really needs rules modules at all.

The modules in DDN seem to me to be sets of rules that actively enable certain types of actions to be performed, unlike the core rules which set out all different forms of restrictions on what a PC or monster can do. Whether it is a tactical module, a legacy module or maybe a utility/skill powers module these all seem to me to be extra things that empower the PC with different options.

I see giving the players options that dont need DM authorisation something that deeply enriches the game both in social and tactical situation because it puts responsibility in the players hands to push the game forward, makes everything more unpredictable etc. Obviously some DM's wont want this in their game.

 

[Raith5]

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.

I agree with this. Many of these elements could be dropped into any game - using a grid for a session here and there etc. I also think that things like action points could easily be added for PCs and some monsters.

In regards to deeper/ more far reaching tactical elements. I would like to see further options for weapon choice to have significance. In particular I would like to see attacks that target non AC. I really liked 4th ed abilities like the Rouge power Sly Flourish that targeted Reflex rather than AC. It just seems to make sense for me for rouges to be able to slip their blade past the armour of heavily armoured foes. It makes tactical sense I guess. This is more far reaching because it would be a core element of character design rather than a simple addition to the rules.

 

[DMZ2112]

Case in point... I love Earthdawn. It's about the most "associated" game you can imagine, with essentially no metagame whatsoever. Really - every mechanic from spells to experience to hit points to karma has an in-world, character-observable justification. It manages to do this while letting "martial" characters be awesome (through...er...giving them magic, but whatever). But, when it comes down to it, there's no way I'm going to run it because in getting to that point it's become super damn complicated.

FASA had some wizards working for them, that's for sure. Earthdawn and Shadowrun are both works of art of a sort.

So that's why I'm a big proponent of the metagame's inclusion, here, and why we're going down this narrative tangent. If Next isn't that sort of game, it's a lot less likely to win me as a customer ... because I already have quite a few perfectly playable editions of D&D that are on the "low metagame" scale and I'd run them in a heartbeat. (Behind 4e, AD&D 1e and RC/BX/BECMI are my favorites; I'd like to run 1e again, but with two young boys, there just isn't the time.)

This is really the core of the D&D5 problem -- the world doesn't need it. That's a topic for another thread, though.

For my part, I have much the same opinion as you, but my approach to satisfying them is that D&D ought to either be D&D or vanish. I felt this way six months after D&D4 launched (sorry), and I still feel this way now. Metagame and narrative license might make a great RPG, but it doesn't make a great D&D. If I want a different play experience I'll play a different game.

BUt that sounds like you dont really needs rules modules at all.

/I/ don't, for the most part. But D&D isn't about me, it's about reaching, attracting, and keeping as many players as possible, whether they've been playing for 40 years or five. If I am critiquing an optional rule, it's because I don't think its inclusion serves that goal., optional or not.