This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

5e Tactical Module

Started by B.T., June 19, 2012, 10:49:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

B.T.

June 19, 2012, 10:49:31 PM
Sigh.
QuoteWith the usual caveat that the tactical combat rules module is still a work in progress, I can give you an idea of where we're headed. We're thinking this chunk of optional rules covers tighter integration with a grid, templates for area effects, more grid-based rules for line of sight and cover, along with more options for movement and forced movement. Perhaps one of the more exciting portions of this module that we're tinkering with is facing rules. Mike has drafted some very tight, clean rules for facing that should add a lot of tactical depth to combat, and make movement and positioning even more important than ever. Of course, we'll see how things shake out in playtesting, but we want the tactical combat module to provide a full, rich tactical experience that is completely compatible with our base rules.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;530561Y\'know, I\'ve learned something from this thread. Both B.T. and Koltar are idiots, but whereas B.T. possesses a malign intelligence, Koltar is just a drooling fuckwit.

So, that\'s something, I guess.

Marleycat

#1
June 20, 2012, 03:08:25 AM
Quote from: B.T.;550261Sigh.

Frank may be using the term all wrong.  But vaporware seems appropriate until more info is public. I choose to make an informed decision much later, thank you.
Don\'t mess with cats we kill wizards in one blow.;)

Monster Manuel

#2
June 20, 2012, 05:31:11 AM
It's also just a module, and likely won't see use at my table. Although in cases where there has to be grid-based combat, such as a game I join as a player, I prefer there to be facing.
Proud Graduate of Parallel University.

The Mosaic Oracle is on sale now. It\'s a raw, open-sourced game design Toolk/Kit based on Lurianic Kabbalah and Lambda Calculus that uses English key words to build statements. If you can tell stories, you can make it work. It fits on one page. Wait for future games if you want something basic; an implementation called Wonders and Worldlings is coming soon.

1989

#3
June 20, 2012, 10:28:37 AM
Good thing it's gonna be in a module. Don't care what they do with it as long as I don't have to look at it.

Take your grid, and stuff it, WotC.

As far as complaints . . . I don't understand. You want tactical? You want minis? You want all that detail. Well, facing is a pretty important thing. They should break it down into 1-second rounds as well.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions