Tactics - What are they? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

mgshamster

2016-01-18, 12:44 PM

Please note - I do not want an edition war.

I've seen some people claim that 5e has fewer tactical options than 3.X/PF and 4e.

This is absolutely not my experience, and what I'm looking for is greater understanding and/or insight why why 3.X and 4e may have greater tactical options than 5e. What is meant by tactics? Are we talking about options on the character sheet or in-character roleplaying options (concentration fire on target, splitting the enemy, hammer and anvil tactics, etc...) or something else entirely?

As an old soldier, I'm used to using tactics from a battlefield perspective, so when I look at tactics, I look at it from the perspective of the battle. But as a gamer I also look at tactics from the perspective of what my character can bring to the fight - aka the options I have on my character sheet. To me, 5e seems to have just as many, if not more tactical options than my years of playing 3.X (not ever played one session of 4e, so I can't give it a proper analysis). In 3.X, many of the options I wanted to use were unavailable, due to being locked behind feats; but in 5e many of those options are now available (and a lot of it is due to bounded accuracy), such as grappling and combat maneuvers without having to specialize in them. Heck, my players have been engaging in more tactical play than I've seen them use in years! They've finally started using options outside their character sheet, engaging in the terrain, thinking about pre-battle set-ups for greater advantage, and more. This may be due to maturity (they're in their mid 20s but we started as a group when they were in their early 20s), or maybe they just feel that 5e is more permissive and they actually try things.

So my questions is: what do people mean when they say they have more tactical options in 3.X and 4e? What do they mean by tactics? How are they defining it?

I'm looking for understanding and insight. Perhaps my own analysis has been wrong (definitely possible!); why do people feel so limited when playing 5e?

OldTrees1

2016-01-18, 01:33 PM

I don't think it is strictly one way or the other, I will highlight this with 2 examples:

1) Threatened square -> Threatened area
A subtle nerf to AoOs to be sure, but suddenly enemies can stroll right past your position if they remain within your area.

2) Actions before/after movement -> Actions outside/inside of movement
The added mobility of this should be obvious.

As a general trend 5E has buffed mobility and nerfed position compared to 3rd. Since both are important components to most generalized tactical options(concentration fire on target, splitting the enemy, hammer and anvil tactics, formation, blitz, skirmish, etc...), some of these generalized tactical options become more/less viable. This can result in having more/less tactical options than 3E.

LaserFace

2016-01-18, 01:43 PM

I suspect when people are complaining about a lack of tactics in 5E, they're really saying they want more codified mechanics that are designed to layer on top of one-another. Much of the mechanics behind 5E strikes me as more of a "think it out and do what makes sense" sort of deal whereas 4E was more about finding little combos (A: "My attack knocks guys over" B: "I can do a thing when you do that!"). My experience with 3.x also involved little combos with how you choose feats etc, but seemed more of a thing you discovered rather than something built into the very nature of how the game worked as with 4E.

5E is absolutely tactical, it just sacrifices written-in detail for the ability to do more or less as you see fit.

SpawnOfMorbo

2016-01-18, 01:50 PM

Gwendol

2016-01-18, 02:36 PM

The game is highly tactical, but focused more on situational awareness and less on system mastery.

Taejang

2016-01-18, 02:44 PM

5E is absolutely tactical, it just sacrifices written-in detail for the ability to do more or less as you see fit.
This matches my experience, and what I see written on forums and articles. 3.X was much more explicit in what you could and couldn't do, and how it could be done, and what effect that had. 5e was designed to have fewer rules, which means more is left unsaid. Since 5e doesn't say something, they assume they can't do it.

It is a mindset thing, an expectation, that some players haven't yet adapted to. Some players may never adapt, or may not want to adapt- I've certainly met some who just like rules and working within the rules, and unstructured environments are not as fun for them. Everybody likes different things about gaming, and that is the way it should be.

The other tactical component, as you say, is what a character brings to the situation. 5e has many, many fewer options for classes, spells, items, feats, and etc than 3.X, with its many years of splatbooks. It is my understanding WotC is intentionally doing splatbooks slower this time around, trying to make them work together better. Still, eventually 5e will have more character options, and thus the tactical options derived from those characters will be expanded.

The game is highly tactical, but focused more on situational awareness and less on system mastery.
Also this, with a slight caveat: there is still system mastery in 5e, and some of those complaining about a lack of tactics have far more system mastery in other editions than in 5e. After years of looking through a 3.X lens, they already know all the tactical quirks, but they may only have a handful of games worth of experience with as few as one class's tactical options in 5e.

I can't comment on 4e, as I've never played it and don't read articles on it.

mgshamster

2016-01-18, 02:51 PM

Taejang

2016-01-18, 03:14 PM

But I've seen plenty of people coming from both 3.X and 4e say they don't like it because they feel so limited in options and tactics, and it just baffles me.

So I'm hoping to learn why.
Repeating this question on the subforums for those editions may get you better results. Most of those who say they feel limited in 5e aren't going to frequent 5e's subforum.

mephnick

2016-01-18, 03:22 PM

Kane0

2016-01-18, 03:49 PM

But I've seen plenty of people coming from both 3.X and 4e say they don't like it because they feel so limited in options and tactics, and it just baffles me.

I think what they mean specifically is build options rather than in game options and mechanics. At least that's what I've heard from 90% of people I quiz.

I agree with mephnick though. 3.PF has far more complexity and depth, until you finish and equip your build. Then you're kinda stuck with the tactics you chose unless you can progress further or swap your choices.

CrusaderJoe

2016-01-18, 03:57 PM

5E is absolutely tactical, it just sacrifices written-in detail for the ability to do more or less as you see fit.

Then 5e isn't tactical, the DM and players have to compensate for 5e's lack of tactical rules.

People tend to mix up the fact that just because you can do something doesn't mean it is a feature of the game. Usually it is a feature of the DM/Party.

5e is less tactical because it has less rules for it than other games.

It's ok to accept the fact that your game isn't perfect, it doesn't mean you can't have fun with it or use it.

Edit

Its like saying... I'm selling you a car that doesn't have seatbelts because then you get the choice to install and use them and saying that my car is safer because I give you the choice to install whatever seatbelt you want.

Less is more is a marketing plot used to take advantage of people.

mgshamster

2016-01-18, 04:01 PM

Repeating this question on the subforums for those editions may get you better results. Most of those who say they feel limited in 5e aren't going to frequent 5e's subforum.

That was actually my next plan! :)

I wanted to ask here, first, though. Many forum frequenters have played previous editions, and I feel that one should have some experience with this edition to give a good answer. I am a little afraid that taking it to a predominantly 3.X or 4e forum will just yield a ton of misconceptions about why 5e is limited vs an actual analysis from people who play 5e and also have experience with other editions.

I've been in a few threads about 5e vs other edition, and many of the anti-5e posters have had some massive misconceptions about the system, such as believing that there are zero rules for grappling or tripping (ergo you simply can't do it), or that it's easy to break the game by power-gaming/munchkining (so long as you ignore the rules - one guy made a build that could have 5 bonus actions per turn not realizing that it's limited to one per turn; he kept conflating terminology thinking a bonus action was just a "bonus!" instead of a 3.X swift action), or even "if you're not a caster, all you can do is stab things."

Those are real arguments I've heard against 5e and why people don't like it - and all of them come from misunderstanding the system. I feel that my best chance of analysis is in the 5e forums, but I do plan to take the question to other gamers and get their opinion as well.

mgshamster

2016-01-18, 04:03 PM

LaserFace

2016-01-18, 04:50 PM

Then 5e isn't tactical, the DM and players have to compensate for 5e's lack of tactical rules.

People tend to mix up the fact that just because you can do something doesn't mean it is a feature of the game. Usually it is a feature of the DM/Party.

5e is less tactical because it has less rules for it than other games.

It's ok to accept the fact that your game isn't perfect, it doesn't mean you can't have fun with it or use it.

Edit

Its like saying... I'm selling you a car that doesn't have seatbelts because then you get the choice to install and use them and saying that my car is safer because I give you the choice to install whatever seatbelt you want.

Less is more is a marketing plot used to take advantage of people.

If tactics is basically planning and executing action, then 5E allows for any amount of tactics, and in my experience encourages it in a fluid way. There are enemies with specific strengths and weaknesses, and not incorporating that into how you fight the challenge will typically make it much more difficult.

The planning comes more in broad concepts, such as "I'll guard this area" or "I'll use a spell to slow the wizard's henchmen down" rather than in specific "I'll stand in this 10/10 area and get exactly 1 attack against X enemies who don't engage me while moving through spaces Y and Z".

I seriously doubt that a less-is-more approach to 5E was deliberately done to con consumers. It's simply not designed as a minis game.

Cybren

2016-01-18, 04:56 PM

Then 5e isn't tactical, the DM and players have to compensate for 5e's lack of tactical rules.

People tend to mix up the fact that just because you can do something doesn't mean it is a feature of the game. Usually it is a feature of the DM/Party.

5e is less tactical because it has less rules for it than other games.

It's ok to accept the fact that your game isn't perfect, it doesn't mean you can't have fun with it or use it.

Edit

Its like saying... I'm selling you a car that doesn't have seatbelts because then you get the choice to install and use them and saying that my car is safer because I give you the choice to install whatever seatbelt you want.

Less is more is a marketing plot used to take advantage of people.
No, it's not that 5E is less tactical. 5E is less wargamey, which has nothing to do with tactics and everything to do with mechanical presentation.

Tactics is defined as "an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end", and nothing in 5E hampers that. If anything, i'd see the 4E/3.X version of meticulous game mechanics to model things that are better left emergent from other rules as less tactical and more obligatory. Tactics is about adapting to new situations, not using your Tactics Ability.

Telok

2016-01-18, 05:33 PM

BRC

2016-01-18, 06:07 PM

I think people are talking about mechanics like Charging, Flanking, Tripping, Disarming, ect. Which in most cases I would argue are not really lost.

Charging was a way to encourage closing with an enemy and making an attack ,as opposed to making full attacks at range. Now, there are no "Full attacks", so you can simply move up to an enemy and make your attack.

Flanking, even if it no longer carries a mechanical bonus, is still a good idea. The nature of HP in D&D encourages teaming up on foes to bring them down quickly.

Tripping is now primarily a way to slow an enemy down and give yourself or your allies advantage against them. Disarming requires a follow-up to be tactically effective, because it is a simple Item Interaction to pick the weapon back up.

That said, you can still Charge, Flank, Trip, Push, and Disarm your enemies, and those are all still good ideas, they are just not mechanical concepts anymore.

MaxWilson

2016-01-18, 06:40 PM

RE: "less wargamey", 5E has tactics that are more intricate than wargames like BattleTech. Even if you're playing a pure champion fighter, you still have to manage sightlines and total and partial cover, bait enemies into coming within your melee reach (if you're a melee dude), go prone at the appropriate times, Disarm and/or Push enemies at the appropriate times to gain advantage, manage your own movement, be conscious of enemy threat zones (i.e. their movement rate plus their range on attacks or abilities like breath weapons/banshee wails), Hide at the appropriate times and/or avoid difficult terrain and/or force enemies onto difficult terrain in an attempt to gain tempo, etc.

BattleTech really only has total/partial cover and proning rules, and yet it's a whole wargame. 5E has five times as much stuff and people complain about not having enough tactical options? Pfah, anyone who says that doesn't know the meaning of the word "tactics."

As punishment, these people should be forced to play three sessions of gladiatorial combat between same-level Champion fighters in a variety of terrains until they get it through their thick skulls that "tactics" does not mean "Batman utility belt of rechargeable powers."

eastmabl

2016-01-18, 06:55 PM

mgshamster

2016-01-18, 07:26 PM

5e is less tactical because there isn't presumptions of a grids and corresponding rules like flanking.

5e is more tactical in the sense that you don't need feats to break up your attacks, movement, etc.

There is flanking as thought of in 3.X; it's an option rule in the DMG, page 251. It grants advantage.

Even within the normal rules, a relaxed version of flanking still exists for the rogue: so long as an ally is also adjacent to the enemy, the rogue can sneak attack. PHB page 96.

So while I get the idea that grids aren't considered the standard and flanking doesn't grant a +2 bonus, the rules are available if a GM or group wants to use them.

Kane0

2016-01-18, 09:01 PM

There is flanking as thought of in 3.X; it's an option rule in the DMG, page 251. It grants advantage.

We don't talk about the DMG Flanking rules.

To elaborate, many find they actually take more away from 5e than they give as is, tactically speaking. With the amount of times simple flanking (without being altered or countered by other mechanics like optional marking) is an outright more beneficial and easier to achieve than other means of getting advantage means that using those other options are tactically unsound (Why Reckless Attack when you can flank? Why shove prone when you can flank? Why use your spells/abilities when you can flank?).

Edit: I think Telok is on to something too. 5e features far less buttons that say "You can do this" but offers way more freedom to do those same things by not saying "You can't do this without [button]". If that makes sense.

Madbox

2016-01-18, 09:35 PM

People who complain about lack of tactics might just have a mindset of "If it's not explicitly in the book, I can't do it". For example, the book doesn't say that my fighter can throw sand in someone's face to impose disadvantage. But the book does give a listed price for a small pouch that could easily hold sand, there are rules on improvised ranged attacks, and it makes sense that a face full of sand would blind someone for a few seconds, so most DMs would probably allow it.

Heck, just look at some of the items in the PHB. You have caltrops and ball bearings to create difficult terrain anywhere you want, hunting traps to screw with enemies, and loads of other stuff that could be useful if used cleverly. Invisible enemies? Use my action to tie a noose in some rope with a bell attached. Next turn, hold action, slip it onto the enemy when they do something to give away their position. Now we know where they are.

MaxWilson

2016-01-18, 09:51 PM

People who complain about lack of tactics might just have a mindset of "If it's not explicitly in the book, I can't do it". For example, the book doesn't say that my fighter can throw sand in someone's face to impose disadvantage. But the book does give a listed price for a small pouch that could easily hold sand, there are rules on improvised ranged attacks, and it makes sense that a face full of sand would blind someone for a few seconds, so most DMs would probably allow it.

They might also be playing with DMs who have the mindset, "If it's not explicitly in the book, you can't do it." The solution in that case is to find a better DM, unless you can reform the one you've got.

Tanarii

2016-01-18, 10:18 PM

5e has less hardcoded rules. And that's not something lightly dismissed when it comes to combat in general and tactical play specifically, because its far better to know exactly how something is going to work before you try it, and know its going to work the same way every time you try it.

That's what makes 5e less tactical and less wargame-y. But its what makes it better for both narrative play AND simulationist play. In narrative play, you want things to flow and players and DMs to have mechanical freedom to adjust the rules on the fly as befits the story. In simulationist play you want the players NOT to know how things will turn out in advance, and want the DM to have the flexibility to adjust the mechanics to fit the 'reality' being simulated. It also benefits fast and engaging play.

Personally I've liked every edition of D&D since BECMI/1e. I got into battle-mat play starting with 2e C&T, then heavily for 3e, and I cant see playing 4e without a mat. And that's what really feels different about those two editions to me. Despeite the rest of my post above, the real difference is they're more battle mat friendly. Not that much more tactical.

MaxWilson

2016-01-18, 11:10 PM

That's what makes 5e less tactical and less wargame-y. But its what makes it better for both narrative play AND simulationist play. In narrative play, you want things to flow and players and DMs to have mechanical freedom to adjust the rules on the fly as befits the story. In simulationist play you want the players NOT to know how things will turn out in advance, and want the DM to have the flexibility to adjust the mechanics to fit the 'reality' being simulated. It also benefits fast and engaging play.

As a simulationist, my general expectation would be that players SHOULD be able to predict the outcome of their actions, at least in rough outline. If not I would be taken aback:

Me: "Hey DM, I want to grab both the evil wizard's hands so that he can't cast any somatic components. Can I do that with an opposed Athletics check or something?"

Hypothetical DM: "Try it and find out."

Me: "Wait, you mean I don't even know the rules of the universe I live in unless I actually try it during play? As soon as this combat ends, one way or another, I'm going take a break and run a bunch of experiments with the party wizard so we don't have to figure things out on the fly when our lives are already on the line. For now, I guess I'll just try to grab his hands and hope for the best..."

Mara

2016-01-18, 11:28 PM

5e's strength and failing is rulings.

Your tactical options are dependent on your DM. One could let you be basically be Macgyver, another will have you roll skill checks to use spells and walk in a straight line.

It depends on your DM, which is maddening for any would-be analyst or theorycrafter.

Tanarii

2016-01-18, 11:50 PM

Me: "Wait, you mean I don't even know the rules of the universe I live in unless I actually try it during play? The correct answer is: Yep, that's right. Because you don't have the tools, scientific know-how, nor even the knowledge of the existence of scientific theory, to correctly observe the universe you live in and deduce it's rules. Furthermore, the messy reality of your in-game universe, in which doing the apparently same thing, with very slightly different starting conditions, can result in considerably different results. Any game rules sufficiently precise and complex to accurately represent that will bog down play, while extending far beyond the capability of your character to observe, test, theorize and understand them.

Inflexible complex rules are very poor for good simulationist play. That's why computer games are never as good at simulations as any game with a DM willing to make rulings.

Or to put it another way: your character probably knows that constraining or occupying a spellcasters hands *may* stop them. Because he can't measure 'subtle spell' or 'warcaster'. At most, he may know some spellcasters can cast with their hands occupied, or with divine symbols, or without using their hands at all. And decide to risk it. That kind of rules in-universe reality not mapping to mechanical rules perfectly holds at all levels.

I like complex rule systems because they make good war game type D&D, are fair competition that doesn't change at the judges whim. In other words, you can play them and win. But they aren't as good for simulation game play.

Mara

2016-01-19, 12:08 AM

RAW, the DM doesn't have to tell you if what you are trying to do is possible.

"Can I balance on clouds?"
DM says: "Roll for it"
DM A thinks: "This is impossible"
DM B thinks: "DC 30 seems fair."
DM C thinks: "Well a level 20 rogue with 20 dex and expertise, I'll make that a DC 15 for this character."
DM D thinks: "How dare this ingrate try something so childish!? He better be ready to roll up a new character."

All the DMs are following RAW.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 12:20 AM

The correct answer is: Yep, that's right. Because you don't have the tools, scientific know-how, nor even the knowledge of the existence of scientific theory, to correctly observe the universe you live in and deduce it's rules.

And that leads to boring play where the players spend large amounts of time sitting around the table and running experiments that would better happen off-screen.

If I'm DMing and the party is fighting Wraiths and the Necromancer wants to know if the wraiths are vulnerable to Hypnotic Pattern, I'm going to say, "Well, you know that Hypnotic Pattern doesn't work on your own skeletons." I'm not going to force him to have spent table time in advance on running that experiment--I'm happy to just assume that he's minimally competent and intellectually curious, and I'll give him the information that he ought to already know.

To do otherwise is to ask for play to bog down on minutia* as the players defend themselves against future DM nit-picking. Not my style.

* Another example: players will take time to verbally relay to each other information that they gained while the party was split, even though all of the players already know it.

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 12:23 AM

All the DMs are following RAW.Which is why I like well defined war-game style DM-neutral games. Because I don't have to depend as much on the DM to either foreshadow correctly, or give me some idea of likelihood of failure, to survive. In other words, give me more than any in-game reality should logically be giving me, outside of some benign influence of loving gods (aka the DM). I just play the rules, and I'm safe that way.

But as far as simulation or narrative play goes, where they're either not safeguarding the players and therefore deadly (simulation) or the players are the protagonists and have plot armor (narrative), it's enhanced by the flexibility to set any DC or automatic success/failure based on what kinds of clouds they are, what level of wuxia he wants for his in-game reality, whether or not they're magically infused clouds or a magical landscape (the feywild?), etc.

(^-- I'm impressed by my run on sentence there btw. Calling that **** out. ;) )

pwykersotz

2016-01-19, 01:22 AM

Hypothetical DM: "Try it and find out."

I find that the three DM's I usually play with don't say this, and I've only heard of it happening on the forums. They're prone to say things more like "It's unlikely" or "There's a good chance it will work" or "That'll be a DC 12, roll it."

Where I HAVE seen my DM's not want a result being known is in complex interactions of rules which 5e largely avoids. Rather, one of them doesn't much care, but the other two don't like being narratively confined by exacting RAW.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 01:55 AM

I find that the three DM's I usually play with don't say this, and I've only heard of it happening on the forums. They're prone to say things more like "It's unlikely" or "There's a good chance it will work" or "That'll be a DC 12, roll it."

All of those sound fine. The key rules question which the DM is being asked to answer in this situation is, "Is preventing a wizard from using somatic components by wrestling with his hands a futile approach?" It's fine if the PC isn't allowed to know the details of the wizard's stats/whether he has Subtle Spell/etc. It's just a question about "Is this idea even a thing at this table?"

For example, if a player wants to kill a dragon in one blow by stabbing it in the eye, the answer is, "That's not a thing in D&D." There is no DC, it's just flat-out impossible, and the player is allowed to know that.

Mara

2016-01-19, 02:09 AM

For example, if a player wants to kill a dragon in one blow by stabbing it in the eye, the answer is, "That's not a thing in D&D." There is no DC, it's just flat-out impossible, and the player is allowed to know that.
RAW, it can be a DC 5 Dexterity(acrobatics)

DMG suggestions is opposing DC and then using the damage tables. Maybe a temp blindness effect if you are feeling magnanimous.

Dimers

2016-01-19, 02:14 AM

What is meant by tactics? Are we talking about options on the character sheet or in-character roleplaying options (concentration fire on target, splitting the enemy, hammer and anvil tactics, etc...) or something else entirely?

The latter is lacking in 5e's text and not often discussed directly on this forum. Compare to the 3.5 subforum, where numerous spells and martial-adept maneuvers are frequently brought up as examples of the 'how' and 'why' of tactics. Or compare to 4e's 'roles', which are (overly broad) categorizations of tactical jobs, so you can e.g. presume at a glance that putting an enemy next to your party's defender is tactically good, or that swarms of minor enemies will be more trouble if you don't have a controller, or that your best approach with a party full of strikers is to nova like mad and then see if any PCs are still upright.

As for options on the character sheet, well, if you had spells in 3.X then you probably had more options than a 5e character does, and every pre-'Essentials' character in 4e has more written options than a non-spellcaster in 5e. At the higher levels, 4e characters tend to have fewer combat options than 5e casters do, but vastly more than high-level 5e mundanes. Even the battlemaster fighter with a full supply of superiority dice has only a few written options to pick from.

I think a small part of the reason you hear 5e has fewer options is that 3.X martial adepts and gishes and 4e martial characters are so overwhelmingly more tactically capable than 5e martial characters, and it's a shock by comparison. Casters have always had options, and 5e didn't change that. But the martials are hurtin'.

Mara

2016-01-19, 02:17 AM

4e martial characters are so overwhelmingly more tactically capable than 5e martial characters, and it's a shock by comparison.You are confusing explicit rule "buttons" that you can push as a player with tactical options.

By that logic World of Warcraft is more tactical than either 4e or 5e.

Kane0

2016-01-19, 02:20 AM

Well until you get your routine sorted at least.

Gwendol

2016-01-19, 02:39 AM

All of those sound fine. The key rules question which the DM is being asked to answer in this situation is, "Is preventing a wizard from using somatic components by wrestling with his hands a futile approach?" It's fine if the PC isn't allowed to know the details of the wizard's stats/whether he has Subtle Spell/etc. It's just a question about "Is this idea even a thing at this table?"

For example, if a player wants to kill a dragon in one blow by stabbing it in the eye, the answer is, "That's not a thing in D&D." There is no DC, it's just flat-out impossible, and the player is allowed to know that.

In general though, the recommendation from the DMG is to say "yes" to player initiative, and then work out the conditions for success. That includes stabbing the dragon in the eye (although why the dragon should die from losing an eye is not clear to me). Contests are a central part of the game, and preventing the wizard from reaching/using material components is a typical contest.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 03:12 AM

You are confusing explicit rule "buttons" that you can push as a player with tactical options.

By that logic World of Warcraft is more tactical than either 4e or 5e.

Yeah, by that logic, Monopoly is more tactically-rich than Go. That's backwards.

===========================================

In general though, the recommendation from the DMG is to say "yes" to player initiative, and then work out the conditions for success. That includes stabbing the dragon in the eye (although why the dragon should die from losing an eye is not clear to me). Contests are a central part of the game, and preventing the wizard from reaching/using material components is a typical contest.

When someone talks about killing by stabbing in the eye, what they really have in mind is generally "inflicting brain trauma using the eye socket as an access port." Not having a functioning brain will mess up your autonomic nervous system, stop your heart, and generally kill you. That doesn't have to be true for dragons but a player who says he wants to kill the dragon with an eye stab is clearly assuming that it is true; and yet the DM is going to say, "Sorry, that won't work. This isn't GURPS."

Gwendol

2016-01-19, 03:36 AM

GloatingSwine

2016-01-19, 05:50 AM

Dimolyth

2016-01-19, 06:38 AM

There's more tactics in 3.5....until you finish building your character.

You either build a guy that can disarm or you don't and you'll never have that option again once you submit that character sheet.

Pretty this. For building character - there more options in 3.X and 4e - you have to choose your options from large number of options. But when you start playing - you are efficient only in the way written on your character sheet.
5e is designed that anyone can try a lot of things with some chances to succede. As for me - that is more tactical, than nearly infinite number of choices by character creating - to get super specialized one-two tricks character.

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 10:01 AM

When someone talks about killing by stabbing in the eye, what they really have in mind is generally "inflicting brain trauma using the eye socket as an access port." Not having a functioning brain will mess up your autonomic nervous system, stop your heart, and generally kill you. That doesn't have to be true for dragons but a player who says he wants to kill the dragon with an eye stab is clearly assuming that it is true; and yet the DM is going to say, "Sorry, that won't work. This isn't GURPS."
Then the player hasn't successfully communicated his assumptions about intent, only approach. Saying "I want to kill it by stabbing it in the eye" is all very well and does communicate basic intent. But leaving out "because massive brain trauma kills things" doesn't enable the DM to point out that in fact, your sword isn't long enough to reach the dragons brain through its eye socket, so it will automatically fail.

Without that information, and assuming the DM has already communicated that it's a massive fricken dragon, a simulationist DM *should* tell the character what would be true in an in-game world where a character has never attempted stabbing the dragon in the eye to kill it before: try it and find out. And here's the rub: when the character fails, he has no idea if it fails because the dragon moved its head out of the way, the character *still* doesn't automatically know he tried something with no chance of success, just that the dragon moved faster than he was capable of stabbing.

Which also shows why 'testing' isn't a valid reason to assume something will work in a simulationist world. There are too many variables in play in the in-game reality.

That said, I don't think a DM should never communicate the possibility of success. They have to. Because you can't see and hear what your character is, nor even know what your characters capabilities the way he does, are other than mechanics on a sheet. So DMs not telling you anything about your chances of success at all aren't allowing you as a player to make a judgement call that your character *can* make.

For example, if the player had instead communicated "I want to stab it through its eye into the brain to kill it in a single blow"' the DM could say "that's impossible, your sword isn't long enough". Because he knows the player has overlooked that size of the dragon that was given during the description, but that the character can easily observe that fact.

Taejang

2016-01-19, 10:22 AM

<snip>
Now to me, that sounds like being a jerk.

Player: "I want to stab the dragon in the eye and kill it."
DM thinks: What a moron, his sword isn't long enough.

It is reasonable to assume the player wants to go through the eye to the brain, that he doesn't believe stabbing the eye is enough to kill the dragon alone. To not divulge information because you are making the player specify in exacting detail exactly what he wants, why, and how he is doing it, is just trolling.

DM: "Actually, you failed to mention what stance your fighter was using, so I assumed he was flat-footed, holding his sword with three fingers, closing his eyes, and failed to hit the unconscious beggar."
Player: "Why would you think my fighter would do any of that?"
DM: "You didn't say, so I filled in the gaps."
Player: "But what reasonable person would make those assumptions?"

Now, maybe the PC doesn't have any way to know his sword is too short. Then withholding the information is absolutely fine. But if the only difference between the DM saying, "that won't work" is the player stating the obvious, then the DM is no DM I want to play with.

GloatingSwine

2016-01-19, 10:31 AM

Then the player hasn't successfully communicated his assumptions about intent, only approach. Saying "I want to kill it by stabbing it in the eye" is all very well and does communicate basic intent. But leaving out "because massive brain trauma kills things" doesn't enable the DM to point out that in fact, your sword isn't long enough to reach the dragons brain through its eye socket, so it will automatically fail.

I'm not sure that you're accounting for all possibilities there. It won't automatically fail to do anything, even if the sword isn't long enough to reach the dragon's brain, then you still just stabbed it in the eye, probably blinding it in one eye and at least doing your normal attack in damage.

So the player might have "failed" their specific intent but if you let them make the attack roll then they still get the result of an attack roll if they succeed.

Without that information, and assuming the DM has already communicated that it's a massive fricken dragon, a simulationist DM *should* tell the character what would be true in an in-game world where a character has never attempted stabbing the dragon in the eye to kill it before: try it and find out. And here's the rub: when the character fails, he has no idea if it fails because the dragon moved its head out of the way, the character *still* doesn't automatically know he tried something with no chance of success, just that the dragon moved faster than he was capable of stabbing.

Well no, the player does have information. They found out that a dragon fails to die immediately from being stabbed in the eye, but it is still a valid means of attacking them and has its own tactical advantage (dragon now blinded on one side).

For example, if the player had instead communicated "I want to stab it through its eye into the brain to kill it in a single blow"' the DM could say "that's impossible, your sword isn't long enough". Because he knows the player has overlooked that size of the dragon that was given during the description, but that the character can easily observe that fact.

More reasonably, the DM could, if they wanted to be up front with information, say "your sword won't be long enough to reach its brain, but you can attack the eye itself".

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 10:34 AM

Now to me, that sounds like being a jerk.The DM has already communicated the size of the creature. How is he to know how the player intends to succeed? maybe the player is trying to shove his whole arm in to reach the brain. Maybe he thinks it'll bleed to death from massive eye trauma. Maybe he thinks it'll thrash around blindly and bring down the cavern roof on its own head.

The problem with these theory crafted examples, and in fact in game play, is that any two people are making different sets of assumptions about what is happening. Which is exactly why heavy rules generally allow more tactical play, as well as definitely allowing more precision battlemat play. At the cost of slowing down the game, as well as reducing the ability to play simulationist or narrative games as well.

Gwendol

2016-01-19, 10:52 AM

The DM has already communicated the size of the creature. How is he to know how the player intends to succeed? maybe the player is trying to shove his whole arm in to reach the brain. Maybe he thinks it'll bleed to death from massive eye trauma. Maybe he thinks it'll thrash around blindly and bring down the cavern roof on its own head.

The problem with these theory crafted examples, and in fact in game play, is that any two people are making different sets of assumptions about what is happening. Which is exactly why heavy rules generally allow more tactical play, as well as definitely allowing more precision battlemat play. At the cost of slowing down the game, as well as reducing the ability to play simulationist or narrative games as well.

No, it looks more like you setting up barriers for player involvement in the game (and reducing the tactical level of the game). Precise rules reduces tactical options.

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 11:08 AM

Precise rules reduces tactical options.
IMO that's trying to deny a tautology. Precise rules enhance tactical play, because tactical play in games is by definition skilled play within the available rules.

Gwendol

2016-01-19, 11:11 AM

Some of my statements are pretty damn absurd. But that just takes the cake. :smallsmile:

Not sure what you are trying to say, but you seem to claim that precise rules, referencing a grid, somehow increases the freedom to operate? The number of a finite set of discrete options and combination will always be less than the combination of continuous data, even if the resolution is kept fairly low.

Taejang

2016-01-19, 11:32 AM

because tactical play in games is by definition skilled play within the available rules.
Which is more tactical, real life or the most tactical video game ever made? Real life, of course. The limiters set by even the best video games are restrictions. Without rules, you can be as tactical as you want.

To say "tactical play in games" is working within the available rules is correct. When the rules allow more freedom, you have more freedom to be tactical. If you choose not to be tactical, it is no fault of the open rules.

mgshamster

2016-01-19, 11:34 AM

IMO that's trying to deny a tautology. Precise rules enhance tactical play, because tactical play in games is by definition skilled play within the available rules.

Ah. There it is. That's the definition I have been missing. Now it makes it much more clear for me why people think complex rules (3.X, 4e) vs flexible rules (5e) is more tactical.

I've never seen tactics defined as such, and it's why I've been very confused on why people think 5e doesn't have as many tactical options - because it has fewer precise rules. This is from a meta-game perspective.

Conversely, I've been defining tactics from my own military background, and thus have been viewing it from an in-game perspective.

Both can be valid, it just depends on one's perspective.

That makes sense to me.

I knew we'd get there eventually. Thank you.

GloatingSwine

2016-01-19, 11:59 AM

IMO that's trying to deny a tautology. Precise rules enhance tactical play, because tactical play in games is by definition skilled play within the available rules.

I don't think that's what you're really talking about though. Because as others have said there's nothing inherently different about that statement no matter the granularity of the rules.

You appear to be making the assumption that where the possibility space is not granularly defined throughout, it doesn't exist.

But that's not true because the possibility space is always something that is constructed between the players and the DM with the rules as a reference anyway.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 12:58 PM

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 01:31 PM

Not sure what you are trying to say, but you seem to claim that precise rules, referencing a grid, somehow increases the freedom to operate? The number of a finite set of discrete options and combination will always be less than the combination of continuous data, even if the resolution is kept fairly low.I deleted that statement, because it was effectively an insult without explaining my position. Sorry for that.

Which is more tactical, real life or the most tactical video game ever made? Real life, of course. The limiters set by even the best video games are restrictions. Without rules, you can be as tactical as you want.
To say "tactical play in games" is working within the available rules is correct. When the rules allow more freedom, you have more freedom to be tactical. If you choose not to be tactical, it is no fault of the open rules.

Ah. There it is. That's the definition I have been missing. Now it makes it much more clear for me why people think complex rules (3.X, 4e) vs flexible rules (5e) is more tactical.

I've never seen tactics defined as such, and it's why I've been very confused on why people think 5e doesn't have as many tactical options - because it has fewer precise rules. This is from a meta-game perspective.

Conversely, I've been defining tactics from my own military background, and thus have been viewing it from an in-game perspective.

Both can be valid, it just depends on one's perspective.

That makes sense to me.

I knew we'd get there eventually. Thank you.

I don't think that's what you're really talking about though. Because as others have said there's nothing inherently different about that statement no matter the granularity of the rules.

You appear to be making the assumption that where the possibility space is not granularly defined throughout, it doesn't exist.

But that's not true because the possibility space is always something that is constructed between the players and the DM with the rules as a reference anyway.

A general response to all these points: Playing to the rules is direct tactical play sans simulation. Playing within vague undefined rules is simulation. Be it IRL or in-game vagueness. And in both situations, the more you know how things will occur and pan out, the more information you have, the more tactical you can be. Precision and better information allow more tactical options, as do precise rules and their interactions.

So yeah, you can try to play 'tactically' in a loose rules simulation environment, the same way you play 'tactically' IRL. You do the best you can with lack of information, and try to gather as much information as you can before proceeding. It's more difficult, because you're playing in a ruleset that is undefined. You're still playing within the rules. You're just playing within loose and undefined rules as best you can.

That's fine and dandy if you want the extra challenge. But the more you know the rules, the more precise they are, the more complex and interactive effects there are, the better the ability to play tactically.

Edit: Short version ... the more information you have, the more tactical you can be. And precise rules are information.

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 01:41 PM

More like, "one-shotting things without depleting HP first doesn't happen in D&D without very special circumstances. It's not one of the physical rules of the universe. If your PC were to learn of someone who lost a body part, even a finger, while he was STILL ALIVE, she would be squicked and freaked out. Likewise, stabbing a dragon in the eye is just another way of inflicting HP damage, might account for a high damage roll because it's soft, but cannot bypass HP. Your PC "knows" this, it's just common sense to her. Of course you can't kill a dragon in one blow--look how big it is!"

It's not something specific to dragons. The same physicality protects PCs from being one-shotted by sprites, even when paralyzed.Which is an example of rules restricting simulation. That was kind of my point.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 01:54 PM

A general response to all these points: Playing to the rules is direct tactical play sans simulation. Playing within vague undefined rules is simulation. Be it IRL or in-game vagueness. And in both situations, the more you know how things will occur and pan out, the more information you have, the more tactical you can be. Precision and better information allow more tactical options, as do precise rules and their interactions.

Note that there are at least two kinds of simulationism: real-world simulationism and fantasy-physics simulationism. Some people want to recreate the real world within a simulation and play games with it, and they call that "simulationism"; other people want to take the world implied by D&D rules seriously as a simulation of some actual universe and explore its implications in detail (Aristotelian physics, binary gravity, alternate biologies, etc.), and they call that "simulationism" too. I'm heavily simulationist, but without any attachment to real-world simulationism. You can see that in my approach to stabbing a dragon in the eye: I obviously don't particularly care if real-world biology is reflected, but I care a lot that 1.) the reality of the D&D gameworld is maintained (no impedance mismatch between rules and narrative reality), and 2.) inhabitants of the gameworld believe and act appropriately for the reality they live in.

When Tanari'i says "simulation" he appears to be talking about real-world simulation of some sort.

obryn

2016-01-19, 01:55 PM

I've encountered this in real life, there seems to be a mild split between people who grew up on books and pen and paper games versus people who grew up on video games.

In video games there are as many things you can do as there are buttons to push, tactics in these games is positioning and then pressing a button or combination of buttons. Some people see their character sheet as a collection of buttons that they puch to get the character to do things in the game. These people loved 3.x and 4e because they got so many explicit 'button' abilities on the character sheet and the games were designed to be played by using those abilities almost exclusively. Gameplay would often boil down to declarations of actions and the results of the dice; "Thog goes to the door and uses strength. <roll>" or "Thog moves next to the goblin and uses Slashing Attack. <roll>"

5e, like the old D&D editions, has fewer 'button' abilities on the character sheet because the game is designed around people talking to each other. So some people think they have fewer options, tactically, strategically, etc., because they have fewer explicit character abilities visible to them. But really it just that the video game tactics of positioning and button pushing aren't the focus of this edition.
No, that's not it at all, and I say this as a guy who's been playing D&D for over 30 years at this point. (Favorite editions? 4e and BECMI/RC. :smallsmile:) Those 'pushbutton' abilities have always been around - it's just that, in most editions, only a handful of classes get them.

In order to facilitate small-scale tactics, an RPG needs to have a few things. (1) A distinct layout, where all players have identical or near-identical shared knowledge of the battlefield; and (2a) distinct knowledge of their character's direct capabilities, absent the interpretation of any other parties, even if the character has really limited options. Ideally, I like to see (2b) a variety of known fiat capabilities by all participants, but that's not strictly necessary. It does, however, allow for even greater tactical depth when available. All of these are sliding scales; it's not a simple yes/no.

So first and foremost, you need some way to know where everyone is. A grid is the obvious candidate here, but you can achieve similar results by using something like 13th Age's zones. It's less tactically rich, but it's still tactical. At the bottom is pure TotM, unless your DM is pretty much literally picturing a grid in their heads and able to communicate it. Still, I like to have a good view of everything. Early D&D loved its battle maps. 5e tries to strike a middle ground and ends up missing the target, IMO. If you use a grid, you're on the right track, fortunately.

Second, that distinct knowledge of capabilities is really important. Yes, a great DM can reward good tactics. But a middling DM - and most DMs are, in the end, middling - may or may not. In 5e you have the classic split where a spellcaster will have a wide variety of declarative tactical options at their disposal, whereas the only thing a non-caster can really be sure of is their ability to make attack rolls. Still, that can be enough - you don't need a wide variety of abilities to create tactical depth. I think it makes the experience richer when every player has options, but there can be a lot of depth in simplicity, too.

Anyway. I think 5e can do reasonable tactical combat so long as you use a grid of some sort. It's not the richest of the D&Ds, certainly, and some players will have more ability to shift the battlefield than others, but the ingredients are all there if you use them.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 02:00 PM

Which is an example of rules restricting simulation. That was kind of my point.

It's an example of taking the world implied by the rules seriously and exploring the implications, which is a type of simulationism.

================================================

In order to facilitate small-scale tactics, an RPG needs to have a few things. (1) A distinct layout, where all players have identical or near-identical shared knowledge of the battlefield; and (2a) distinct knowledge of their character's direct capabilities, absent the interpretation of any other parties, even if the character has really limited options. Ideally, I like to see (2b) a variety of known fiat capabilities by all participants, but that's not strictly necessary. It does, however, allow for even greater tactical depth when available. All of these are sliding scales; it's not a simple yes/no.

So first and foremost, you need some way to know where everyone is.

Strictly speaking, you don't have to know where everyone is. It just has to be unambiguous where everyone is. Check out wargames like Kriegspiel to see the kind of added tactical depth you get when you introduce partial information and uncertainty into the equation. 5E grid play doesn't do this well by default, any more than it does 3D battlespaces well by default, but there's potential for computerized tools to help.

obryn

2016-01-19, 02:10 PM

Strictly speaking, you don't have to know where everyone is. It just has to be unambiguous where everyone is. Check out wargames like Kriegspiel to see the kind of added tactical depth you get when you introduce partial information and uncertainty into the equation. 5E grid play doesn't do this well by default, any more than it does 3D battlespaces well by default, but there's potential for computerized tools to help.
That's a great point and a good distinction - fog-of-war can add a lot of tactical depth, too. It's just really rough to incorporate that into tabletop games. "Unambiguous" is a good way of putting it.

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 02:10 PM

When Tanari'i says "simulation" he appears to be talking about real-world simulation of some sort.

It's an example of taking the world implied by the rules seriously and exploring the implications, which is a type of simulationism.
Okay, you got me there. I'm talking about the rules simulating the world, not the world simulating the rules. Which is how I think of the other kind of simulation, anyhow.

(Also Tanar'ri was protected TSR property way back. So my handle is a portmanteau of Triarii and Tanar'ri. ;) )

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 02:15 PM

(Also Tanar'ri was protected TSR property way back. So my handle is a portmanteau of Triarii and Tanar'ri. ;) )

Whoops, my bad!

Gwendol

2016-01-19, 02:55 PM

Your deleted line had very little to do with my explanation, which AFAIK still stands.
I see where you are coming from but from my point of view you are equating tactics with combination of discrete options. This is a narrow definition, but under that your opinion holds true, I guess.

mgshamster

2016-01-19, 03:11 PM

I guess all this discussion brings us back to how we define "tactics."

From my own military background, tactics has a specific definition - that of a plan to accomplish a smaller goal under an overall strategy. The dictionary agrees with that definition.

I've been unable to find a definition of "tactics" we seem to be using here, which seem to be describing character options and game rules, rather than tactics in a military or operational planning sense.

I think a lot of my confusion comes from a group of people using a word without a definition - and it makes it confusing for those who use that same word with an established definition.

Which brings me back to my original question: "Tactics: What are they?" Or: What definition of the word "tactical" are you using when you use that word to describe why 5e is less "tactical" than 3.X or 4e?

Maybe tactical is the wrong word? Maybe we mean utility or options? I don't know.

gfishfunk

2016-01-19, 03:27 PM

I did not see a definition that I agree with, per se.

Tactics: a plan of action designed to achieve a certain end. Bad tactics might simply be spamming your highest damage spells to lowest damage spells, in order. Good tactics might involve digging a 8' long, 5' deep, and 12' wide ditch a few days before a known battle.

I think it might be better to talk about what allows tactical actions: the ability to accurately predict outcomes of a plan through the consideration of resources, options, and foreseeable consequences. More specifically, the foresight and ability to counteract an enemy's advantages and resources, maximize the enemy's weakness, minimizing your own weakness, and maximizing your own advantages and resources. To that end, the more concrete the result of any given action taken to achieve one of these ends, the more a gaming system can allow tactics.

This is different from strategy, which is generally the setting and achieving of certain objectives. In Civilization 5 (for example), you might have the strategy to win through a cultural victory, but the tactics you use to achieve that victory will differ from game to game.

4e was pretty good about tactical combat partly because actions were well defined, but more so because consequences were well defined. It did not rest on GM fiat to determine the effectiveness of an action. A grid system invites more concrete consequences because they are easier to conceptualize.

5e allows much more interpretation, which means that your ability to play tactically might rest on your GM's willingness to let your plans succeed. Players tend to love the feats in 5e because they define actions such that those actions have specific consequences. Players do not tend to love other feats (say, the Actor feat) that do not provide a defined consequence, though it certainly has a defined action.

-----

Easy tactical question that everyone has encountered: do we bunch up within 5' or stay about 10' a part? That depends on whether the enemy has an AoE effect, whether there is a mechanical benefit from being adjacent (Protection reaction to impose disadvantage), etc.

There might be a correct answer, but without being able to accurately predict (knowledge checks, folks) whether an enemy has an AoE, you really cannot be tactical about it. You can just make guesses.

-----

Imagine: the adventuring party (largely melee with one wistful wizard) enters a large room in the dungeon. There is a horde of goblins in the center on a raised dias, 15' above the floor of the rest of the room. There are two stairways leading up, one on either side. The goblins, of course, have short bows and will fire down on the enemy.

Goblin Tactics: maximize your ranged weapon abilities and force the melee attackers to run up the stairs to hurt you.
- - Additional tactics (if you think about it): they could also have constructed a crude wall, maybe of hanging leather, to catch arrows and things.
- - They may have set up a bell on a string, a simple trap to warn them that someone was coming.

Now, at the back of the adventurer party is a wizard.....
- - The wizard can spam fireball. Probably effective. Uses a lot of resources, though, and those goblins are going to be shooting arrows...plus they have cover.
- - The wizard can use an Illusion spell! Could be highly tactical, there is a save involved, but the actual effect is highly GM dependent in 5e.
- - The wizard creates a fog cloud obscuring where the adventurers enter, allowing them to rush the stairs. This uses very little resources (a lvl 1 spell slot), minimizes the goblin's tactical advantage, and maximizes the party's strengths.

So, yes, 5e can be tactical. GMs can improve the tactical nature by providing insight into likely results by encouraging knowledge checks (or other fact-finding ideas) and allow players to think through set ups and plan out things.

obryn

2016-01-19, 03:42 PM

mgshamster

2016-01-19, 03:57 PM

I'd say it's a common definition among games - minis games, board games, skirmish games, computer games... It applies equally to RPGs.

Think Xcom, Warhammer, Final Fantasy Tactics, etc. Even older CRPGs like Ultima would qualify.

I recognize that it has a colloquial usage among certain gaming groups, but that usage is still undefined.

While XCOM and Warhammer both claim to be tactical, what does that even mean outside of how "tactics" is even defined? Are we using that same undefined definition here when we talk about 3.X and 4e in relation to 5e?

And since we're on the subject of using undefined definitions of words, does it also make sense why I'm confused?

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 04:02 PM

I think it might be better to talk about what allows tactical actions: the ability to accurately predict outcomes of a plan through the consideration of resources, options, and foreseeable consequences. More specifically, the foresight and ability to counteract an enemy's advantages and resources, maximize the enemy's weakness, minimizing your own weakness, and maximizing your own advantages and resources. To that end, the more concrete the result of any given action taken to achieve one of these ends, the more a gaming system can allow tactics. That's actually the point I was trying to make. I was just directly conflating playing to precise rules (ie knowing concrete results of actions) with tactical play. That's not exactly correct. It's that more concrete information allows for better tactical play. And often, but not always, more complicated rule sets provide more concrete information.

It's entirely possible for the DM to provide concrete information on the spot in 5e. In fact, in terms of non-combat play, 4e and 5e skills are about the same in terms of concrete advanced information. In both systems, the DM either assigns a DC on the spot, or it's an opposed roll against a variable opponents skill. 3e had some more specific target numbers, but not tons of them. Which is why heavily tactical players often are dismissive about the skills system. They have a subsystem that provides much more precise advance information, especially in 3e & 4e, in the combat system. Especially with inclusion of a battle mat. Then they have an imprecise and variable skills system.

I like the skills system a lot. But I can understand the frustration of players who want the precision of combat systems. And I can understand those that have lost that precision. The skills system, and a well run 5e theatre of the mind combat, are like suddenly having to deal with the fog of war out of nowhere. The horror! :smallamused:

obryn

2016-01-19, 04:14 PM

I recognize that it has a colloquial usage among certain gaming groups, but that usage is still undefined.

While XCOM and Warhammer both claim to be tactical, what does that even mean outside of how "tactics" is even defined? Are we using that same undefined definition here when we talk about 3.X and 4e in relation to 5e?

And since we're on the subject of using undefined definitions of words, does it also make sense why I'm confused?
It's not undefined, though. It's used consistently in gaming, even if it isn't completely square with your military definition. A tactical game has the following features:

(1) A shared map/board including terrain which interacts with the game rules and makes positioning important
(2) Characters/units with varying abilities, including special abilities that modify the base game's rules
(3) A turn-based order of play, or some way to subdivide the you-go/I-go process, as opposed to a real-time game.

There's a few (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_role-playing_game) Wikipedia articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_tactics) about tactical games, if that helps.

As I said, though, 5e is pretty much there already - at least as much as 1e is - if you have a shared visualization or battle map.

gfishfunk

2016-01-19, 04:26 PM

That's actually the point I was trying to make. I was just directly conflating playing to precise rules (ie knowing concrete results of actions) with tactical play. That's not exactly correct. It's that more concrete information allows for better tactical play. And often, but not always, more complicated rule sets provide more concrete information.

Agreed! Although I would venture that information is source of 'accurate prediction', but not exclusively. Psychology is a great non-information source, but it rarely comes into play in gaming. "The goblin stares resolutely at you, eager for blood! (Nevermind his 8 friends who just died....)"

When I think of great tactics, I think of the movie Braveheart (I don't know how accurate it is). The infantry line stood against a cavalry charge with a number of spears ready to be pulled up at the last moment. This was a bit of information plus psychology: the English were probably going to run their cavalry first, hoping to decimate the infantry. Had the English first decided to send in their own infantry, the ruse would probably have not worked.

----

To further expand on 4e v. 5e v. Pathfinder....

5e generally has fewer resources. 4e has very a fairly large number of resources for each character, comprising of a set number of combat resources with a set number of non-combat resources. Pathfinder has a higher degree of customization, allowing things like feinting and a whirlwind attack that allows for very specific and situational responses.

I keep remembering the book 'Ender's Shadow', in which the main character chides a group of military trainers. He says (essentially) 'You are trying to test our resourcefulness. Give us some resources!' In 5e's simplicity, there are fewer resources for the players and GM alike, although the GM tends to bring in any resource she wants.

mgshamster

2016-01-19, 04:31 PM

It's not undefined, though. It's used consistently in gaming, even if it isn't completely square with your military definition. A tactical game has the following features:

(1) A shared map/board including terrain which interacts with the game rules and makes positioning important
(2) Characters/units with varying abilities, including special abilities that modify the base game's rules
(3) A turn-based order of play, or some way to subdivide the you-go/I-go process, as opposed to a real-time game.

There's a few (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_role-playing_game) Wikipedia articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_tactics) about tactical games, if that helps.

As I said, though, 5e is pretty much there already - at least as much as 1e is - if you have a shared visualization or battle map.

It does help a little. And I see your point; but there still isn't an established definition, just one colloquially used within a group that outsiders can't understand - because there is no outside reference (such as in a dictionary).

Using the wiki links (thank you), the first one defines a tactical game by linking directly to the definition of military tactics. The second one has more meat, per se: "...genre of strategy video games that through stop-action simulates the considerations and circumstances of operational warfare and military tactics in generally small-scale confrontations as opposed to more strategic considerations of turn-based strategy (TBS) games."

Since both published definitions of "tactical game" use the military definition, I am still failing to see how "tactics" and "tactical options" are the appropriate terms for describing the differences between D&D editions (in the context of this thread).

Although I am really enjoying the perspectives many have brought here - thank you all for continuing to help with my misunderstandings.

mgshamster

2016-01-19, 04:35 PM

Agreed! Although I would venture that information is source of 'accurate prediction', but not exclusively. Psychology is a great non-information source, but it rarely comes into play in gaming. "The goblin stares resolutely at you, eager for blood! (Nevermind his 8 friends who just died....)"

When I think of great tactics, I think of the movie Braveheart (I don't know how accurate it is). The infantry line stood against a cavalry charge with a number of spears ready to be pulled up at the last moment. This was a bit of information plus psychology: the English were probably going to run their cavalry first, hoping to decimate the infantry. Had the English first decided to send in their own infantry, the ruse would probably have not worked.

----

To further expand on 4e v. 5e v. Pathfinder....

5e generally has fewer resources. 4e has very a fairly large number of resources for each character, comprising of a set number of combat resources with a set number of non-combat resources. Pathfinder has a higher degree of customization, allowing things like feinting and a whirlwind attack that allows for very specific and situational responses.

I keep remembering the book 'Ender's Shadow', in which the main character chides a group of military trainers. He says (essentially) 'You are trying to test our resourcefulness. Give us some resources!' In 5e's simplicity, there are fewer resources for the players and GM alike, although the GM tends to bring in any resource she wants.

We're not taking gaming resources, right? Because that's simply the difference between the number of books published and it's unfair to compare a brand new game to one publishing for half a decade or more.

What we're talking about are specific character options listed on the character sheet. Those are the resources. Am I correct in this understanding?

Finieous

2016-01-19, 04:39 PM

Since both published definitions of "tactical game" use the military definition, I am still failing to see how "tactics" and "tactical options" are the appropriate terms for describing the differences between D&D editions (in the context of this thread).

See the "including special abilities" clause in obryn's point (2). Characters in different D&D editions have more or fewer special abilities that impact, intersect or interact with combat resolution. You're correct that every edition of D&D allows (actually encourages) the players to use tactics (position, maneuver, combined arms, concentration of force, reconnaissance, etc.), but not every edition allows the players to combo their Indestructible Dreadnought of Doom and Whirling Dervish of Death special abilities. You're also correct that "tactics or tactical options" and "special abilities" are often conflated in gaming circles.

gfishfunk

2016-01-19, 04:53 PM

We're not taking gaming resources, right? Because that's simply the difference between the number of books published and it's unfair to compare a brand new game to one publishing for half a decade or more.

What we're talking about are specific character options listed on the character sheet. Those are the resources. Am I correct in this understanding?

You are correct, but I suppose I really mean 'all actions reasonably available.'

For example, you can always shove someone instead of attacking. That is always available, but often overlooked. I'm using the term resource to mean both 'things in the character's possession' and 'things the character can do'.

In 5e, you have limitless resources: your character can 'do' just about anything, but there are a finite number of defined actions that the character can do. The ability to fully use tactical thinking is therefore limited by what your GM will allow and disallow.

pwykersotz

2016-01-19, 05:09 PM

It does help a little. And I see your point; but there still isn't an established definition, just one colloquially used within a group that outsiders can't understand - because there is no outside reference (such as in a dictionary).

Using the wiki links (thank you), the first one defines a tactical game by linking directly to the definition of military tactics. The second one has more meat, per se: "...genre of strategy video games that through stop-action simulates the considerations and circumstances of operational warfare and military tactics in generally small-scale confrontations as opposed to more strategic considerations of turn-based strategy (TBS) games."

Since both published definitions of "tactical game" use the military definition, I am still failing to see how "tactics" and "tactical options" are the appropriate terms for describing the differences between D&D editions (in the context of this thread).

Although I am really enjoying the perspectives many have brought here - thank you all for continuing to help with my misunderstandings.

I don't have an exact definition from a reputed source or anything, but in my opinion tactics in games is more or less defined by your ability to understand three things. Your goal, your resources, and likely impedances you might suffer. Following that, having options to manipulate the goal and your resources based on impedances.

I don't buy into the definitions of needing to know explicitly how all the rules or abilities interplay, but I think it should be fairly implicit. For example, you might just not know if a barrel of gunpowder will detonate in a red dragon's throat. It seems plausible, but has anyone ever tried it? Or are the exact mechanics of breath weapons known? I'm even okay with that scenario being decided radically differently based on die rolls, or the GM making entirely different calls based on a variety of situations. But the rule of fire ignites gunpowder should be pretty well there, and that directly influences your tactics. And bringing tactics to the unknown scenario above might involve having a backup plan, like a flaming arrow or capitalizing on the dragon being distracted as you catapulted a large object into its gullet.

I think that both free-form and heavily codified rulesets can both be tactical in that regard.

As an addendum, I am heavily irked by people who want absolute predictability from the game. I find it extremely boring, and a lot of forum-goers seem to argue (subjective interpretation on my part here) that it's the only way for tactics to be viable, which I strongly disagree with.

Dimers

2016-01-19, 05:20 PM

You are confusing explicit rule "buttons" that you can push as a player with tactical options.

By that logic World of Warcraft is more tactical than either 4e or 5e.

If you define "tactics" as broadly as "whatever you convince the DM to let you try", 5e and 4e have the same number of tactical options. But in addition to that flexibility, 4e does have (as you say) buttons to press, in myriad number compared to 5e. And 4e also has a richer tactical vocabulary and more granularity for describing attempts and results.

That doesn't mean 4e is better -- it means it's more focused on tactical combat. Many players prefer not to bog themselves down with that level of fiddliness and mechanics! But in answer to the OP, yes, 5e is less tactical on a mechanical level than 4e (and 3.X martial adepts and other semi-casters), to a degree that some players notice and mourn.

Which brings me back to my original question: "Tactics: What are they?" Or: What definition of the word "tactical" are you using when you use that word to describe why 5e is less "tactical" than 3.X or 4e?

5e paints in broad strokes what 4e specifies, when the subject considered is what can be accomplished and how to accomplish it in small-unit combat situations. 5e has fewer mechanical terms to define such combats, and fewer -- far fewer, for ill or for good -- explicitly possible actions that can be taken in such combats.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 05:30 PM

You are correct, but I suppose I really mean 'all actions reasonably available.'

For example, you can always shove someone instead of attacking. That is always available, but often overlooked. I'm using the term resource to mean both 'things in the character's possession' and 'things the character can do'.

In 5e, you have limitless resources: your character can 'do' just about anything, but there are a finite number of defined actions that the character can do. The ability to fully use tactical thinking is therefore limited by what your GM will allow and disallow.

Would be interesting to tally up the number of things that a 5E PC can do. It's quite a lot and I'd actually be a bit surprised if there was a substantial difference between 5E and 4E in this regard, since my impression of 4E was that you pretty much got one limited-use ability per level, and 5E characters generally have more options than they have levels. Let's take a bog-standard barbearian 6 who spent all of his ASIs on Str.

Can:
1.) Rage
2.) Attack with greatsword
3.) Push an enemy to the ground
4.) Drop caltrops
5.) Set up a bear trap
6.) Grapple an enemy to keep him immobile
7.) [DMG variant] Disarm an enemy
8.) Position himself to impede enemy movement and/or get opportunity attacks
9.) Throw javelins
10.) Hide in the bushes
11.) Dodge
12.) Entangle an enemy in a net (makes him Restrained)
13.) Drop prone to avoid missile fire
14.) Ready an action

You can combine all of the above, for example if you are fighting melee enemies with a 5' reach and 30' movement, you can move to 50' away from the nearest one and Ready an action to knock prone any enemy who approaches you, which will leave him not enough movement to get back to his feet.

That's 14 combat-useful actions for a 6th level barbearian. Does 4E have more than that?

================================================

I don't have an exact definition from a reputed source or anything, but in my opinion tactics in games is more or less defined by your ability to understand three things. Your goal, your resources, and likely impedances you might suffer. Following that, having options to manipulate the goal and your resources based on impedances.

I don't buy into the definitions of needing to know explicitly how all the rules or abilities interplay, but I think it should be fairly implicit. For example, you might just not know if a barrel of gunpowder will detonate in a red dragon's throat. It seems plausible, but has anyone ever tried it? Or are the exact mechanics of breath weapons known? I'm even okay with that scenario being decided radically differently based on die rolls, or the GM making entirely different calls based on a variety of situations. But the rule of fire ignites gunpowder should be pretty well there, and that directly influences your tactics. And bringing tactics to the unknown scenario above might involve having a backup plan, like a flaming arrow or capitalizing on the dragon being distracted as you catapulted a large object into its gullet.

I'll go even further. It is reasonable for a PC to expect to know whether damage from gunpower scales linearly or sublinearly--most D&D damage sources scale sublinearly, so if a DM is going to just take the d6 damage for one charge of gunpowerder and multiply it by 200 for 200 charges in the barrel, I'd want to know about that because it's important! That's the kind of experiment that a PC could do offline, so he should have same general idea of whether or not that's a thing at this DM's table.

If I were the DM I'd say, "No, I'm going to ad hoc the damage based on DMG guidelines, not multiply linearly." (Probably 10d6 for a medium-sized barrel; impose situational vulnerability (double damage) on the dragon if it's in its throat. I wouldn't tell the player that though.)

Taejang

2016-01-19, 05:36 PM

<snip>
You left out Dash, Help Other, and a variety of other actions (like using Perception on something, like an illusion). But you also have caltrops and bear trap as two separate options, when really that is just two examples of Use Object. Likewise, using a net is hardly different from any other attack, and you also have javelin and greatsword. So your overall number of actions may be roughly accurate, but the exact ones listed aren't particularly good examples.

Dimers

2016-01-19, 05:52 PM

We're not taking gaming resources, right? ... What we're talking about are specific character options listed on the character sheet. Those are the resources. Am I correct in this understanding?

Well, yes and no; in addition to any explicitly possible mechanical ability printed on a character sheet, there are also differences in game structure and language that allow more or fewer outcomes and situations. 5e doesn't have bloodied, aftereffect, first-failed-save, immediate interrupt plus immediate reaction plus opportunity action, ongoing damage, power sources, ability keywords and so on and so forth. A game with a high level of what people call "tactical options" has, by necessity, much more of that language and specific definition. If it didn't, play would be tedious.

1.) Rage
2.) Attack with greatsword
3.) Push an enemy to the ground
4.) Drop caltrops
5.) Set up a bear trap
6.) Grapple an enemy to keep him immobile
7.) [DMG variant] Disarm an enemy
8.) Position himself to impede enemy movement and/or get opportunity attacks
9.) Throw javelins
10.) Hide in the bushes
11.) Dodge
12.) Entangle an enemy in a net (makes him Restrained)
13.) Drop prone to avoid missile fire
14.) Ready an action

That's 14 combat-useful actions for a 6th level barbearian. Does 4E have more than that?

Oh good god yes. Almost all of those are things that any character can do, in any edition. But on top of all those, the 6th-level 4e barbarian can choose between two types of rage, two non-basic attacks they can perform at will (one more if human), charge (with specific game benefits and penalties), two attacks they can use once per encounter, two utility powers (usually combat-relevant, possibly based on the barbarian's skill choices), expending a daily use of rage to simply deal more damage, use a racial power, use a theme power, possibly use powers based on feats chosen, or activate the abilities of the magic items which he's likely to have at that point in his career. EDIT: And that sells it short, because the bulk of the tactical variety comes from the class powers which I basically gloss over here.

Only point 7 is lacking -- and believe me, it's a lack I notice.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 05:59 PM

You left out Dash, Help Other, and a variety of other actions (like using Perception on something, like an illusion). But you also have caltrops and bear trap as two separate options, when really that is just two examples of Use Object. Likewise, using a net is hardly different from any other attack, and you also have javelin and greatsword. So your overall number of actions may be roughly accurate, but the exact ones listed aren't particularly good examples.

Tactically, using a net is very different from any other attack, since it's an action denial effect and not a killing move, and also has a variety of special restrictions on usage. I tried to list things that I as a player find meaningfully distinct options with pros, cons, and a distinct niche, though you're right that I missed some.

Caltrops vs. bear trap, okay, I can see why you'd consider those the same. One is single-target and the other is multi-use, but in practice they both act as area-denial effects, just with different triggers and different magnitudes of effect.

Same for javelin vs. greatsword: ranged vs. melee is an important distinction w/rt opportunity attacks, effects on prone targets, Reckless Attack bonuses, etc., but I can see why you'd consider multiple "inflict HP damage" options to be broadly similar. I suspect though that if you condense "inflict HP damage" options, you're going to significantly reduce the number of options 4E characters have, as well as the 5E characters.

Coming from AD&D2, my impression is that 5E characters have quite a large number of in-combat options even aside from special abilities. Not as many as GURPS gives them, but more than the AD&D2 PHB gave them; about on par with the Complete Fighter's Handbook-era options, though 5E options tend to be more defensive in nature like "shoot and scoot" vs. AD&D's Parry/Disarm/Called Shot To the Vitals options.

================================================== ====

Almost all of those are things that any character can do, in any edition. But on top of all those, the 6th-level 4e barbarian can choose between two types of rage, two non-basic attacks they can perform at will (one more if human), charge (with specific game benefits and penalties), two attacks they can use once per encounter, two utility powers (usually combat-relevant, possibly based on the barbarian's skill choices), expending a daily use of rage to simply deal more damage, use a racial power, use a theme power, possibly use powers based on feats chosen, or activate the abilities of the magic items which he's likely to have at that point in his career. EDIT: And that sells it short, because the bulk of the tactical variety comes from the class powers which I basically gloss over here.

(By Taejang's standards, most of those are all just variations on "attack with greatsword," but let's leave the various types of javelin/greatsword/special whatever attack distinct, because tactically they are distinct.)

Did 4E have nets and restraining for all characters? Interesting. I thought it was more of a "Batman utility belt of powers" sort of game. What were the 4E rules for Dodging and Pushing?

A quick look at the 4E wiki tells me that Prone is a more tactically-interesting position in 5E than in 4E. In 4E it just gave you a +2 AC defensive bonus against ranged attacks, whereas in 5E it's full disadvantage against anyone non-adjacent. Was voluntarily dropping prone really a thing that people did in 4E? It's definitely a thing in 5E.

Basically I'm a little bit skeptical of the blanket statement that "Yes, 4E has everything in 5E AND MORE." If it does, it does, but I'd like some explicit confirmation rather than a blanket statement.

P.S. When analyzing tactical richness, it doesn't matter whether "any character can do it." All that matters if whether the given character can do it. Rock-scissors-paper doesn't somehow become more interesting if only certain players are allowed to play Rock.

Dimers

2016-01-19, 06:29 PM

Did 4E have nets and restraining for all characters? Interesting. I thought it was more of a "Batman utility belt of powers" sort of game.

Anybody can use them. Not everyone can use them well -- which is certainly a strike against the tactical-combat-level fun to be had in 4e. When playing at, say, 8th level or higher, it just rarely makes sense to try something you don't have the stats/skills/powers for. Bounded accuracy helps a lot.

What were the 4E rules for Dodging and Pushing?

Total defense and bull rush (which doesn't require movement, despite the name).

A quick look at the 4E wiki tells me that Prone is a more tactically-interesting position in 5E than in 4E. In 4E it just gave you a +2 AC defensive bonus against ranged attacks, whereas in 5E it's full disadvantage against anyone non-adjacent. Was voluntarily dropping prone really a thing that people did in 4E? It's definitely a thing in 5E.

Tactically more powerful in 5e, more likely to be used -- but the option was certainly there. I've seen dropping prone behind a low object to get full cover, though, and that's approximately equivalent to the potence of the standard 5e option.

Basically I'm a little bit skeptical of the blanket statement that "Yes, 4E has everything in 5E AND MORE." If it does, it does, but I'd like some explicit confirmation rather than a blanket statement.

13 outta 14, with the caveat that some are unlikely to be effective as written for a wide array of typical builds past a certain level of play. A normal 18th-level 5e wizard might try to use a net on a level-appropriate challenge ... a normal 27th-level 4e wizard would find the attack roll impossible except on a 20, guaranteed. (Not that either would be likely to try it!)

JoeJ

2016-01-19, 06:30 PM

Which is more tactical, real life or the most tactical video game ever made? Real life, of course. The limiters set by even the best video games are restrictions. Without rules, you can be as tactical as you want.

But real life combat does have rules: the rules of physics, biology, economics, etc. that govern the real universe, as well as the laws and regulations imposed on the soldiers by their governments. These are very complex rules. Nobody on (or off) the battlefield understands them completely, and at least some of the rules are not the same for both sides. Video games are not unrealistic because they have rules, but because they have extremely simple rules that the players all know.

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 06:35 PM

Total defense and bull rush (which doesn't require movement, despite the name).

I just checked a 4E rules source which says that Total Defense gives you only a +2 bonus to AC. That's garbage-tier, not a relevant combat option, unlike Dodging in 5E.

I don't want to get too caught up on 4E though (because, as said before, my exposure to it is limited) so suffice to say that 5E characters have a lot of good at-will options, more than many people seem to realize or exploit. I get the impression that many players never bother to Hide, for instance, unless they have Cunning Action.

====================================

But real life combat does have rules: the rules of physics, biology, economics, etc. that govern the real universe, as well as the laws and regulations imposed on the soldiers by their governments. These are very complex rules. Nobody on (or off) the battlefield understands them completely, and at least some of the rules are not the same for both sides. Video games are not unrealistic because they have rules, but because they have extremely simple rules that the players all know.

The best thing about real-life rules is that using them never makes your DM scream in frustration, ask for a five-minute break, and commence scribbling on a piece of paper to work out a new ruling on the fly. Physics is just built in to the universe.

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 07:00 PM

The best thing about real-life rules is that using them never makes your DM scream in frustration, ask for a five-minute break, and commence scribbling on a piece of paper to work out a new ruling on the fly. Physics is just built in to the universe.Which is what I was calling simulation gaming. And yeah, it's SO much fun to make a DM scream with frustration in a simulation game. It's even more fun to be made to scream with frustration, because it's so satisfying to come up with a ruling after that five minute break. :smallbiggrin:

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 07:52 PM

Which is what I was calling simulation gaming. And yeah, it's SO much fun to make a DM scream with frustration in a simulation game. It's even more fun to be made to scream with frustration, because it's so satisfying to come up with a ruling after that five minute break. :smallbiggrin:

Actually it happens with both kinds of simulation gaming. The only thing that changes is whether the DM is scribbling mass fraction equations to make it true to RL physics, or working through the economic/physical implications of the simplistic ruling he's about to issue and then spot-checking the implications for game world physics.

This is the kind of thing Gary Gygax had to deal with when deciding whether falling damage should be linear or quadratic. Either one has interesting physical implications. He eventually settled on quadratic, but too late to make it into modern D&D...

pwykersotz

2016-01-19, 07:56 PM

I'll go even further. It is reasonable for a PC to expect to know whether damage from gunpower scales linearly or sublinearly--most D&D damage sources scale sublinearly, so if a DM is going to just take the d6 damage for one charge of gunpowerder and multiply it by 200 for 200 charges in the barrel, I'd want to know about that because it's important! That's the kind of experiment that a PC could do offline, so he should have same general idea of whether or not that's a thing at this DM's table.

If I were the DM I'd say, "No, I'm going to ad hoc the damage based on DMG guidelines, not multiply linearly." (Probably 10d6 for a medium-sized barrel; impose situational vulnerability (double damage) on the dragon if it's in its throat. I wouldn't tell the player that though.)

Now that's an interesting way to divide it. I'm intrigued. What is the difference between a player knowing how the damage scales versus them knowing that damage in a vulnerable location is increased? Presumably they know that they would rather get shot in the arm than in the throat after all...

I agree with your calculations and reasonings overall.

Mara

2016-01-19, 08:18 PM

Dimers

2016-01-19, 08:35 PM

I don't want to get too caught up on 4E though (because, as said before, my exposure to it is limited) so suffice to say that 5E characters have a lot of good at-will options, more than many people seem to realize or exploit. I get the impression that many players never bother to Hide, for instance, unless they have Cunning Action.

Yes, that sort of thinking is unfortunately the case for all editions of D&D I've tried (2nd-5th). I personally believe 5e does a better job of fixing it than any previous edition, between bounded accuracy (so no character can suck too bad at anything), the wording in the skills chapter, the flexibility of Backgrounds, and the lack of protected niches built into class traits.

People tend to use confusing definitions of words when they are trying to push an agenda.

People tend to use confusing definitions of words when they speak English. :smalltongue:

MaxWilson

2016-01-19, 08:37 PM

Now that's an interesting way to divide it. I'm intrigued. What is the difference between a player knowing how the damage scales versus them knowing that damage in a vulnerable location is increased?

I don't mind them knowing that damage in a vulnerable location can potentially trigger vulnerability; but I wouldn't tell them in advance whether shoving the barrel down the dragon's throat will be enough to trigger vulnerability in this specific case.

It's the difference between knowing the laws of physics for your universe, vs. knowing the dragon's specific stats.

(BTW, my reasoning for vulnerability in the dragon's case is that shock waves are efficiently transmitted on contact; the underlying general rule in my head would be "corporeal creatures are vulnerable to thunder damage inflicted internally unless they are specifically resistant or immune to thunder damage". So, djinni and air elementals and fire elementals would not care particularly if the explosion was inside or out their bodies; but water elementals and earth elementals would be vulnerable.)

mgshamster

2016-01-19, 08:53 PM

People tend to use confusing definitions of words when they are trying to push an agenda.

If pages of discussion are people trying to figure out what you mean rather than dispute your point then you are just being confusing.

Tactics is a defined word. It does not mean something else in gaming unless you want to be confusing.

While I agree with your argument, I'm not so sure that's the case here.

While tactics does have a defined meaning, it has also gathered other meanings as language has grown in video game culture over the past 30 years. Language does evolve, after all.

I think it's a case of people being used to using the word in one sense, not realizing that this new sense is a different definition than the standard, and then accidentally conflating the two definitions. The end result is the same: confusion for those of us who are not used to the newer definition. But the cause is much more innocent.

Tanarii

2016-01-19, 10:44 PM

I think it's a case of people being used to using the word in one sense, not realizing that this new sense is a different definition than the standard, and then accidentally conflating the two definitions. The end result is the same: confusion for those of us who are not used to the newer definition. But the cause is much more innocent.
That sounds exactly right to me. D&D grew out of tactical wargaming, a very defined thing, and therefor still has many elements of tactical wargaming embedded in it. So when you talk about use of tactics in D&D, to me you clearly must be talking about the use of the rules system for tactical play. (Obviously in retrospect that's not clear at all :smallwink: )

Whereas tactics in general is a far broader and less well defined thing. In its broadest sense, it just means the method to which you will apply yourself to achieving the goal at hand.

So it's a 'new' definition, albeit one that's been around since 1968 now.

pwykersotz

2016-01-19, 11:21 PM

I don't mind them knowing that damage in a vulnerable location can potentially trigger vulnerability; but I wouldn't tell them in advance whether shoving the barrel down the dragon's throat will be enough to trigger vulnerability in this specific case.

It's the difference between knowing the laws of physics for your universe, vs. knowing the dragon's specific stats.

(BTW, my reasoning for vulnerability in the dragon's case is that shock waves are efficiently transmitted on contact; the underlying general rule in my head would be "corporeal creatures are vulnerable to thunder damage inflicted internally unless they are specifically resistant or immune to thunder damage". So, djinni and air elementals and fire elementals would not care particularly if the explosion was inside or out their bodies; but water elementals and earth elementals would be vulnerable.)

Cool, thank you for explaining. :smallsmile:

mgshamster

2016-01-19, 11:28 PM

That sounds exactly right to me. D&D grew out of tactical wargaming, a very defined thing, and therefor still has many elements of tactical wargaming embedded in it. So when you talk about use of tactics in D&D, to me you clearly must be talking about the use of the rules system for tactical play. (Obviously in retrospect that's not clear at all :smallwink: )

Whereas tactics in general is a far broader and less well defined thing. In its broadest sense, it just means the method to which you will apply yourself to achieving the goal at hand.

So it's a 'new' definition, albeit one that's been around since 1968 now.

I can see that. It can become very familiar to those used to war gaming literature. Not so much us who grew up in other literature. Most of my growing up in D&D was with 2e Planescape, which is much more of a setting than a tactical game. Any D&D outside of that was primarily with people who were either actively in the military or veterans - and then later I joined the military. So for me, "tactics" in table-top RPGs has almost always been about using it in a military sense.

As I suspected from the beginning, the entire problem I had was a misunderstanding of terms.

gfishfunk

2016-01-19, 11:37 PM

People tend to use confusing definitions of words when they are trying to push an agenda.

If pages of discussion are people trying to figure out what you mean rather than dispute your point then you are just being confusing.

Tactics is a defined word. It does not mean something else in gaming unless you want to be confusing.

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'
- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

The difference between a student and a master is that the student seeks the definition while the master self the concept.

mgshamster

2016-01-19, 11:40 PM

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'
- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

The difference between a student and a master is that the student seeks the definition while the master self the concept.

We never stop being students. Those who consider themselves experts are just those who are no longer willing to learn.

Stubbazubba

2016-01-20, 12:39 AM

I think we're also oversimplifying the traditional military definition. Military tactics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_tactics) can be very complicated, it's not just the empty shell of "whatever you do to achieve a subordinate goal in an overall strategy." That describes tactics categorically, but it doesn't define any given tactic; it simply defines their relationship to strategy.

Tactics means options to achieve a subordinate goal in an overall strategy, be it a formation, a ploy, or a maneuver. The thing about tactics is they all have different outcomes. If there are number of things you can do, but they all result in the exact same outcome, you really only have one tactic to choose. A game's depth of tactical gameplay comes (at least in part) from the number of actions with different outcomes, all of which would progress towards an overall goal.

Outcomes, in turn, have two components; the effect on the enemy, and the effect on you. Some tactics may do a greater deal of damage to the enemy, but it leaves you exposed, or has a chance to fail altogether if you slip up, or will cost some finite resource, or involves more collateral damage. So outcomes include both benefits and costs. The more outcomes, the more meaningfully different choices, the more potential for tactical considerations.

Of course, if you don't have at least a good idea of what the benefits and costs of different actions are, you can't compare them, and can only make an uninformed guess of which would bring you closer to your goal. Because of this lack of information, the choice becomes more arbitrary; you may as well just flip a coin, if you can't tell what the outcomes will be either way. So players have to be informed of the outcomes of their options, at least to some degree. The more information they have, the better they can tailor their choice of tactics to achieve their goal.

In D&D, you never have complete information, because the die roll is still there and because you're usually unsure of the specifics of your enemy's defenses or abilities (though finding these out can be a tactic unto itself). The player needs to know what outcomes are possible if he takes an action, though, and preferably, he needs to know how those outcomes would interact with other actions.

If I successfully throw sand at his face, what will that do? Will it prevent him from pursuing us if we run? 5e doesn't say (in 3.5, movement is halved). You'd have to work that out with the DM, who may ultimately say "no" for whatever reason, including the reason that Blinded is a specific condition with specific effects, and movement penalties aren't one of them. The next day, or the next DM, may be different. This encumbers the tactical decision-making process, and potentially reduces the tactics available, but not necessarily.

What's worse is when the DM says "Try it and find out." Occasionally, when the PCs would have no idea what is likely to happen, this is fine. But generally, the DM needs to provide enough information for players to make the judgments their PCs would. Whether that's through rules or through communicating possible outcomes before a ruling, it needs to be done. If the PCs are left guessing at what outcomes are attached to various actions, their decisions will be arbitrary, not tactical.

"Button mashing" parts of the game can open up more tactical options. Cleave or Whirlwind Attack are very different from normal attacks; they have different outcomes. They are a distinct tactic, and not likely something a DM would allow on an ad hoc basis. In that respect, abilities like that increase the number of tactical options beyond that which is just up to player ingenuity. Spellcasters usually have defined effects for their abilities, but non-spellcasters may have to improvise, depending on edition.

So there is definitely some truth to the argument that 5e is less tactical; because characters have fewer mechanical options, they necessarily have fewer tactics available (unless your DM will let you Cleave and such just because). But the flip side may also be true; that decreased concrete tactics on the character sheet pushes players to look outside of the character sheet and use ad hoc tactics more frequently than in, say, 4e.

Me personally, I think the emergent tactics (as opposed to hard-wired ones) are just fine, but it's frustrating to have both in the same game (see casters vs. non-casters). It's also frustrating for effects to be incompletely defined in the rules and therefore vary from table to table; I'd prefer comprehensive condition effects. It would help me weigh my tactical options better.

There's more to tactics than just the number or breadth of options. How things interact is extremely significant, as well, and both are somewhat implicated in the streamlined 5e vs. the crunchier 3.5/4e.

Mara

2016-01-20, 01:06 AM

Stubbazubba

2016-01-20, 01:12 AM

Google provides what you mean by the word tactics without being confusing.

tac·tic
ˈtaktik/Submit
noun
plural noun: tactics
an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
synonyms: strategy, scheme, stratagem, plan, maneuver; More
method, expedient, gambit, move, approach, tack;
device, trick, ploy, dodge, ruse, machination, contrivance;
informalwangle;
archaicshift
"a tax-saving tactic"
the art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, especially during contact with an enemy.
synonyms: strategy, policy, campaign, battle plans, game plans, maneuvers, logistics; More
generalship, organization, planning, direction, orchestration
"our fleet's superior tactics"

Yeah, that's the general definition that keeps getting slung around, but it's uselessly vague. In order for the word "tactic" to be useful in an industry, be it the military or gaming, you're going to have to go deeper than that.

We can look up what the word "drugs" means, but in order for that term to be useful in medicine or criminal prosecution, you're going to have to go deeper; you're going to have to define it narrower, and you're going to have to get into the individual things it refers to. A categorical definition is woefully insufficient.

Edit: Wow looks like none of that remotely relates to how many rule "buttons" you can push. This is why checkers is a more tactical game than monopoly. Sure checkers has fewer rules. Fewer options for a player to use. But the player can combine those options into less rule explicit strategies.

Checkers has way more options than Monopoly, though: which piece do I move, and which direction, is it worth taking this piece and sacrificing this other piece, etc. In Monopoly, the only option is: buy or don't buy. This is a poorly chosen example.

Back to the topic: who plays with more tactics? A necromancer and her army or an evoker wizard. The latter has more game options.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Both of those are going to have plenty of tactical options; the undead army's options will probably come from the movement and positioning rules or general combat options, i.e. not necessarily on the character sheet, but they're still there and in great numbers because the necro has an army. The evoker Wizard technically has most all of the same options as the Fighter (the background options in movement, positioning, and whatever you can improvise with your DM), but also has a list of special buttons to push for specific effects. The Necromancer has more options just due to sheer numbers.

Mara

2016-01-20, 01:19 AM

Stubbazubba

2016-01-20, 01:22 AM

Mara

2016-01-20, 01:25 AM

And what, pray tell, is my agenda?
I don't know and I don't care. You can either use words with the agreed upon meaning or you can spout nonsense.

Stubbazubba

2016-01-20, 01:42 AM

I don't know and I don't care. You can either use words with the agreed upon meaning or you can spout nonsense.

Well, that's a bit of a false dilemma (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white).

If you're looking for an agreed upon meaning, you're casting too wide a net. The OP's question is about what 5e critics mean when they say "tactics," not what Google or the English language generally means. There's such a thing as precision, even in language. You have to narrow down the terms you're using to the context in which you're using them. Yes, words in context have specific meanings that aren't always captured by dictionary definitions or, in this case, are a sub-set of the dictionary definition as applied to certain situations.

You can throw the vague, general definition around all you want, but it doesn't help answer the OP's question. The OP wants to understand what 5e critics mean when they say 5e feels less tactical than 3.5/4e. To answer that, you need to actually understand what 5e critics mean when they say that. Hint: it's not your definition. Your definition therefore cannot answer the OP's question. The OP isn't trying to prove anyone wrong about what is tactical or not, he's trying to understand another perspective. To do that, you have to understand what they are trying to communicate, and if that means using a context-specific sub-definition of a general word like "tactic," then that's what it takes. All these accusations of agendas and confusion are, at best, uncalled-for paranoia.

Tanarii

2016-01-20, 01:53 AM

Omg. WOW.

Yeah if you make tactics mean whatever you want then 4e and 3.5 can be more tactical games. Hell I guess slot machines are more tactical too. Since we are just going to use the word to mean whatever fits our agenda.
Your agenda appears to be ignoring what a tactical war game is, and has been since 1968, and is the root for the tactical aspects of the game that is D&D.

MaxWilson

2016-01-20, 01:54 AM

obryn

2016-01-20, 01:57 AM

Omg. WOW.

Yeah if you make tactics mean whatever you want then 4e and 3.5 can be more tactical games. Hell I guess slot machines are more tactical too. Since we are just going to use the word to mean whatever fits our agenda.
I think you're very much overstating this.

First, "tactical minis game," "tactical combat," and "tactical RPG" all have pretty consistent meanings if you look around in the gaming world. It's perfectly appropriate to ask - for example - which RPG gives you a combat experience the closest to Final Fantasy Tactics, Xcom, etc. These are called "tactical games" in the real world, right now.

Second, if it's the word "tactical" you're objecting to, make some suggestions for alternatives. The fact that 5e is (in theory) more easily played gridless means something, right? The fact that 4e characters, Bo9S martial adepts, etc. have specific defined fiat abilities alongside casters means something, too. These are actual differences in systems which people praise or condemn.

djreynolds

2016-01-20, 02:06 AM

Mara

2016-01-20, 02:31 AM

I think you're very much overstating this.

First, "tactical minis game," "tactical combat," and "tactical RPG" all have pretty consistent meanings if you look around in the gaming world. It's perfectly appropriate to ask - for example - which RPG gives you a combat experience the closest to Final Fantasy Tactics, Xcom, etc. These are called "tactical games" in the real world, right now.

Second, if it's the word "tactical" you're objecting to, make some suggestions for alternatives. The fact that 5e is (in theory) more easily played gridless means something, right? The fact that 4e characters, Bo9S martial adepts, etc. have specific defined fiat abilities alongside casters means something, too. These are actual differences in systems which people praise or condemn.

It's a bit like moving the goalpost. We should agree about what the word "tactic" means before evaluating systems based on it. The definition for tactic is provided.

Now does 5e provide more of the "the art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, especially during contact with an enemy" than other editions or does it provide less?

I would say that that question depends entirely on the DM. Whether or not tactics is rewarding in 5e (thus making the game more tactical) depends on how the DM sets DCs and gives advantage, disadvantage, and inspiration.

Trying to treat tactics as "explicit rule buttons" is just redefining what tactics means. In a thread about tactics we should talk about tactics not what made up definitions we want everyone to understand the word as, or how we personally feel about the "rulings over rules" philosophy.

Mara

2016-01-20, 02:37 AM

Being a wizard has changed for me. It is a different set of tactics I must come up with.

In earlier additions you played an elf for longbow access, had a high int and good dex, because you would run out of attack spells and the longbow allowed you to still contribute while saving spells for later.

Now you have a max of 4 spells per level, but you have access to unlimited cantrips that scale, no more longbow, but you cannot buff up right before a big fight, as you only have one concentration spell up at a time. Where is 3.5, I would have 6 or 7 extended spells all in waiting for me and my party.

So really, caster wise I'm not sure you can compare 5 to 3.5 anymore, it is a vastly different tactic one must use for either wizard. I find 5Es wizard can be boring for me, yes he can "spontaneously" cast but still has to have the right prepared spells. Yes he can now wear armor, so that can limit the buffing needed as 3.5 did. I find in 5E I lean extensively on my cantrips and that could be considered boring.

If you want a closer comparison, 5E matches up with the Basic version.

But its still D&D and fun.

Something people forget is that casters have to play with the rulings system too not just martials. You can use spells in such a way that the DM has to make a call. If you use disintegrate to knock a tower onto an army, the DM has to make a call about how that works. If you cast grease under a boulder on a hill, the DM has to make a call about if the boulder starts rolling down the hill and what that would do to the enemy.

3.5 had all of this too, but rules generally made such actions worthless. Falling objects did irrelevant damage. Environmental damage that wasn't lava was a joke. A DM in 5e could run things the same way, or they could make such actions relevant. Perhaps leading the enemies into a boulder trap triggered by unseen servants is a valid tactic? Or it could be the equivalent of throwing pillows. It's up to the DM.

djreynolds

2016-01-20, 02:55 AM

Something people forget is that casters have to play with the rulings system too not just martials. You can use spells in such a way that the DM has to make a call. If you use disintegrate to knock a tower onto an army, the DM has to make a call about how that works. If you cast grease under a boulder on a hill, the DM has to make a call about if the boulder starts rolling down the hill and what that would do to the enemy.

3.5 had all of this too, but rules generally made such actions worthless. Falling objects did irrelevant damage. Environmental damage that wasn't lava was a joke. A DM in 5e could run things the same way, or they could make such actions relevant. Perhaps leading the enemies into a boulder trap triggered by unseen servants is a valid tactic? Or it could be the equivalent of throwing pillows. It's up to the DM.

Yes agree, but this is more of a difference not between systems but between players. I find now as a wizard most of prepared spells are for utility and defense, and its my cantrip I use for attack. I find most of buffing has to be within the frame of combat because they do not last very long outside of combat, 10 minutes. But that is the fun of this installment, stuff is faster paced and more dangerous. I do things different now. I will cast protection from evil on my fighter and hope my will save is strong enough. I will cast haste on the barbarian and mirror image on myself.

Gwendol

2016-01-20, 03:15 AM

Would be interesting to tally up the number of things that a 5E PC can do. It's quite a lot and I'd actually be a bit surprised if there was a substantial difference between 5E and 4E in this regard, since my impression of 4E was that you pretty much got one limited-use ability per level, and 5E characters generally have more options than they have levels. Let's take a bog-standard barbearian 6 who spent all of his ASIs on Str.

Can:
1.) Rage
2.) Attack with greatsword
3.) Push an enemy to the ground
4.) Drop caltrops
5.) Set up a bear trap
6.) Grapple an enemy to keep him immobile
7.) [DMG variant] Disarm an enemy
8.) Position himself to impede enemy movement and/or get opportunity attacks
9.) Throw javelins
10.) Hide in the bushes
11.) Dodge
12.) Entangle an enemy in a net (makes him Restrained)
13.) Drop prone to avoid missile fire
14.) Ready an action

You can combine all of the above, for example if you are fighting melee enemies with a 5' reach and 30' movement, you can move to 50' away from the nearest one and Ready an action to knock prone any enemy who approaches you, which will leave him not enough movement to get back to his feet.

That's 14 combat-useful actions for a 6th level barbearian. Does 4E have more than that?

================================================

Great list but in general for 5e the situation is the following:

Each round the character can:

Move
Take an action (more on that below)
Take a possible bonus action
Take a possible reaction

Actions in 5e can be further divided and categorized:

Attack 1-4 times
Multiattack (such as Whirlwind, or special monster multiattack)
Cast a spell
Dash
Disengage
Dodge
Help
Hide
Ready
Search
Use an Object

Contests such as grappling or disarming are open ended actions in combat. Please note that the various options listed are examples of contests as noted on p. 195 of the PHB:

Contests in Combat
Battle often involves pitting your prowess against that of
your foe. Such a challenge is represented by a contest. This
section includes the most common contests that require an
action in combat: grappling and shoving a creature. The DM
can use these contests as models for improvising others.

The DMG offers a few more examples.

Now, please note that the contests listed replaces one attack of the attack action, which means that a fighter or any other character with the extra attack class feature can make a tactical choice of carrying out several actions (contests or attacks) with their attack action. That is tactically richer than practically any other edition of the game can offer. Furthermore, many classes have abilities that improve or enhance action economy in different ways, such as the Rogue Cunning Action, Sorcerer metamagic, Ranger Beastmaster, etc.

mgshamster

2016-01-20, 08:48 AM

What's the equivalent for 3.X and 4e? With an equivalent level barbarian?

And it has to be viable options. For example, if you don't specialize in grappling in 3.X, it no longer becomes a viable option except in rare cases. Likewise for overrun/bullrush (equivalent to shove in 5e), trip, dirty trick (e.g. throwing sand in the face), or any other combat maneuver. By choosing your build, you remove more options from your list in 3.X than you do in 5e. So even if we're talking about tactics as options, i get the feeling that the long list of options in 3.X is an illusion, despite the detailed rules on each subject.

Gwendol

2016-01-20, 09:05 AM

I'd go as far as to say it's more than a feeling, it's a fact. Which is what I've been saying all along. The extra attack feature is one of the main drivers of the number of permutations going up, but so are other abilities toying with the action economy.

obryn

2016-01-20, 09:43 AM

It's a bit like moving the goalpost. We should agree about what the word "tactic" means before evaluating systems based on it. The definition for tactic is provided.

Now does 5e provide more of the "the art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, especially during contact with an enemy" than other editions or does it provide less?

I would say that that question depends entirely on the DM. Whether or not tactics is rewarding in 5e (thus making the game more tactical) depends on how the DM sets DCs and gives advantage, disadvantage, and inspiration.

Trying to treat tactics as "explicit rule buttons" is just redefining what tactics means. In a thread about tactics we should talk about tactics not what made up definitions we want everyone to understand the word as, or how we personally feel about the "rulings over rules" philosophy.
It's not moving the goalposts - it's acknowledging that this is the meaning of the term in gaming, right now, and probably dating back to at least Final Fantasy Tactics. Insisting on a military definition is obfuscation, especially considering the context of the OP's question. And - like I said above - 5e does serviceably well from a whole-table perspective so long as you use a battle map with minis.

The second part - active fiat abilities - gives interesting decisions to every player around the table. So when it's their turn, they can just declare "I go here and do this" with full knowledge that this will (barring something utterly weird) work exactly how they expect it will work. Since D&D, unlike minis games, usually pairs 1 player to 1 unit, this is an important element.

Something people forget is that casters have to play with the rulings system too not just martials. You can use spells in such a way that the DM has to make a call. If you use disintegrate to knock a tower onto an army, the DM has to make a call about how that works. If you cast grease under a boulder on a hill, the DM has to make a call about if the boulder starts rolling down the hill and what that would do to the enemy.

3.5 had all of this too, but rules generally made such actions worthless. Falling objects did irrelevant damage. Environmental damage that wasn't lava was a joke. A DM in 5e could run things the same way, or they could make such actions relevant. Perhaps leading the enemies into a boulder trap triggered by unseen servants is a valid tactic? Or it could be the equivalent of throwing pillows. It's up to the DM.
Casting - and active fiat abilities in general - give you a broader palette of improvised actions to choose from. The caster has to be a caster before they can even ask about casting Disintegrate to knock a tower onto an army. They need to be a caster to cast Grease under a boulder.

Improvised actions will always require GM interpretation and intervention; it's the nature of the game. Casters have more fiat abilities at their disposal, and have a much broader spectrum of possible actions as a result.

Mara

2016-01-20, 10:02 AM

mgshamster

2016-01-20, 10:13 AM

Taejang

2016-01-20, 10:20 AM

But real life combat does have rules: the rules of physics, biology, economics, etc. that govern the real universe, as well as the laws and regulations imposed on the soldiers by their governments. These are very complex rules. Nobody on (or off) the battlefield understands them completely, and at least some of the rules are not the same for both sides. Video games are not unrealistic because they have rules, but because they have extremely simple rules that the players all know.
That was kind of my point. Real life rules are far more open than any game's rules. The ambiguity of those rules actually increases tactical consideration and options, as your tactics often include attempts to discover the rules. In gaming, discovering the rules isn't usually fun, at least not outside of simulation-type realistic gaming. But nobody is saying 5e is nearly as ambiguous as real life. Open rules allow more options as you get the sense that anything is possible, and the rules are just to moderate the result. Closed rules restrict your options.

Much of this debate hinges on whether having few rules, and thus fewer restrictions, is more tactical than having more specific rules, and thus more restrictions but more defined options. The rest of the debate is whether 5e actually has more options or not.

obryn

2016-01-20, 10:22 AM

Look if you are going to redefine tactics in a silly way, I see no value in how you evaluate a games tactical merits.

It is nice to know that when someone says "5e isn't tactical" they aren't meaning what the word tactical normally means.
It's what it normally means in gaming, for the past decade or so and maybe more. Not what it normally means in the military.

I think we can agree that the combat in, say, 4e is different from the combat in 5e in interesting ways, can't we? And in turn, combat in 5e is different from combat in Fate Core. Is this an interesting enough distinction that a shorthand is helpful?

Tanarii

2016-01-20, 10:24 AM

It's not moving the goalposts - it's acknowledging that this is the meaning of the term in gaming, right now, and probably dating back to at least Final Fantasy Tactics. Insisting on a military definition is obfuscation, especially considering the context of the OP's question. And - like I said above - 5e does serviceably well from a whole-table perspective so long as you use a battle map with minis.It goes back far more than that. Xcom did it for MS-Dos. But TSR (short for Tactical Studies Rules) was named as such because similar component form the very basis for D&D. And those came from Tactical Wargames, which really took off starting in 1968.

The components you and I are taking about have been a part of D&D since its founding. And they define what it means to be more or less tactical in a tactical wargame, or its derivatives.

Trying to use an outside definition is just trying to redefine Tactical Wargames in a silly way, and there's no value in how such people are trying to evaluate D&D's tactical merits.

It's nice to know when someone tries to talk about a game being more or less tactical, and they aren't meaning what the word tactical means the context of the discussion.

obryn

2016-01-20, 10:58 AM

obryn

2016-01-20, 11:00 AM

mgshamster

2016-01-20, 11:01 AM

It goes back far more than that. Xcom did it for MS-Dos. But TSR (short for Tactical Studies Rules) was named as such because similar component form the very basis for D&D. And those came from Tactical Wargames, which really took off starting in 1968.

The components you and I are taking about have been a part of D&D since its founding. And they define what it means to be more or less tactical in a tactical wargame, or its derivatives.

Trying to use an outside definition is just trying to redefine Tactical Wargames in a silly way, and there's no value in how such people are trying to evaluate D&D's tactical merits.

It's nice to know when someone tries to talk about a game being more or less tactical, and they aren't meaning what the word tactical means the context of the discussion.

I do see your point. Where I have issues is that I don't think tactical was ever meant to have a different definition in wargames as opposed to warfare. The games were meant to simulate warfare and as such tried to use the actual definition of the word as it applies to warfare; aka the military definition.

I also think that over time, that got obscured and mixed up to the point where it truly does have a different meaning now. So while I can definitely see where you're coming from in the sense that the word had evolved a new meaning, I don't think that evolution occurred back in the 60s; I think it came much later than that (maybe the past decade or two).

I mean, war games to teach strategy and tactics have been around far longer than the 60s; heck - that's what chess is, but they were still designed to teach strategy and tactics as it applies to actual war. I feel that the early war game simulations derived from TSR meant to do the same thing, they did not intend to redefine the word to the point where it now means a type of game.

mgshamster

2016-01-20, 11:06 AM

Tanarii

2016-01-20, 12:37 PM

I was trying to write quick and didn't want to overstate, but yeah, this is right. And like I said way upthread, now, 5e can be tactical in the same sense that 1e is.Absolutely. A debatable question may be whether or not one edition of D&D works better for tactical play, as appropriate to tactical gaming, than another. But they are all without doubt have tactical gaming features and capabilities. It's an inherent part of the game. If you try and take it out, you might as well just play another gaming system entirely that doesn't have those components .

Finieous

2016-01-20, 12:46 PM

I do see your point. Where I have issues is that I don't think tactical was ever meant to have a different definition in wargames as opposed to warfare. The games were meant to simulate warfare and as such tried to use the actual definition of the word as it applies to warfare; aka the military definition.

I continue to agree with you.

ETA: To reiterate, though, the "special abilities" piece of it has always been there, too. A player could argue that a tactical wargame or scenario with armor, anti-armor infantry, mechanized infantry, artillery, etc., will be more tactically rich than one with a single unit type, and one reason for that is that these different units have different capabilities and there will be more "game buttons" to push.

obryn

2016-01-20, 01:11 PM

Absolutely. A debatable question may be whether or not one edition of D&D works better for tactical play, as appropriate to tactical gaming, than another. But they are all without doubt have tactical gaming features and capabilities. It's an inherent part of the game. If you try and take it out, you might as well just play another gaming system entirely that doesn't have those components .
Yeah, definitely. The insistence on phrasing everything in 5e in terms of 5' increments speaks towards this. (Compare 13th Age fireballs, which instead gives numbers of targets as opposed to defined areas of effect, with options to target more if you want to risk targeting your party.)

ETA: To reiterate, though, the "special abilities" piece of it has always been there, too. A player could argue that a tactical wargame or scenario with armor, anti-armor infantry, mechanized infantry, artillery, etc., will be more tactically rich than one with a single unit type, and one reason for that is that these different units have different capabilities and there will be more "game buttons" to push.
Right. The interaction between these varying strengths and weaknesses is part of what many consider 'tactical depth' and what's expected out of modern tactical games.

Tanarii

2016-01-20, 01:16 PM

I mean, war games to teach strategy and tactics have been around far longer than the 60s; heck - that's what chess is, but they were still designed to teach strategy and tactics as it applies to actual war. I feel that the early war game simulations derived from TSR meant to do the same thing, they did not intend to redefine the word to the point where it now means a type of game.It only means a type of game insofar as the rules of types of games are typical for that type of game. But each type of game still shares the same feature: They are constrained by their ruleset, and tactical play is defined within that ruleset.

Chess vs Checkers vs Go is a good example. Each has it's own ruleset, and in the case of Go even has a different format for the field of play. Those define tactical play within each. What you mean by tactical play within Chess vs Checkers vs Go are all very different things. Because they are defined by their constraining rulesets.

Another analogy would be talking about Whist vs Rummy card games. If you want to compare tactical play in Bridge vs Spades, you're talking about one thing. If you want to compare tactical play in Canasta vs Rummy 500, you're talking about another thing.

But if someone tries to insist that tactics is tactics is tactics and there's no meaningful difference and trying to define it beyond that is pointless even though we're talking about Bridge vs Canasta, or Bridge vs Chess, or Chess vs Military deployments in the Gulf War, I'm going to wonder wtf they've been smoking. (Edit: and wonder if I can get some :smallwink: )

Gwendol

2016-01-20, 02:19 PM

pwykersotz

2016-01-20, 04:00 PM

The immediate question, of course, is whether a wizard in 5e feels constrained because they, too, have a defined list of buttons they can push while still having access to the rest of the world. And if not, why? What's the difference? :smallsmile:

Speaking purely theoretically, it's possible. The spell list, even though it's MUCH more slimmed down than previous versions, is still a LOT to take in and consider. The amount of thought that is required to be put into selecting and managing your spells is high. Then the spells themselves are highly codified, so it can possibly discourage playing with them, such as shooting a proton torpedo into a thermal exhaust port fireball into a small hole in the wall. This can create a push-button mentality, even though the skill system is still highly flexible. Compare to a character with fewer spells, and you have less mental overhead and therefore more time and energy to devote to creatively using the more flexible skill system.

Obviously the standard disclaimer applies. Skilled players won't necessarily have issues with this, YMMV, etc. But I can see a case being made for it. Mostly because when I got into 3.5 I was completely overwhelmed by the spell list and had to spend most of my time just figuring out what the darned things did.

Cybren

2016-01-20, 04:09 PM

Great list but in general for 5e the situation is the following:

Each round the character can:

Move
Take an action (more on that below)
Take a possible bonus action
Take a possible reaction

Actions in 5e can be further divided and categorized:

Attack 1-4 times
Multiattack (such as Whirlwind, or special monster multiattack)
Cast a spell
Dash
Disengage
Dodge
Help
Hide
Ready
Search
Use an Object

Contests such as grappling or disarming are open ended actions in combat. Please note that the various options listed are examples of contests as noted on p. 195 of the PHB:

The DMG offers a few more examples.

Now, please note that the contests listed replaces one attack of the attack action, which means that a fighter or any other character with the extra attack class feature can make a tactical choice of carrying out several actions (contests or attacks) with their attack action. That is tactically richer than practically any other edition of the game can offer. Furthermore, many classes have abilities that improve or enhance action economy in different ways, such as the Rogue Cunning Action, Sorcerer metamagic, Ranger Beastmaster, etc.

Alternatively you can:
parley with the enemy
sneak into their camp
set up defenses ahead of time
sow discord among your enemies by offering bribes
use magic, mundane disguises, or hastily constructed but elaborate woodworking to lure enemies into ambushes
and many more!

We can (and should) think of tactics beyond "I shoot the mans!" combat options. Ultimately, which option you take on any given turn in combat has a much smaller delta in determining your chance of success than the choices you make before the combat starts. Are you wearing your armor? Is the wizard concentrating on an important spell? Marching order? Did you kill the sentries or sneak past?

5E having a more permissive attitude towards resolving game actions is a strength in considering how 'tactical' the game is. The crux of this debate seems to center on if you think the DM should behave solely as a neutral arbitrator of explicit game rules or not.

Tanarii

2016-01-20, 04:40 PM

Ultimately, which option you take on any given turn in combat has a much smaller delta in determining your chance of success than the choices you make before the combat starts.Those are often strategic considerations, not tactical choices, insofar as we're discussing battle tactics. I'll grant there's a lot of overlap for deciding which is which. And of course it's important to decide at what level we're talking about tactical choices in the first place.

For example, 5e makes it clear that the game consists of three components, assuming a standard dungeon*: Exploration, Social, & Combat. As such, each of them has tactical considerations, which clearly impact the other components not only their own. And an over-arching strategy would affect all of them.

Edit: In that regard, AD&D and 5e are far MORE tactical than 4e. D&D 4e is optimized for, and generally run, as Combat-as-Sport. That means out-of-combat tactics/preparation often have far less of an impact on combat. That's not a given ... it's just the mindset that typically results in DMs and players due to the way the rules are constructed.

* using dungeon here to mean 'adventure' since all D&D adventures are 'dungeons' in the loosest sense of the term.
http://theangrygm.com/every-adventures-a-dungeon/

JackPhoenix

2016-01-20, 04:50 PM

Interesting anecdote:

One of my players just told me he didn't like 4e because he felt so limited when playing it. He felt that all he could do was "push the buttons" so-to-speak (I'm trying to translate his words to our conversation here), and that he couldn't engage in any real tactical play. This is coming from a guy who says that Final Fantasy Tactics was and still is his favorite video game.

He feels much more free to engage in tactics and he feels like he has a ton more options in 5e than he ever did in 4e; and only marginally so in PF - because he doesn't feel constrained by the rules.

Note: An anecdote isn't data; I'm just brining over his feelings on the topic in order to continue this fascinating (to me) conversation.

2nd Note: Another one of my players (who I think is getting sick of this conversation) asked me what I hope to gain by winning this argument. I'd like to reiterate than I'm not here to win or lose an argument. I'm here to learn and gain insight. Which I believe I've done, thanks to everyone contributing.

I can agree with him. While the GM rulings may limit improvised actions, they may not...it differs GM to GM and case to case. However, the explicit "buttons" in 3.5 and 4e don't just give you more things to do...they say what you CAN'T do when you don't select those buttons amongst the available options.

In 5e, I can say "I want to throw sand into enemy's eyes" and the GM either allows or forbids that (and I would want his reasoning for the latter). In 4e, I can't do that unless I'm a specific class and I have selected the ability "Sand Throw". Because throwing sand into enemy face whenever I want would be unfair to (for example) rogue who can do it once a day with an ability he selected instead of "Chandelier Swing" or "Turn the table and hide behind it"

Mara

2016-01-20, 05:41 PM

It goes back far more than that. Xcom did it for MS-Dos. But TSR (short for Tactical Studies Rules) was named as such because similar component form the very basis for D&D. And those came from Tactical Wargames, which really took off starting in 1968.

The components you and I are taking about have been a part of D&D since its founding. And they define what it means to be more or less tactical in a tactical wargame, or its derivatives.

Trying to use an outside definition is just trying to redefine Tactical Wargames in a silly way, and there's no value in how such people are trying to evaluate D&D's tactical merits.

It's nice to know when someone tries to talk about a game being more or less tactical, and they aren't meaning what the word tactical means the context of the discussion.You're just still just redefining tactics in a nonsense way. Everyonehas access to define: x word via Google. It's the easiest way to reach a consensus and use words in a way that isn't confusing.

Now I if you want to argue how game buttons fits the definition, fine. But I think the reason all game buttons are not seen as tactical enhancements is because they don't fit the actual definition of the word.

In monopoly, I have money, trading, buying, mortgaging, hotels, and fees. Properties can be combo'd in many different ways with very different cash on hand. The number of possibilities between cash and property combos is basically limitless. That doesn't make monopoly more tactical than checkers which has less combinations and possibilities. We all agree that many of Monopoly's game buttons aren't tactical. A dollar difference in the bank does not have the same tactical importance as a checker in a different spot.

Tanarii

2016-01-20, 05:59 PM

In monopoly, I have money, trading, buying, mortgaging, hotels, and fees. Properties can be combo'd in many different ways with very different cash on hand. The number of possibilities between cash and property combos is basically limitless. That doesn't make monopoly more tactical than checkers which has less combinations and possibilities. We all agree that many of Monopoly's game buttons aren't tactical. A dollar difference in the bank does not have the same tactical importance as a checker in a different spot.Now you're getting it. What you're talking about is tactical strategy within the context of the ruleset. And that varies from rules to rules. Tactical play within a monolopy-like game is very different from a checkers-like game is very different from a tactical wargame (or derivative like D&D).

That's exactly why what 'tactical' means varies from rules to rules (or if you prefer from game to game), and you have to define it within that context. Trying to make a global one-size-fits-all definition doesn't make any sense.

georgie_leech

2016-01-20, 06:24 PM

Shall we try to bring the discussion back on topic? I listed the available actions and presented my case for the tactical variety offered in 5e combat, yet no-one is prepared to offer a comparable listing of their edition of choice.

Personally, the trouble I have with doing so is that aside from being AFB at the mokent, in 4e much more of a character's available actions are determined by class than by general choices. There's a great difference between a Rogue being able to attack and Hide with the same action (doesn't even have a bonus/minor action cost), a Warlord granting an ally a free attack, a Cleric handing out Saving Throws, a Fighter Marking multiple opponents... and those are all just Level 1 At Will options, without getting into the options that Encounter and Daily abilities bring. If I were to do so though...

General Action Break down:
1. Standard Action
2. Move Action
3. Minor Action
4. Opportunity Action(s) (you get 1 per turn, not round)
5. Immediate Reaction/Interupt

Minor Actions are similar to Bonus Actions in that their use tends to be more specific than having general options for them, but Racial Abilities will frequently be this, if they aren't Interrupts or Free or Non-actions. Many Classes will also have Powers come as part of their class (not chosen as part of their usual selection, but in the same way that Rogues get Cunning Action at level 2), such as a Paladin's Divine Challenge or any Leader's Healing ability.

Move Actions out of the box can be used for:
1. Walking (normal move)
2. Running, increased speed at the expense of personal vulnerability and accuracy
3. Shifting, the equivalent to a 5 foot step in 3.X (though some powers can have Shifts much longer, even greater than normal movement in some cases)
5. Downgrading to a Minor Action, giving you an extra opportunity to do anything that a Minor Action can do.

Standard Actions are, like 5e, where the most choices are present. Most choices come from Powers as mentioned above. There are still a variety of other options though.

1. Use an At Will power. This is analogous to the Attack/Cantrip action, with the distinction of being related to their class skill set. A Rogue doesn't just attack, they use the same moment to slip into the shadows or give a complicated flourish that deals extra damage. A Warlord doesn't just attack, they force the opponent into a compromising position that an ally can take advantage of.
2. Use an Encounter Power. Available often enough to not worry too much about using them, but they should be considered against each other. These are the characters' signature abilities; the Paladin smiting their foe and marking them with a brand that drives their allies away, a Fighter drawing in multiple opponents to force them to engage him, a Warlock... well, actually they map half decently to the 5e framework of short rest spells.
3. Use a Daily Power. These are the encounter changers, the Wizard locking down entire battlefields, the Barbarian entering a supernatural rage, the Ranger unleashing an unending Salvo of arrows on some unlucky soul.
4. Second Wind
5. Aid Another
6. Bullrush
7. Charge
8. Many varieties of Skill Checks
9. Ready (worth noting that you can ready any ability, so the Fighter need not limit himself to single attacks)
10. Improvise an Action
11. Use an item.
12. Delay their turn (sort of, it fits best here but you get your proper action later anyway)
13. Grapple
13. Downgrade to a Move Action. Meaning you could have two Move Actions and a Minor, a Standard and two Minor, 3 Minor.... For instance, one could replicate the Disengage Action by Shifting Away and then using a Standard to walk/run/jump away.

Immediate Actions are a direct analogue for Reactions, With the note that Opportunity Attacks are distinct from these.

So I'm not noticing much that 5e can do in terms of tactical options that 4e can't manage. In particular, even if most Powers are some variety of 'attack the target' the riders make a significant difference. It would be hard to argue that a Warlock with Repelling Blast is less tactical than an otherwise identical Warlock EBing without the ability to push targets. In the same way, the way that most Powers add extra effects gives extra options on top of attacking normally.

Tanarii

2016-01-20, 06:41 PM

In particular, even if most Powers are some variety of 'attack the target' the riders make a significant difference. It would be hard to argue that a Warlock with Repelling Blast is less tactical than an otherwise identical Warlock EBing without the ability to push targets. In the same way, the way that most Powers add extra effects gives extra options on top of attacking normally.I've noticed when people say 4e is more tactical, specifically referring to combat, they're usually referring to one or both of:
1) 5ft steps and Threatened squares.
2) Riders.

Almost every power had a rider. Often appropriate to the class. And those riders worked within a large shared ruleset of inflicted conditions, battlefield control, buffing, etc. 5e actions often have the riders removed completely. That's where people most often feel that tactical options have been removed from play.

That's because there are many DMs (and players) that run on the mindset "if it doesn't say you can ..." either making it impossible or harder to do outside the rules, because they're afraid of overpowering. Or at the minimum, it's inconsistent from DM to DM. If you don't know how something will work, it's harder to base tactical decisions on it. It's effectively fog of war, but in regards to your own character's tactical options, and some players suffer from sticker shock after encountering an edition that had much less of that.

Edit: Regardless, having less surety (ie looser rules) of your own tactical options in a tactical war game or derivative makes it a less tactical game, not more. Because the rules define the tactics appropriate to the game system. But it absolutely may work better for simulating real world military tactical situations, where fog of war in regards to your own abilities is the norm.

georgie_leech

2016-01-20, 06:54 PM

I've noticed when people say 4e is more tactical, specifically referring to combat, they're usually referring to one or both of:
1) 5ft steps and Threatened squares.
2) Riders.

Almost every power had a rider. Often appropriate to the class. And those riders worked within a large shared ruleset of inflicted conditions, battlefield control, buffing, etc. 5e actions often have the riders removed completely. That's where people most often feel that tactical options have been removed from play.

That's because there are many DMs (and players) that run on the mindset "if it doesn't say you can ..." either making it impossible or harder to do outside the rules, because they're afraid of overpowering. Or at the minimum, it's inconsistent from DM to DM. If you don't know how something will work, it's harder to base tactical decisions on it. It's effectively fog of war, but in regards to your own character's tactical options, and some players suffer from sticker shock after encountering an edition that had much less of that.

Edit: Regardless, having less surety (ie looser rules) of your own tactical options in a tactical war game or derivative makes it a less tactical game, not more. Because the rules define the tactics appropriate to the game system.

Mm. I'm not saying that 5e has no tactical play, but I do feel it's less. I've never had a problem with the Sand Throw thing, for example. Sure, your Fighter can toss a bag of sand at the opponent's eyes to try to blind them, even if the Rogue has the Sand Throw power. They just won't be as good at it; it might have an attack penalty, it might deal less damage, it might grant Combat Advantage instead of total Blindness... For whatever reason I've never had much trouble separating the ideas of Powers and improvised actions being allowable, to an extent.

Now, 3.X with its explicit 'Normal' section in feats saying you can't do the thing without it... :smallannoyed:

Mara

2016-01-20, 08:04 PM

Now you're getting it. What you're talking about is tactical strategy within the context of the ruleset. And that varies from rules to rules. Tactical play within a monolopy-like game is very different from a checkers-like game is very different from a tactical wargame (or derivative like D&D).

That's exactly why what 'tactical' means varies from rules to rules (or if you prefer from game to game), and you have to define it within that context. Trying to make a global one-size-fits-all definition doesn't make any sense.
I'm still using the normal definition of the word.

My family may just take Monopoly more seriously than you do.

Vogonjeltz

2016-01-20, 09:27 PM

Yeah, that's the general definition that keeps getting slung around, but it's uselessly vague. In order for the word "tactic" to be useful in an industry, be it the military or gaming, you're going to have to go deeper than that.

We can look up what the word "drugs" means, but in order for that term to be useful in medicine or criminal prosecution, you're going to have to go deeper; you're going to have to define it narrower, and you're going to have to get into the individual things it refers to. A categorical definition is woefully insufficient.

Looks quite specific. Tactics as a word stems from the military context, specifically answers the question of how one achieves an operational goal, and operational goals are the means by which one achieves a strategic goal.

Being amazing at tactics doesn't automatically translate into strategic victory. Which is to say, you can be really great and win low level engagements, but still lose the overall war. Classic example: World War II, the Axis was better than the Allies at tactics, but they failed on the strategic level.

As Gwendol has expertly pointed out, in 5e there are an effectively infinite number of possible tactics thanks to Improvised Actions and Contests.

Mara

2016-01-20, 09:34 PM

As Gwendol has expertly pointed out, in 5e there are an effectively infinite number of possible tactics thanks to Improvised Actions and Contests. Well, everything you can do in those you could attempt in 3.5. You would just fail and a success would still be a waste of an action.

Quality and Quantity of tactics should be considered.

BootStrapTommy

2016-01-20, 10:02 PM

Volume of material.

By sheer virtue of volume of material 3.x/Pathfinder and 4e have more tactics (especially 3.x).

The simple fact of the matter is, the more content that becomes available for any one edition, the more options there are for combining that content in creative and useful ways.

5e has one, soon to be two, real splatbooks.
3.x and 4e have so many more. As a result, from the many more options comes many more tactics.

mgshamster

2016-01-20, 10:58 PM

For example, 5e makes it clear that the game consists of three components, assuming a standard dungeon*: Exploration, Social, & Combat. As such, each of them has tactical considerations, which clearly impact the other components not only their own. And an over-arching strategy would affect all of them.

Edit: In that regard, AD&D and 5e are far MORE tactical than 4e. D&D 4e is optimized for, and generally run, as Combat-as-Sport. That means out-of-combat tactics/preparation often have far less of an impact on combat. That's not a given ... it's just the mindset that typically results in DMs and players due to the way the rules are constructed.

* using dungeon here to mean 'adventure' since all D&D adventures are 'dungeons' in the loosest sense of the term.
http://theangrygm.com/every-adventures-a-dungeon/

That's an interesting thought. What we view as tactical aspects of the game may be dependent on whether we use Combat as Sports or Combat as War. The CaS types may view the tactics parts as the options one has within combat, whereas the CaW types may view the tactical part as the out-of-combat decisions one makes to unbalance combat in their own favor, making the individual combat options irrelevant to the discussion of tactics.

As 4e tends to favor CaS and 5e tends to favor CaW, the difference may lie therein.

Kane0

2016-01-20, 11:07 PM

That's an interesting thought. What we view as tactical aspects of the game may be dependent on whether we use Combat as Sports or Combat as War. The CaS types may view the tactics parts as the options one has within combat, whereas the CaW types may view the tactical part as the out-of-combat decisions one makes to unbalance combat in their own favor, making the individual combat options irrelevant to the discussion of tactics.

As 4e tends to favor CaS and 5e tends to favor CaW, the difference may lie therein.

Agreed. More than a few differences in mentality and playstyle can be traced to the CaS vs CaW concept.

One can argue that all D&D editions except for 4e are rather balanced in that regard, only 4e tends strongly towards CaS whereas AD&D, 3.X and 5e lean slightly towards CaW.

If 4e had more powers that didn't revolve around combat maybe that would have been different.

Dimers

2016-01-20, 11:59 PM

Where I have issues is that I don't think tactical was ever meant to have a different definition in wargames as opposed to warfare. ... I can definitely see where you're coming from in the sense that the word had evolved a new meaning ...

As a language geek, I hate hate hate the fact that "literally" has literally come to allow the definition of "figuratively". But since my impassioned arguments have convinced exactly zero people to stop using it that way, and continuing to try has only made me feel bad, I accept the evolution. Language is usually messy. English, more so.

On the plus side, word evolution often brings wonderful new options, too. Not so long ago, the words "infer" and "imply" were fully interchangeable -- now we have two distinct shadings for the same general concept. The richness of possible meanings in this language, even without plays-on-words, is delicious if you have a modest amount of context awareness and tolerance for imperfection.

Shall we try to bring the discussion back on topic? I listed the available actions and presented my case for the tactical variety offered in 5e combat, yet no-one is prepared to offer a comparable listing of their edition of choice.

See post 77 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20318982&postcount=77), in response to MaxWilson's earlier post enumerating 5e tactical options.

Though he understandably doesn't regard 4e "total defense" as tactically meaningful compared to 5e's Dodge, and 4e's array of universal options gets weak for most characters as they get to high levels. (By which time they have far more numerous and more varied 'buttons' to use, of course.) RAW gives no continuing support to bull rush or grab outside of class powers. Forumgoer Surrealistik wrote viable houserules (http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=199598) to fix that particular lack (Less Essential Houserule #4), and in my anecdotal experience, almost every DM who looks at them uses them -- it's clearly an area that people care about and find disappointing in the base ruleset.

Now, please note that the contests listed replaces one attack of the attack action, which means that a fighter or any other character with the extra attack class feature can make a tactical choice of carrying out several actions (contests or attacks) with their attack action. That is tactically richer than practically any other edition of the game can offer.

Your last sentence doesn't follow, but I quite agree that substituting in maneuvers in place of damage-dealing attacks is great for tactical variety. I wish it could work before L5-at-minimum, and I'm disappointed that even two swordy type classes MCed together can't achieve Extra Attack as quickly as one class by itself. But once the character has it ... very nice.

djreynolds

2016-01-21, 02:14 AM

It is a different game now. But still similar. Look at critical hits, a weapon master could crit you on a 13, now a champion will do so on an 18 at level 15. But there are very few in 5E immune to crits and even ranged spells can crit. So it evens out.

Rogues can sneak attack everyone, but there are limits. Only on one attack per turn and for most rogue's they will need someone in melee. No more having to position yourself just right, but no more dropping a sneak attack from a rouge with possibly five swings from great two weapon fighting. So it evens out.

obryn

2016-01-21, 02:24 AM

I can agree with him. While the GM rulings may limit improvised actions, they may not...it differs GM to GM and case to case. However, the explicit "buttons" in 3.5 and 4e don't just give you more things to do...they say what you CAN'T do when you don't select those buttons amongst the available options.

In 5e, I can say "I want to throw sand into enemy's eyes" and the GM either allows or forbids that (and I would want his reasoning for the latter). In 4e, I can't do that unless I'm a specific class and I have selected the ability "Sand Throw". Because throwing sand into enemy face whenever I want would be unfair to (for example) rogue who can do it once a day with an ability he selected instead of "Chandelier Swing" or "Turn the table and hide behind it"
nnnoo.... There's a very robust stunting system built into the game - the famed Page 42 rules. (Sadly, they suffer from early 4e's mathematical mistakes, but since it's just a mixture of DC-by-Level and monster damage by level, it's a trivial fix.

The trick - and this is true in every system, not just 4e - is finding a way that stunting or going outside the rules is fun and meaningful, without turning combat into sand throwing contests. In 4e, this is handled by giving you a fairly difficult DC and a low damage expression. A Rogue or Fighter, on the other hand, with a Blindness-causing power, will simply be better at it.

Gwendol

2016-01-21, 02:38 AM

Dimers

2016-01-21, 03:16 AM

I'm not familiar with 4e at all, but from the looks of it the various powers are numerous enough to provide a meaningful number of combinations to call combat tactical. I assume that not all choices are available at all times, and so it will be a combination of choices (race, class, etc) and resource management not unlike the situation for a 5e caster. In other words it appears to be on par with the tactical variety that 5e offers, at least as combat is concerned (one can solve encounters in other ways as Cybren rightly notes).

Setting aside "Essentials" (sort of a 4.5 edition known for its seriously dumbed-down class modifications) and magic items, all 4e characters have considerably more meaningful options to choose from than 5e noncasters, about the same number as well built 5e half-casters, and fewer options than 5e full casters including the warlock. Magic items are baked into the system and vastly more common than base 5e assumes, potentially (not necessarily) giving all 4e characters about a half step up that meaningful-option scale. Essentials characters are about one step down. They still have things 5e characters don't, like racial powers, theme powers and the ability to invest in a bloodline, but their class-based options are dramatically limited.

Gwendol

2016-01-21, 03:40 AM

Mm, however, 5e has meaningful open-ended options in the form of contests, which by virtue of replacing a single attack, increases the tactical options offered to classes with extra attacks dramatically.
And since these are available to all, always (well, at least depending on the actual circumstances), the tactical depth and breadth is greater than the rules may imply at a first glance.

mgshamster

2016-01-21, 08:01 AM

As a language geek, I hate hate hate the fact that "literally" has literally come to allow the definition of "figuratively". But since my impassioned arguments have convinced exactly zero people to stop using it that way, and continuing to try has only made me feel bad, I accept the evolution. Language is usually messy. English, more so.

Ugh. I know! It bugs me, too. I also am bothered by the massive misuse of "begs the question" to mean "raises the question," which is now so common that I see it on the news. And two from my military background (because everyone in the military messes these two up): it's "cash" not "cashay" for cache, and it's "fort" not "fortay" for forte.

But fighting the evolution of language is always an uphill battle that you're probably going to lose.

Carry on, stalwart soldier. Carry on.

mgshamster

2016-01-21, 08:26 AM

nnnoo.... There's a very robust stunting system built into the game - the famed Page 42 rules. (Sadly, they suffer from early 4e's mathematical mistakes, but since it's just a mixture of DC-by-Level and monster damage by level, it's a trivial fix.

The trick - and this is true in every system, not just 4e - is finding a way that stunting or going outside the rules is fun and meaningful, without turning combat into sand throwing contests. In 4e, this is handled by giving you a fairly difficult DC and a low damage expression. A Rogue or Fighter, on the other hand, with a Blindness-causing power, will simply be better at it.

The question isn't always whether you can perform these other tasks - it's whether the system encourages it or makes it a viable option. If it's not a viable option, then it doesn't really matter if you *can* do something.

From here, we could traverse through some psychology of gaming - we tend to follow the path that the system encourages. I grew up on 2e, but my players all grew up on Pathfinder ("3.75" edition). I also grew up with gaming groups that actively encouraged thinking outside the box for problem solving (fortunately, my parents encouraged the same thing). However, I'm not so sure that my players had that same experience. For years I've been trying to get them to think "outside the character sheet."

And for years, it was a struggle for me to ever get them to do something that was explicitly listed as an option for their character. Fighters fight, casters cast. Options do exactly what they say they do. No more.

The reason - I suspect - is that your character sheet in PF will generally list everything your character can do, from attacks to spells to skills to feats (you generally ignore any combat maneuver you don't have a feat in, since the chance of success starts low and only gets worse as you level). And since everything is defined explicitly, it's safe to assume that if your character can't specifically do it, then it's not an option worth trying (a lot of times, the "normal" is "you can't donthisbwith out a feat.")

But then we moved to 5e. After the first game (used to test the system; lasted two session), they're now full on board with thinking outside their character sheet. They try new things, they combine options in creative ways, they look at problems from the perspective of their character rather than their character sheet, and more - it's everything I've been struggling to pull out of them for years.

While this may be coincidental, I'm inclined to believe otherwise. The reason is because for 5e, the majority of your options aren't listed on your character sheet or given to you in your class. This encourages thinking outside the character sheet to solve problems. When you're forced to look elsewhere to figure out what you can do, you start looking elsewhere for everything else, too. And suddenly you lose the habit of looking to the character sheet for the solution.

It's like a floodgate has opened up in my players and now they feel massively empowered, because they feel like they've went from a discrete number of options (however many that may be) to "almost anything I can imagine." Granted, it will be more limited than that for any given situation, but that's how they feel - it's limited only by the world's physics and your imagination. They no longer feel constrained by the rules.

So for them (and me), 5e feels more tactical, because you can try dang near anything. And while it's true that you can also try dang near anything in 3.X and 4e - the rules of the systems encourage you to just stick with what your character sheet says you can do. Traverse outside the character sheet and you're more likely to fail than not - when you can even make the attempt to begin with.

Tanarii

2016-01-21, 08:54 AM

The question isn't always whether you can perform these other tasks - it's whether the system encourages it or makes it a viable option. If it's not a viable option, then it doesn't really matter if you *can* do something.

And therein lies the rub. The way 5e handles things, encouraging DMs to make rulings on the fly, is a poor method for doing this in a tactical war game. It's perfectly fine in a simulationist or narrative Role playing game, even one derived from war games.

The primary reason it is bad from a tactical war game perspective is DM inconsistency. Not just from DM to DM, but any given DM can and will be inconsistent for his rulings. Especially if he doesn't write them all down. That means that players have no idea if their actions will be meaningful or not before taking them. Unless the DM tells them the chance of success, or gives them a fairly good idea of the chance of success, before they decide on each and every possible action they might take, so they can compare and choose between them.

If the DM doesn't do that, the player cannot apply meaningful tactical play in a tactical war game, as the player is experiencing a fog of war for his own abilities. At which point you're back to playing a simulationist RPG. If he does, it's either going to slow down the game as the player asks 'what if' over and over again, and even then the player is just trying to define his abilities on the fly for each and every maneuver he can think so he can play tactically on each and every turn. At which point the game has less tactical play than a tactical war game with predefined abilities.

Basically, for 5e to play as tactically as a tactical war game should, players per force have limited tactical play compared to versions of D&D with more hard coded rules. For it to play tactically as a simulation of 'reality' (meaning a fantasy world with some internal reality basis of its own) actually works better.

Gwendol

2016-01-21, 09:59 AM

obryn

2016-01-21, 10:01 AM

Ugh. I know! It bugs me, too. I also am bothered by the massive misuse of "begs the question" to mean "raises the question," which is now so common that I see it on the news. And two from my military background (because everyone in the military messes these two up): it's "cash" not "cashay" for cache, and it's "fort" not "fortay" for forte.

But fighting the evolution of language is always an uphill battle that you're probably going to lose.

Carry on, stalwart soldier. Carry on.

This is just how language works. Remember how everyone used "bad" to mean "really good"? This article also mentions how the word "definitely" has also started to take on a sarcastic/inverted meaning. So it's just how things work. :smallsmile:
http://blog.dictionary.com/literally/

The question isn't always whether you can perform these other tasks - it's whether the system encourages it or makes it a viable option. If it's not a viable option, then it doesn't really matter if you *can* do something.
OK, so I definitely don't want to discount psychological effects, or issues of presentation. A game has an interaction with the people playing it. But I think this is more a matter of presentation and table attitude than anything else.

In 3e and 4e, people rely on their sheets because they are declarative statements about their characters' capabilities. They are things that they know their character can do. Oftentimes, these are very effective. - which is kind of the point to having them in the first place.

On the other hand, improvised actions - by definition - aren't certain, have a lot of table variation, and run into effectiveness issues. The first two have been covered, but the third one is pretty important, too. Take the "sand in the eyes" example from earlier... If anyone can just carry a bag of sand around and blind their enemies willy-nilly, you get a number of undesirable side-effects on both the gameplay and world-building/sim sides. Gameplay? It gets boring and repetitive, and this option is now more powerful than most character-building options. World-building? Well, we know that medieval warriors weren't going around hurling sand at people. So you need to strike a balance - and more often than not, that balance (in D&D) is to make them generally unpalatable by making them low-probability or low-effect or both.

You can build your game to encourage stunting better. Dungeon Crawl Classics actually does a really great job with this, through its Mighty Deeds of Arms mechanic. Games like Feng Shui assume it as the default and give you a bonus if you exceed your target number by enough. Games like Ryuutama give a list of 'objects' in the combat; you can scratch one off to use it and give a bonus if you can come up with a way you're doing it. Out of all the editions of D&D, 4e has an actual mechanical structure for stunting, but its use varies from table to table.

How do you solve this? Well, there's a few ways, and many of them come down to table rules and effectiveness. I like to make Stunts very effective when they're engaging with the unique battlefield in meaningful ways as opposed to carrying around bags of sand. I also tend to limit these to 1/encounter to keep everything from getting repetitive (Big urn of boiling water? You can only dump it out once). And the biggie - I make sure to point them out ahead of time.

So ... why do casters in 3.x usually cast spells and characters in 4e usually use their powers? They are certain and they are powerful. If you make stunts certain and powerful, players will use them more. I think stunting feels easy in 5e because many characters lack these certain, powerful abilities. Whether that's a good thing is up to you, but I think it's about the least interesting way to encourage it.

obryn

2016-01-21, 10:19 AM

I think you are overemphasizing DM arbitration. For the most part, improvised actions in combat (tactical options) will be contests. Either simply ability scores, or skills. Opposed checks, so no DC necessary.
If we can't ignore the psychological impact of having a ton of options in front of you, we also can't ignore the psychological impact of the uncertainty created by DM arbitration in the players' minds. :smallsmile:

Tanarii

2016-01-21, 10:19 AM

OK, so I definitely don't want to discount psychological effects, or issues of presentation. A game has an interaction with the people playing it. But I think this is more a matter of presentation and table attitude than anything else.I disagree. It's a mechanical difference.

In 5e:
ACs typically range from about 14-18.
Ability Scores (for saves) from about -1 to +3
Even if you add another two points to the range, that means players know their likelyhood of success within about +/- 15%.
DCs for checks range from DC 0 to DC 30. Even if you cut it down to a more realistic DC 10 to DC 20, that still means at best checks are +/- 25% variation, and it depends wholly on DM fiat.
Then, on top of that, for attacks and abilities, players know what the results will be. For improvised actions, the results are basically whatever the DM determines. Although players and DMs working together to be clear on intent obviously helps reduce that. (see http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/ )

So uncertainty about improvised actions isn't just presentation thing, even in 5e. It's an actual mechanical difference between explicit abilities and non-explicit abilities. In 3.5 & 4e it's actually worse than 5e in that regard ... non-explicit abilities are often just flat out weaker or not possible at all.

obryn

2016-01-21, 10:59 AM

I disagree. It's a mechanical difference.

In 5e:
ACs typically range from about 14-18.
Ability Scores (for saves) from about -1 to +3
Even if you add another two points to the range, that means players know their likelyhood of success within about +/- 15%.
DCs for checks range from DC 0 to DC 30. Even if you cut it down to a more realistic DC 10 to DC 20, that still means at best checks are +/- 25% variation, and it depends wholly on DM fiat.
Then, on top of that, for attacks and abilities, players know what the results will be. For improvised actions, the results are basically whatever the DM determines. Although players and DMs working together to be clear on intent obviously helps reduce that. (see http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/ )

So uncertainty about improvised actions isn't just presentation thing, even in 5e. It's an actual mechanical difference between explicit abilities and non-explicit abilities. In 3.5 & 4e it's actually worse than 5e in that regard ... non-explicit abilities are often just flat out weaker or not possible at all.
Yeah, I think it's both. I covered the mechanical bits in the rest of the post.

I don't think we can discount the psychological aspects, but they're at least partly created by the ruleset at hand. I'll disagree, though, that 4e's non-explicit abilities are worse than 5e, though, particularly if you update the Page 42 numbers to the latest standards.

Tanarii

2016-01-21, 11:08 AM

I'll disagree, though, that 4e's non-explicit abilities are worse than 5e, though, particularly if you update the Page 42 numbers to the latest standards.It's been a little while since I looked at the specific numbers. It's possible they're only 20% less certain than an explicit ability (ie +/- 10% more uncertain than the typical +/- of attacking or a save). If so, that's on par with 5e. But I recall it being a variation scaling from about 10 at the lowest levels (on part with 5e) to about 20 at the highest levels (double 5e).

MaxWilson

2016-01-21, 11:42 AM

The primary reason it is bad from a tactical war game perspective is DM inconsistency. Not just from DM to DM, but any given DM can and will be inconsistent for his rulings. Especially if he doesn't write them all down. That means that players have no idea if their actions will be meaningful or not before taking them. Unless the DM tells them the chance of success, or gives them a fairly good idea of the chance of success, before they decide on each and every possible action they might take, so they can compare and choose between them.

If the DM doesn't do that, the player cannot apply meaningful tactical play in a tactical war game, as the player is experiencing a fog of war for his own abilities.

Interesting analogy. Does this imply that XCom cannot be a tactical wargame since it has fog of war? Or does it imply that it is possible to work around fog of war?

You know it's working when you see your players passing around charts tracking the empirical probability of you (the DM) buying into to any given shenanigans. "-30% success if it inflicts direct damage on the enemy; +50% if it involves monkeys."

;-)

Tanarii

2016-01-21, 12:12 PM

Interesting analogy. Does this imply that XCom cannot be a tactical wargame since it has fog of war? Or does it imply that it is possible to work around fog of war?Normal real-world style 'tactics' are often explicitly ways of dealing with the fog-of-war for your opponents. In fact, tactical war games often simulate this. But it's not the standard to have fog-of-war for your own abilities in a non-simulation. X-com and many video games provide numbers for damage, hit chance, etc, to reduce the fog-of-war for your own abilities for exactly that reason.

IMO the reason the standard is to have a degree of transparency, often large, for your own abilities is precisely because it's an imprecise model for reality, so players can't just make assumptions based on their knowledge of the real world. Or it may just be because the focus of the game is on defeating your opponent, not on simulating a reality.

You know it's working when you see your players passing around charts tracking the empirical probability of you (the DM) buying into to any given shenanigans. "-30% success if it inflicts direct damage on the enemy; +50% if it involves monkeys."

;-)Hahaha yeah that's the kind of DM that makes DM fiat fun. :)

MaxWilson

2016-01-21, 12:48 PM

Normal real-world style 'tactics' are often explicitly ways of dealing with the fog-of-war for your opponents. In fact, tactical war games often simulate this. But it's not the standard to have fog-of-war for your own abilities in a non-simulation. X-com and many video games provide numbers for damage, hit chance, etc, to reduce the fog-of-war for your own abilities for exactly that reason.

I think this example actually undercuts your point.

X-Com is actually notoriously opaque about the capabilities of its weapons. Different weapons are rated with accuracies and damage values, but even low-accuracy weapons seem to hit more often than the displayed percentage would indicate (and the game gives you no information at all on how misses work--and what does crouching really do?), nor is there any real information on how damage and armor interact. Dedicated fans have unravelled pieces of the puzzle (even deciphering how Reactions work), but for the average X-Com player, all you can see is that Laser Pistols do "46" damage, are less accurate in autofire mode, and are pretty good at killing sectoids and bad at killing mutons, and that obviously it's good when your soldier's Accuracy goes up between missions.

I think X-Com is actually a terrific example of how you can think tactically even in a game where you don't know the rules, just patterns in how the referee tends to rule specific actions, and the fact that whoever wrote the game was trying to make things "realistic."

IMO the reason the standard is to have a degree of transparency, often large, for your own abilities is precisely because it's an imprecise model for reality, so players can't just make assumptions based on their knowledge of the real world. Or it may just be because the focus of the game is on defeating your opponent, not on simulating a reality.

And yet X-Com doesn't meet that standard, and it's still a great tactical game because you can blow up walls and enfilade the enemy and leave proximity grenades behind you as you sweep the area for hostiles. You may not know how everything works, but things that SHOULD work, do. That's enough to make tactical intuition useful.

So an infinite-resolution RPG should be even better at it.

Tanarii

2016-01-21, 01:03 PM

I think this example actually undercuts your point.

X-Com is actually notoriously opaque about the capabilities of its weapons. Different weapons are rated with accuracies and damage values, but even low-accuracy weapons seem to hit more often than the displayed percentage would indicate (and the game gives you no information at all on how misses work--and what does crouching really do?), nor is there any real information on how damage and armor interact. Dedicated fans have unravelled pieces of the puzzle (even deciphering how Reactions work), but for the average X-Com player, all you can see is that Laser Pistols do "46" damage, are less accurate in autofire mode, and are pretty good at killing sectoids and bad at killing mutons, and that obviously it's good when your soldier's Accuracy goes up between missions.??? All that information on how it works is readily available in the original game and terrors of the deep, at the minimum.

I think X-Com is actually a terrific example of how you can think tactically even in a game where you don't know the rules, just patterns in how the referee tends to rule specific actions, and the fact that whoever wrote the game was trying to make things "realistic."It's a good example of how if you don't know the rules you can lose over and over again until you learn how you *think* they work. And even then you'll find out when you dig in to the actual rules, you've made all sorts of wrong assumptions and are playing poorly because of it. I tend to learn that the hard way in games, including X-com ;)

And that's exactly what I mean by fog-of-war about your own abilities. And it's why many games try to minimize that.

Of course, the other reason is that in tactical war games as they originally stood, there usually wasn't a referee to arbitrate disagreements between the players when the rules weren't clear. ;) And of course in computer versions, the computer needs precise rules to run.

MaxWilson

2016-01-21, 01:17 PM

??? All that information on how it works is readily available in the original game and terrors of the deep, at the minimum.

Let's just say, "I never saw any such explanation." Even when you get the Mind Probe and find out that Mutons have such-and-such Reaction and weakness to Plasma, etc., there is never any explanation of what it means. Even outside the game I've never seen anything that explains where a missed shot is going to hit--there seems to be some relationship between how high your original %Accuracy was and how widely the shot will scatter, but that's an empirical observation, not something I've ever seen any rules for. Misses seem to usually stay on the same level, and crouching seems to make you somewhat less likely to be hit (30%?), and the portion of armor that you get hit on correlates well with the visual animation for where you get hit... but the details are Greek to me, and I certainly never saw any explanation in the manual or in-game. The game gives some rules on how far you can throw things, but nothing that I know of about how throwing accuracy works, so I pretty much just give a grenade to someone who isn't busy with a gun and have him chuck it in the right general vicinity.

It's a good example of how if you don't know the rules you can lose over and over again until you learn how you *think* they work. And even then you'll find out when you dig in to the actual rules, you've made all sorts of wrong assumptions and are playing poorly because of it. I tend to learn that the hard way in games, including X-com ;)

And that's exactly what I mean by fog-of-war about your own abilities. And it's why many games try to minimize that.

I know that it's what you mean about Fog-of-War about your abilities. But it doesn't deny you the ability to learn how to play effectively, with good tactics, even while that Fog of War persists. (And again, to me that Fog of War is still in place. Maybe you know exactly how the throwing rules work, but I don't. Nor do I know exactly how the vision and line-of-sight rules work, but I can still exploit them.)

Gwendol

2016-01-21, 01:21 PM

In D&D casters are the classes that best tend to the desires of those wanting codified abilities. I guess there is something to say about the way 4e made all classes structured in a similar way, both positive and negative.

Dealing with the DM should not be an in-game issue though, and since it's brought up often enough, but rarely outside hypothetical arguments one wonders how much of an impact it actually has on regular gameplay.

mgshamster

2016-01-21, 03:44 PM

The immediate question, of course, is whether a wizard in 5e feels constrained because they, too, have a defined list of buttons they can push while still having access to the rest of the world. And if not, why? What's the difference? :smallsmile:

I got a response from my player:

I think my issue in 4e was the dm. Any game can be stifled by an unflexible dm. For me, the fact that the rules in 5e are so simplified, yet offer additional suggestions if you'd like. If I wanted to climb a tree in pathfinder and jump attack someone, I'd have to take a feat for that. In 4th ed there was potential for a narrative dm to give you random bonuses or penalties for daring and risky acts, but you have this list of abilities each battle. Why would you waste an encounter or daily power that deals so much damage to spend your turn cutting the chain so you could ride the chandelier into the rafters or flip a table to create a barrier from arrows?

Wizards do essentially have a list of abilities as well, yes, but the non combat utility of most of them coupled with the fact that that's not all the wizard can do, really makes me love 5e compared to other editions. Most feats in 5e make something better as opposed to allowing you to do it, and feats themselves are even an optional rule. The wizard can still throw bottles of oil to slick the ground, blind someone with crushed glass, or smoke out enemies from a house with a torch. But it seems like such a waste of time when you can look down at your paper and say, "oh I could do that, or use this infinite ability to deal 3d6 every round."

Tanarii

2016-01-21, 03:54 PM

If I wanted to climb a tree in pathfinder and jump attack someone, I'd have to take a feat for that. In 4th ed there was potential for a narrative dm to give you random bonuses or penalties for daring and risky acts, but you have this list of abilities each battle.In 3e, I had three players fighting in the Sunless Citadel, which includes a room that's something like a 30ft diamater room with a 20ft diamater hole in the middle. Two of them went around the edges fighting the enemies one at a time (in their 5ft of frontage spacing). The monk vaulted the gap, landing and attacking the spellcaster that was behind the lines dumping spells. That required a jump check and an attack roll.

In 4e, I had some players fighting a flying demon in an extra-dimensional space with trees in it, with the pocket dimensions 'ceiling' keeping it from flying much above the treetops. The rogue climbed a tree and used a power that included movement to vault the distance, attacking and killing the demon. That required a climb check, and an attack roll. No jump check needed because the power used included jumping movement.

Jumping, climbing, swimming, and acrobatic maneuvers are built into all recent editions of D&D. 4e had the advantage of special maneuvers being part and parcel of some powers. In 3e and 5e some feats include such things, as well as some class features.

Edit: One thing that 4e had that optimized it for tactical play on a battlemat specifically was amazing movement, forced movement and other control rules, and lots of powers that used them. The downside to battlemats is that sometimes players can't think outside of them for their movement manuevers. Just as the downside to complex rules is often that the players can't think outside of them for actions. (Assuming the system makes options outside of them feasible.)

obryn

2016-01-21, 04:11 PM

I got a response from my player:

I think my issue in 4e was the dm. Any game can be stifled by an unflexible dm. For me, the fact that the rules in 5e are so simplified, yet offer additional suggestions if you'd like. If I wanted to climb a tree in pathfinder and jump attack someone, I'd have to take a feat for that. In 4th ed there was potential for a narrative dm to give you random bonuses or penalties for daring and risky acts, but you have this list of abilities each battle. Why would you waste an encounter or daily power that deals so much damage to spend your turn cutting the chain so you could ride the chandelier into the rafters or flip a table to create a barrier from arrows?

Wizards do essentially have a list of abilities as well, yes, but the non combat utility of most of them coupled with the fact that that's not all the wizard can do, really makes me love 5e compared to other editions. Most feats in 5e make something better as opposed to allowing you to do it, and feats themselves are even an optional rule. The wizard can still throw bottles of oil to slick the ground, blind someone with crushed glass, or smoke out enemies from a house with a torch. But it seems like such a waste of time when you can look down at your paper and say, "oh I could do that, or use this infinite ability to deal 3d6 every round."
Yeah, I think that plays into what I was saying upthread a bit. First, a good table environment can encourage stunting. Second, it needs to be mechanically strong enough that it doesn't feel like a waste of time. If your choice is between "do a sure thing with a known effect that will have a desirable outcome" and "do an uncertain thing with an unknown effect that might have a desirable outcome" well ... it's pretty clear-cut.

In other words, you cannot encourage stunts if they are an inferior way of interacting with the game.

Telok

2016-01-21, 04:42 PM

Stubbazubba

2016-01-21, 05:25 PM

As a language geek, I hate hate hate the fact that "literally" has literally come to allow the definition of "figuratively". But since my impassioned arguments have convinced exactly zero people to stop using it that way, and continuing to try has only made me feel bad, I accept the evolution. Language is usually messy. English, more so.

You may get a kick out of this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jh4Mpgbi4A&list=PLGVpxD1HlmJ-dLBoRLP91gvRJcFt9CkhQ)

And two from my military background (because everyone in the military messes these two up): it's "cash" not "cashay" for cache, and it's "fort" not "fortay" for forte.

I was certain you were wrong about forte, and then I looked it up. Turns out the music term and the "strong point" term are totally unrelated. Mind blown.

georgie_leech

2016-01-21, 05:29 PM

My groups experience with 4e was that if you didn't have a power that explicitly let you do something and/or a trained skill tied directly to your primary stat then you almost certainly couldn't succeed at what you wanted to do. Our beast form druid shaped into a kangaroo to jump a gap and attack something, but strength isn't a useful stat for druids, athletics wasn't a trained skill, and druids didn't get 'jump&attack' powers. So he rolled d20+3, rolled badly, and failed to cross a two square hole. Even stunt attacks required attack rolls, but those defaulted to basic melee attacks which meant that the non-str based characters were at least at -5 to hit just from using a different stat than their primary.

Our 4e game devolved to sending in two defenders to lock down the main threat while everyone else just blasted ranged attacks. There were round to round individual tactical decisions about what power to use on the party's current target but that was it.

So for us 4e was less tactical because there was only one party level tactic and individual tactics were constrained by the power structure.

In a 4e game I'm running the party will frequently expose the Sorcerer to mobs because of a variety of powers dealing retribution damage and it combos well with the party Paladin, and they recently defeated a massive Wind Monster by using a a barrel of salt. I'd previously established that this kind of wind monster is hurt by salt and can't see through it (or other especially earthy things like mud) and expected them to hide from it, but instead they took advantage of how it was sucking in air at a massive rate to lob into the air, get the barrel more or less inside, then detonated it with a well placed spell from the Sorcerer. YMMV on how encounters will allow for different tactical approaches or circumventing the opposition.

Tanarii

2016-01-21, 05:52 PM

I was certain you were wrong about forte, and then I looked it up. Turns out the music term and the "strong point" term are totally unrelated. Mind blown.:smalleek:

Well, i learned something new in this thread. I'm counting my participation as a win. :smallsmile:

MaxWilson

2016-01-21, 06:42 PM

I was certain you were wrong about forte, and then I looked it up. Turns out the music term and the "strong point" term are totally unrelated. Mind blown.

Not totally. They are cognates via Latin. Which, by the way, has no silent letters.

Only poncy French types pronounce "forte" in one syllable. Manly centurions say the whole word. ;)

Kane0

2016-01-21, 06:46 PM

Wizards do essentially have a list of abilities as well, yes, but the non combat utility of most of them coupled with the fact that that's not all the wizard can do, really makes me love 5e compared to other editions. Most feats in 5e make something better as opposed to allowing you to do it, and feats themselves are even an optional rule. The wizard can still throw bottles of oil to slick the ground, blind someone with crushed glass, or smoke out enemies from a house with a torch. But it seems like such a waste of time when you can look down at your paper and say, "oh I could do that, or use this infinite ability to deal 3d6 every round."

This seems relevant:

Dwight: As your dwarf-skin canoe rounds a bend you suddenly see... [Rolls dice] A terrifying red dragon!
Bender: [Screams]
Indian Boy: What do we do? What do we do?
Bender: Wait, I know. I make use of my rod of fireballs. [Makes explosion noises]
Cubert: [Scoffs] Everyone knows red dragons are immune to fireballs; as well as all other forms of incendiary attack.
Bender: Yes, but I aim not at the dragon but at the river itself to create a shroud of steam through which we can escape!
ALL: Whoa!

Caster got tactical.

mgshamster

2016-01-21, 06:52 PM

This seems relevant:

Dwight: As your dwarf-skin canoe rounds a bend you suddenly see... [Rolls dice] A terrifying red dragon!
Bender: [Screams]
Indian Boy: What do we do? What do we do?
Bender: Wait, I know. I make use of my rod of fireballs. [Makes explosion noises]
Cubert: [Scoffs] Everyone knows red dragons are immune to fireballs; as well as all other forms of incendiary attack.
Bender: Yes, but I aim not at the dragon but at the river itself to create a shroud of steam through which we can escape!
ALL: Whoa!

Caster got tactical.

Bender was a knight fancyman.

Kane0

2016-01-21, 06:55 PM

Bender was a knight fancyman.

Touche. We must all strive to be Fancymen.

Dimers

2016-01-21, 08:37 PM

This seems relevant:

Dwight: As your dwarf-skin canoe rounds a bend you suddenly see... [Rolls dice] A terrifying red dragon!

Uh. I'll have to take your word for it. After I hear "dwarf-skin canoe", my brain doesn't handle advanced concepts like "relevance" -- too busy trying to hide under itself in horror. :smalleek:

Coidzor

2016-01-21, 09:21 PM

Thanks! So far comments have lined up with my own experience.

But I've seen plenty of people coming from both 3.X and 4e say they don't like it because they feel so limited in options and tactics, and it just baffles me.

So I'm hoping to learn why.

Instead of having clear rules and expectations, I instead have to play mother may I with the DM.

And without having decent guidelines for stunting to guide DMs.

I don't like playing mother may I.

As a simulationist, my general expectation would be that players SHOULD be able to predict the outcome of their actions, at least in rough outline. If not I would be taken aback:

Me: "Hey DM, I want to grab both the evil wizard's hands so that he can't cast any somatic components. Can I do that with an opposed Athletics check or something?"

Hypothetical DM: "Try it and find out."

Me: "Wait, you mean I don't even know the rules of the universe I live in unless I actually try it during play? As soon as this combat ends, one way or another, I'm going take a break and run a bunch of experiments with the party wizard so we don't have to figure things out on the fly when our lives are already on the line. For now, I guess I'll just try to grab his hands and hope for the best..."

Indeed, not being honest about whether I can make an attempt or telling me after the fact that I should've tried to roll something instead after I described it to the DM will turn me against a DM on an interpersonal level beyond the game itself.

mgshamster

2016-01-21, 09:47 PM

Kane0

2016-01-21, 09:52 PM

Sums it up 'bout right.

Dimers

2016-01-21, 10:19 PM

In conclusion, we have two definitions of tactics. One is the normal usage of it defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias. The other is undefined, but colloquially used in specific gaming circles as the options one has within a strategy or tactical game (and more specifically the more well defined the rules are, the better one is able to engage in tactical decision making).

Some people like 3.X and 4e for the tactical options using the latter definition. Some people like 5e for the freedom to engage in any strategy or tactical plan using the former version - but this may be heavily dependent on the gaming group or the GM, much more so than 3.X or 4e.

Additionally, while 4e certainly has the ability to engage in non-combat tactics, this is GM dependent and not as encouraged in the rules as 5e. We can express this as the difference between Combat as Sport vs Combat as War. It may also be expressed as: 4e focuses more on combat in general while 5e focuses on three distinct parts of the game: Exploration, Social, and Combat - each of which has different strategic and tactical aspects different from the others.

One is really only more tactical than the other depending on which definition one uses for the word and whether one approaches the game in a more CaS or CaW way. Also, expect table variation.

I'd add that for the second usage of the word "tactics", the variety of meaningful options will also vary considerably by class or subclass, and sometimes by other factors as well, regardless of edition.

Also: OMG you guys we totally got through six pages without edition warring! While sharing significant information and making telling points! This pleases me greatly.

Also also, though I haven't written it elsewhere before this, I really appreciate the insight of the CaS/CaW split. It explains a big chunk of why I've meshed well with some groups/DMs and poorly with others (in addition to why some systems strike me as better designed than others). Since I play games with a CaS-leaning mindset, there is a gap of understanding between me and people who lean toward CaW.

georgie_leech

2016-01-21, 10:32 PM

I'd add that for the second usage of the word "tactics", the variety of meaningful options will also vary considerably by class or subclass, and sometimes by other factors as well, regardless of edition.

Also: OMG you guys we totally got through six pages of without edition warring! While sharing significant information and making telling points! This pleases me greatly.

Also also, though I haven't written it elsewhere before this, I really appreciate the insight of the CaS/CaW split. It explains a big chunk of why I've meshed well with some groups/DMs and poorly with others (in addition to why some systems strike me as better designed than others). Since I play games with a CaS-leaning mindset, there is a gap of understanding between me and people who lean toward CaW.

Shh, you'll jinx it! :smalltongue:

I find a mix of the two to be helpful, myself. In purely CaW environments, I find that that things can get bogged down with varying plans being tossed about and debates on which plan is the best and which to actually use, and with pure CaS it's a bit... odd, for everything to be strangely level appropriate. So in my encounter design I aim for more or less party appropriate, with room to fudge things depending on when the party shows up (i.e at lower levels they might stumble on a wounded chimera rather than a fully grown one and at higher levels they might encounter a mated pair instead) and I purposely include elements that can make encounters harder or easier depending on how they're used, and leave myself open to letting the players "solve" encounters with clever tactics even if I didn't anticipate them. For instance, in a recent encounter the design involved the PC's getting trapped in a room filled with difficult terrain where they would be surrounded by a number of melee opponents that would attempt to lock them down and prevent them from advancing. However, the Wizard rather cleverly teleported them back through the portcullis that had descended to trap them, and the result was rather than being surrounded, the enemies (who were now the trapped ones as they didn't have a means to open the door nor ranged options to fight back properly) had to rush the PC's single-filed. I said, "alright, you've more or less trivialised this encounter, we can roll it out, you can spend a daily, or we can assume they managed to deal enough damage for someone to need to spend a Healing Surge." They opted for the last and we moved on.

mgshamster

2016-01-21, 10:55 PM

I find a mix of the two [CaS and CaW] to be helpful, myself.

I think it's fair to say that most people prefer a blend, it's just a question of which side they favor more. I'd bet that very few people enjoy a pure CaS, pure CaW, or an even mix (50:50).

Kane0

2016-01-21, 11:10 PM

Now i'm finding it hard to figure out which I prefer.
I know I like to plan out a fight before it begins and stack all the odds, but I also don't like the idea of facing opponents where it is necessary every single time in order to not die round 1.

Vogonjeltz

2016-01-22, 12:54 AM

It's a good example of how if you don't know the rules you can lose over and over again until you learn how you *think* they work. And even then you'll find out when you dig in to the actual rules, you've made all sorts of wrong assumptions and are playing poorly because of it. I tend to learn that the hard way in games, including X-com ;)

Much like in real life. Bad tactics, are still tactics. Also as in real life, codified abilities are not, in and of themselves, tactics, it's how those abilities get used that is a tactic.

In games (chess for example), and in the military, tactics are a sequence of events intended to achieve a particular ends. That's all. That there may be several sets of which achieve the same ends is irrelevent to the question of the number of tactics possible, especially insofar as they may be countered by different means.

5e allows for as many tactics as there are ideas.

Stubbazubba

2016-01-22, 01:16 AM

I'm not really convinced there's two different definitions. I think one is just a broad definition and one is an "as-applied" definition. Tactics in general is a categorical definition that relates it to strategic goals. Tactics in the military imports that general relationship but refers to a whole slew of maneuvers, formations, ploys, etc. Tactics in gaming imports the general relationship, but refers to its own list of options, interactions, measures and counter-measures, etc. In both cases, tactics, tactical thinking, etc., function largely the same. The context is just different, so the content is different, as well.

In the end, how tactical your D&D games are probably comes down to your DM more than which edition you play. Different editions may implicitly encourage or discourage various playstyles, but the fact that the grid is still more or less the default assumption (because no matter how much 5e says it encourages TotM, your speed and reach and such are still measured in 5' increments) means that the game is inherently tactical. Beyond that it's on your DM, more or less.

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 11:02 AM

Much like in real life. Bad tactics, are still tactics. Also as in real life, codified abilities are not, in and of themselves, tactics, it's how those abilities get used that is a tactic.That was my point. That's what tactics mean in a simulation of a real world. Be it our real world or the in-game real world.

In games (chess for example), and in the military, tactics are a sequence of events intended to achieve a particular ends. That's all. That there may be several sets of which achieve the same ends is irrelevent to the question of the number of tactics possible, especially insofar as they may be countered by different means.Such a broad use of 'tactics' is meaningless. Tactics vary drastically from real world to one game to another game. So when you're talking about tactics, you're talking about one of two things:
1) How you compensate for vague rules within a given game type in achieving an objective.
2) How you utilize known rules within a given game type in achieving an objective.

In all cases, you're playing within the rules.

So when you ask 'which is more tactical' within a given game type you're really asking one of two questions:
1) Which allows more compensation for vague rules?
2) Which allows more utilization of known rules?

5e allows for as many tactics as there are ideas.Not really. Even in 5e, many combat 'tactics' are worse mechanically than a explicit attack, class feature or spell. Those are technically 'allowed' but there's often no point in using them. For example, if your DM sets the DC to do something in combat as a 25 or 30, you'll probably just attack instead.

What 5e does is reduce the number of known rules, but compensates by providing an overarching framework (including designated arbiter) to resolve vague rules areas, and makes that vague rule resolution generally closer in effectiveness/power to an attack than some earlier editions. That last part is what makes it more tactical than 4e and 3e in the category of 'vague rules', which had THE EXACT SAME overarching framework for improvised maneuvers in and out of combat, aka skills and ability checks. They were just generally less effective compared to explicit capabilities/features in those two editions. Meanwhile, the former (reducing the known rules) makes 5e less tactical in the category of 'known rules'.

Vogonjeltz

2016-01-22, 12:15 PM

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 12:32 PM

No, this is misleading. The definition is unchanging. Examples of tactics doesn't equate to the definition of tactics.No. But definition of tactics changes depending on the context you are using it it. Definition of tactics is a very different thing if you're talking about military tactics, chess, bridge, poker, monopoly, a Wall Street Brokerage, a game simulating a brokerage, a political campaign, Xcom the video game, or XCom the board game.

Either that, or you're using such a broad definition as to be meaningless. Because what constitutes the ability to be tactical in one, is meaningless in another.

mgshamster

2016-01-22, 12:59 PM

No. But definition of tactics changes depending on the context you are using it it. Definition of tactics is a very different thing if you're talking about military tactics, chess, bridge, poker, monopoly, a Wall Street Brokerage, a game simulating a brokerage, a political campaign, Xcom the video game, or XCom the board game.

Either that, or you're using such a broad definition as to be meaningless. Because what constitutes the ability to be tactical in one, is meaningless in another.

I would disagree. Available tactics may change depending on the event (monopoly vs XCOM vs D&D CS military vs corporate vs etc), but that shouldn't change the definition of tactics.

The definition of the word should be able to incorporate all these different scenarios if we're talking about the same thing: the planning and execution of maneuvers to accomplish a goal.

Or as Google puts it: an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end (or: the art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, especially during contact with an enemy).

I know that's a simple def, and it can get much more complex as we delve into the true meaning of the word across platforms and research; but it's simple enough to incorporate everything we're working with here.

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 01:23 PM

I know that's a simple def, and it can get much more complex as we delve into the true meaning of the word across platforms and research; but it's simple enough to incorporate everything we're working with here.It's simple enough to be meaningless when you're asking a question about which iteration of a game is better suited for tactics.

OldTrees1

2016-01-22, 01:49 PM

5th Edition changed the trigger for opportunity attacks. This certainly impacted various tactics. Did this change enable/increase/decrease/disable any tactics?

mgshamster

2016-01-22, 01:53 PM

It's simple enough to be meaningless when you're asking a question about which iteration of a game is better suited for tactics.

I don't understand that, though. To me, it isn't meaningless - it's the exact opposite and full of meaning. It shows that there isn't more tactics in one than the other.

By changing definitions, it causes confusion in me, to the point where the discussion becomes meaningless because we're no longer comparing the same thing or even talking about the same thing.

An example from someone else I was talking to helped illuminate it for me: "Tactics comes before the battle; combat options comes during. You can engage in the same number of tactics in either edition, but 4e has more codified combat options during battle."

Stubbazubba

2016-01-22, 02:17 PM

No, this is misleading. The definition is unchanging. Examples of tactics doesn't equate to the definition of tactics.

That's precisely what I said. The very first thing I said was I don't think there are two different definitions, i.e. the definition isn't different in military vs. gaming, it just looks different because the rules within which you're operating are different.

Tactical considerations in all of these things can be boiled down to large categories of considerations; how to effectively counter what you think your enemy will do, how to maximize asymmetric advantages, etc. But once you want to know what that actually is in a given context, you narrow the total possible tactics you're looking at to just those that are applicable in this situation.

IOW, you cannot talk about tactics in a specific game, much less compare the tactical depth of two different games, simply by stating the general definition. By that definition, all games are equally tactical because there are tactical decisions to make in any game where there are decisions to make (so Candyland is an exception). To compare two games' tactical depth, you have to look at their precise tactical options.

And in D&D, the tactical options available to you are up to the rules and the DM: as a Fighter, if your DM limits you to the tactics that are explicitly allowed in the rules, you have fewer options in 5e than you would in 4e. At the same time, if your DM always allows you to get creative and make up tactics on the fly in addition to what's explicit in the rules/char sheet, then you still have more options in 4e because you could do everything you can in 5e plus all the powers (unless your 5e DM is willing to let you multiply your damage every now and again because "it's my super move!"). But, just because there are more options doesn't mean there are more viable options; a lot of 4e powers and general combat rules have a much less substantial impact on the game, or are less meaningfully different, than just the basic options of a 5e Fighter. And finally, if your 5e DM allows more ad hoc tactics, and the 4e DM does not, then the 5e Fighter probably has more tactical options (and certainly more viable tactical options). That last scenario seems to be anecdotally the case; for whatever reason, DMs in 4e did not feel that they could improvise as much as they do in 5e, and the guidelines for improvisation made it strictly worse than fiat powers. In 5e, neither is the case; DMs seem to feel more free to improvise, and the outputs for improvising tend to be just as powerful as fiat options on the char sheet. I may wish it didn't really on improvisation, but I do certainly appreciate that non-standard actions compete with class powers in terms of tactical utility. Every game ought to be like that.

mgshamster

2016-01-22, 02:50 PM

That's precisely what I said. The very first thing I said was I don't think there are two different definitions, i.e. the definition isn't different in military vs. gaming, it just looks different because the rules within which you're operating are different.

Tactical considerations in all of these things can be boiled down to large categories of considerations; how to effectively counter what you think your enemy will do, how to maximize asymmetric advantages, etc. But once you want to know what that actually is in a given context, you narrow the total possible tactics you're looking at to just those that are applicable in this situation.

IOW, you cannot talk about tactics in a specific game, much less compare the tactical depth of two different games, simply by stating the general definition. By that definition, all games are equally tactical because there are tactical decisions to make in any game where there are decisions to make (so Candyland is an exception). To compare two games' tactical depth, you have to look at their precise tactical options.

Your example of the definition in general vs the use in specific games makes sense, and I believe that's also what Tanarri was trying to say as well; I just wasn't understanding it until you put it in this way. If I put his words in this context, a lot of what he said becomes much more clear to me.

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 05:14 PM

Your example of the definition in general vs the use in specific games makes sense, and I believe that's also what Tanarri was trying to say as well; I just wasn't understanding it until you put it in this way. If I put his words in this context, a lot of what he said becomes much more clear to me.I was. I'm not very good at saying things clearly. :smallwink:

That last scenario seems to be anecdotally the case; for whatever reason, DMs in 4e did not feel that they could improvise as much as they do in 5e, and the guidelines for improvisation made it strictly worse than fiat powers.That's not anecdotal though. The guidelines in 5e vs 4e* bring fiat maneuvers/powers and skill use much closer to non-fiat and non-skill use in power. Because range of DC are much closer to the range of AC/Saves in 5e. That's a mechanical difference.

4e had more defined specific features for non-spellcasters in combat. And defined features, for all classes, were highly optimized for extremely tactical play on a battlemat. But 5e has more viable non-defined features guidelines, as well as far more defined spellcaster features for OoC.

4e also had a defined Out of Combat Encounter system for skill use. Whether or not you consider that system to have added or removed tactical play out of combat seems to be highly debatable. :smallamused:

*I honestly shouldn't comment on 3e because I can't recall anything about target DCs in that system at this point. It's been too long.

georgie_leech

2016-01-22, 05:39 PM

*I honestly shouldn't comment on 3e because I can't recall anything about target DCs in that system at this point. It's been too long.

They tended to fall into either auto-succeed at higher levels or don't even try at lower levels. That's what happens when the math tries to account for a -2-ish to +lots ability modifiers, 0-23 skill ranks, up to +30 items, and miscellaneous spells. Like, for a well built Fighter for instance, the question isn't "can I hit their AC," it's "How much can I Power Attack for and still hit my last Full Attack attack?

mgshamster

2016-01-22, 06:03 PM

They tended to fall into either auto-succeed at higher levels or don't even try at lower levels. That's what happens when the math tries to account for a -2-ish to +lots ability modifiers, 0-23 skill ranks, up to +30 items, and miscellaneous spells. Like, for a well built Fighter for instance, the question isn't "can I hit their AC," it's "How much can I Power Attack for and still hit my last Full Attack attack?

Additionally, for skills (at least for 3.75, aka Pathfinder), if you didn't put max ranks in a skill, it was unlikely you'd be able to succeed on skill checks at higher level appropriate challenges. You were either a god at a skill or it wasn't worth trying at all.

I'm the type of player who likes to be able to do many things, if not necessarily perfectly. I tend to spread my skill points out, but when I do so, by the time I get to level 7-8, I find I can no longer pass the skill challenges. The DC is just too high. If you don't specialize, you fall behind.

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 06:08 PM

Additionally, for skills (at least for 3.75, aka Pathfinder), if you didn't put max ranks in a skill, it was unlikely you'd be able to succeed on skill checks at higher level appropriate challenges. You were either a god at a skill or it wasn't worth trying at all.

I'm the type of player who likes to be able to do many things, if not necessarily perfectly. I tend to spread my skill points out, but when I do so, by the time I get to level 7-8, I find I can no longer pass the skill challenges. The DC is just too high. If you don't specialize, you fall behind.Unless the DC scaled with your level (a la 4e) then all non-specialization costs you is the inability to do exceptional things. You can still do normal things. It's no different than deciding to be a Fighter / Magic-user and only cast 5th level spells when a single-classed character could cast 9th. You can still do those lower powered things ... unless the mechanics of the system makes those lower powered things a non-viable option. Kinda the same as the discussion we were having on a fiat abilities vs specified abilities, in a way.

georgie_leech

2016-01-22, 06:17 PM

Unless the DC scaled with your level (a la 4e) then all non-specialization costs you is the inability to do exceptional things. You can still do normal things. It's no different than deciding to be a Fighter / Magic-user and only cast 5th level spells when a single-classed character could cast 9th. You can still do those lower powered things ... unless the mechanics of the system makes those lower powered things a non-viable option. Kinda the same as the discussion we were having on a fiat abilities vs specified abilities, in a way.

More or less that. The ability to pick a basic lock, say, isn't helpful when everything is ultra super special locks made of adamantine or whatever. The things you need to use skill checks for go up in complexity as you level.

Vogonjeltz

2016-01-22, 08:02 PM

It's simple enough to be meaningless when you're asking a question about which iteration of a game is better suited for tactics.

It isn't at all meaningless, it's specifically referring to the means used. That's like saying the word home or book or human are meaningless because it's simply defined.

That was my point. That's what tactics mean in a simulation of a real world. Be it our real world or the in-game real world.

Such a broad use of 'tactics' is meaningless. Tactics vary drastically from real world to one game to another game. So when you're talking about tactics, you're talking about one of two things:
1) How you compensate for vague rules within a given game type in achieving an objective.
2) How you utilize known rules within a given game type in achieving an objective.

In all cases, you're playing within the rules.

So when you ask 'which is more tactical' within a given game type you're really asking one of two questions:
1) Which allows more compensation for vague rules?
2) Which allows more utilization of known rules?

Not really. Even in 5e, many combat 'tactics' are worse mechanically than a explicit attack, class feature or spell. Those are technically 'allowed' but there's often no point in using them. For example, if your DM sets the DC to do something in combat as a 25 or 30, you'll probably just attack instead.

What 5e does is reduce the number of known rules, but compensates by providing an overarching framework (including designated arbiter) to resolve vague rules areas, and makes that vague rule resolution generally closer in effectiveness/power to an attack than some earlier editions. That last part is what makes it more tactical than 4e and 3e in the category of 'vague rules', which had THE EXACT SAME overarching framework for improvised maneuvers in and out of combat, aka skills and ability checks. They were just generally less effective compared to explicit capabilities/features in those two editions. Meanwhile, the former (reducing the known rules) makes 5e less tactical in the category of 'known rules'.

But the definition of a tactic is not variable. I'd also contest the claim that tactics are necessarily rules bound, as awareness of a systems limitations can lead to metagame tactics, manipulation of referees, obscure rules, etc (as in American football)

No. But definition of tactics changes depending on the context you are using it it. Definition of tactics is a very different thing if you're talking about military tactics, chess, bridge, poker, monopoly, a Wall Street Brokerage, a game simulating a brokerage, a political campaign, Xcom the video game, or XCom the board game.

Either that, or you're using such a broad definition as to be meaningless. Because what constitutes the ability to be tactical in one, is meaningless in another.

The definition remains the same, it's the method being employed to achieve the goal. That could be maneuver, or ambush, or Zerg rush, or attrition, or (etcetera).

Again, definition unaltered. 5e has just as much variation of tactics as the same situation would have in real life, precisely because there are no limits on what methods the players use.

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 08:23 PM

That's like saying the word home or book or human are meaningless because it's simply defined.Two of those things can't be simply defined without becoming meaningless. The third requires quite a lot to separate it from a magazine or a newspaper, unless you intend it to be broad enough to cover those too.

But the definition of a tactic is not variable. I'd also contest the claim that tactics are necessarily rules bound, as awareness of a systems limitations can lead to metagame tactics, manipulation of referees, obscure rules, etc (as in American football)The definition is variable. Just as some people will call a magazine a type of book, and others will claim they are two different things. Or even more, like the definition of home, you just won't find two people that agree on the definition at all if you try to make it simple. Because it's complex and means different things in different contexts.

Also, metagame and other rules manipulation tactics are based on rules being known. So I'm not sure what your point is.

The definition remains the same, it's the method being employed to achieve the goal. That could be maneuver, or ambush, or Zerg rush, or attrition, or (etcetera).

Again, definition unaltered. 5e has just as much variation of tactics as the same situation would have in real life, precisely because there are no limits on what methods the players use."Method being employed to achieve the goal" is a useless definition for tactics without the context of those methods and how they are being employed. Edit: More to the point, it's useless for any sort of comparison between given systems of tactics being used. Because being tactical means different things in different games.

MaxWilson

2016-01-22, 08:29 PM

Again, definition unaltered. 5e has just as much variation of tactics as the same situation would have in real life, precisely because there are no limits on what methods the players use.

It may have that much potential variation, but in practice you're limited by the DM's ability to parse and apply rules to model complex systems using his raw brain, whereas the physical universe has no such limitations. It might be the case that in real life, you really can destroy Daesh/ISIS's over the course of twenty-four months by assassinating key Venezuelan oil producers to cause U.S. shale oil producers to see an exploitable opportunity which causes them to divert funds from other operations to expand their shale oil/fracking operations domestically while pushing an agenda in Congress which allows oil exports, allowing cheap U.S. oil to fill needs which would otherwise have been filled by Russian oil, thus turning Putin against ISIS. Would that really work in real life? I have no idea, and frankly probably not, since it's just a crazy complex plan that I came up with as an example. What I do know is that if you tried proposing something like that to your DM, his eyes will glaze over and instead of working out a system of geopolitics and oil economics within which your actions take place, he will make some kind of a simplistic ruling that fits his idea of what fun is, whether that is "sounds complicated and dangerous--let's game it out, and if your mission succeeds we'll take it from there" or "too complicated--no way can you predict the effects that way. It won't work."

Similarly, if you have deep knowledge of chemistry or ballistics but your DM doesn't, there will be complex plans you could formulate to accomplish certain tasks in real life, which will be either impossible in D&D (because your DM defaults to "no") or too easy (because your DM defaults to "yes" and you sound like you know what you're talking about).

RPGs have potentially infinite resolution, but in practice real life has greater resolution and more potential for tactical variation. In real life it doesn't matter if the DM knows anything about epidemiology, you can still win a battle with dysentery because dysentery is real and constantly at work.

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 09:16 PM

*******************************
In 5e there is no delay action.
*******************************
You cannot coordinate your actions off of your teammates.

You can't forgoe initiative during the round in order to act off of your teammates.

In other systems, you can delay your turn until later in the round. Your initiative position is the same, and the next round you can choose to act on your turn, or again choose to delay.

The only time teammates can choose when they act in 5e, is when two teammates tie on an initiative roll, and then that decision is final.

You can ready an action, but that is limited to movement or a single action. Having a spell readied requires concentration. You lose your reaction for the round, etc.

____________

If you're stacked up on a door, the Tank can't go first. The party can't Delay until the low Dex Tank's turn comes, he goes in, then follow.

You can either try to walk over one another as difficult terrain, ending up right in front of each other again, or can't move forward at all (too much difficult terrain and no open spaces).

The tank eventually moves, and players behind either lost their turn, or are limited to a movement (or action, but it doesn't help if you don't have position). They can't wait for the player in front of them to act.

It usually takes a few turns before people can even get into an array.

You end up getting a lot more bunched up (from crippled movement) and can't coordinate actions.

Vogonjeltz

2016-01-22, 09:23 PM

Two of those things can't be simply defined without becoming meaningless. The third requires quite a lot to separate it from a magazine or a newspaper, unless you intend it to be broad enough to cover those too.

You call the place a person or thing lives "meaningless"? To quote Inigo Montoya, "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

The definition is variable. Just as some people will call a magazine a type of book, and others will claim they are two different things. Or even more, like the definition of home, you just won't find two people that agree on the definition at all if you try to make it simple. Because it's complex and means different things in different contexts.

Except the definition of book doesn't change just because someone uses it wrong. I could say a book is a box of candy canes, that doesn't make it any more true than it was before.

Also, metagame and other rules manipulation tactics are based on rules being known. So I'm not sure what your point is.

No, metagaming is not merely about codified rules, it's inclusive of known norms and practices, which encompasses far more than is encompassed by just rules.

"Method being employed to achieve the goal" is a useless definition for tactics without the context of those methods and how they are being employed. Edit: More to the point, it's useless for any sort of comparison between given systems of tactics being used. Because being tactical means different things in different games.

On the contrary, the definition allows a single word to convey a complex meaning succinctly. That is most useful. One tactic might be replicable within another system, another might not. Although both 3.5 and 5e actually have it codified that players can narrate any action and it's up to the DM to adjudicate/resolve the results, the normative practice in 3.5 was that players only adhered to those abilities delineated. The same such norm does not hold true for 5e.

So although in theory they hold parity in tactical options within the rules, in practice rules aren't the rubric by which tactical options are considered (not that mere consideration was the question at hand, just the options).

It may have that much potential variation, but in practice you're limited by the DM's ability to parse and apply rules to model complex systems using his raw brain, whereas the physical universe has no such limitations. It might be the case that in real life, you really can destroy Daesh/ISIS's over the course of twenty-four months by assassinating key Venezuelan oil producers to cause U.S. shale oil producers to see an exploitable opportunity which causes them to divert funds from other operations to expand their shale oil/fracking operations domestically while pushing an agenda in Congress which allows oil exports, allowing cheap U.S. oil to fill needs which would otherwise have been filled by Russian oil, thus turning Putin against ISIS. Would that really work in real life? I have no idea, and frankly probably not, since it's just a crazy complex plan that I came up with as an example. What I do know is that if you tried proposing something like that to your DM, his eyes will glaze over and instead of working out a system of geopolitics and oil economics within which your actions take place, he will make some kind of a simplistic ruling that fits his idea of what fun is, whether that is "sounds complicated and dangerous--let's game it out, and if your mission succeeds we'll take it from there" or "too complicated--no way can you predict the effects that way. It won't work."

Similarly, if you have deep knowledge of chemistry or ballistics but your DM doesn't, there will be complex plans you could formulate to accomplish certain tasks in real life, which will be either impossible in D&D (because your DM defaults to "no") or too easy (because your DM defaults to "yes" and you sound like you know what you're talking about).

RPGs have potentially infinite resolution, but in practice real life has greater resolution and more potential for tactical variation. In real life it doesn't matter if the DM knows anything about epidemiology, you can still win a battle with dysentery because dysentery is real and constantly at work.

Perhaps the options that succeed might vary based on DM, but the system can't be judged on the subjective basis of an inferior DM anymore than the system could be called bad on the basis of such.

The system has the variation, that there could be a bad faith actor, or an inept one involved is irrelevant.

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 09:33 PM

You call the place a person or thing lives "meaningless"? To quote Inigo Montoya, "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."Is that how you define it? because the places I live aren't my home. That's the thing I own that I never get to see. And the two places I grew up as a kid. So yeah, your definition is meaningless. It doesn't cover all possibilities for home, and it's outright wrong in some cases.

Except the definition of book doesn't change just because someone uses it wrong. I could say a book is a box of candy canes, that doesn't make it any more true than it was before.Are you trying to tell me you think a magazine is a book, or isn't a book? Because either is a possible depending on the definition of book.

No, metagaming is not merely about codified rules, it's inclusive of known norms and practices, which encompasses far more than is encompassed by just rules.That sounds like dodging the point to me. Norms, practices, rules, they're all the same thing for the purposes of certain games. Again, which is my point. Definitions vary based on context.

On the contrary, the definition allows a single word to convey a complex meaning succinctly. That is most useful. One tactic might be replicable within another system, another might not. Although both 3.5 and 5e actually have it codified that players can narrate any action and it's up to the DM to adjudicate/resolve the results, the normative practice in 3.5 was that players only adhered to those abilities delineated. The same such norm does not hold true for 5e.

So although in theory they hold parity in tactical options within the rules, in practice rules aren't the rubric by which tactical options are considered (not that mere consideration was the question at hand, just the options)."The rubric by which tactical options are considered" varies based on context. The parity or lack thereof of tactical options depends on the game you're playing, and how it's rules typically work. Or the portion or reality you're dealing with. (ie military maneuvers vs stock market vs politics etc etc.)

Telok

2016-01-22, 09:42 PM

In a 4e game I'm running... YMMV on how encounters will allow for different tactical approaches or circumventing the opposition.

I'm glad you're having fun, we weren't in the end. The times I recall out sorcerer getting into melee involved him going down and sucking up a couple turns of healing, didn't have any powers like you describe just the normal sorcerer blasting powers. And where did you find a monster with a vulnerability to salt? 4e was pretty hung up on keywords and salt doesn't quite seem to fit with their paradigm

I've played a bit of 5e with a very very new DM, tactics wasn't a big thing there either. Sneaking in the backdoor of a bandit lair at 3 AM sounded like a good idea but the DM was so new that he didn't know that he could deviate from the module so all the bandits were up, armored, and eating lunch. Yeah, he read boxed text and it was lunchtime at 3 AM.

However in my Champions game some of the guys have really picked up on destructable scenery and Hollywood physics. Hitting people with cars filled with C4 is now a favored tactic. Without me the group would never play anything but D&D so I'm trying to get them to interact with environments, NPCs, and use teamwork and planning. It's working, slowly, but it's working. I'm hoping it will rub off into the D&D games.

It helps that characters in the game start off at normal modern human capabilities and skills. I think that they feel more comfortable with competent modern characters and activities that they can succeed at even when they aren't specially trained for it. When I compare those characters to D&D characters (editions 2 through 5) the fantasy characters tend to be compentent in a couple (or none for some fighters in 4 & 5) of non-combat activities and helpless in most everything else.

This may translate into the use of tactics too. In the superhero game they know that ramming something with a car works and they know how it works or should work. Even if they don't know that exact game mechanic used for an action they have a feel for what sort of tactics can work. In the current D&Ds running someone down with a horse drawn carrage pretty much dosen't work with the rules as they are in the books. If it does work well it's usually because the DM ignored something in the books and winged it. Since the D&D characters are so limited in skills and the powers/spells/feats mostly only apply to skirmish combat the players don't seem comfortable using tactics that rely on things that aren't on the character sheet and have a number already attached to them.

So people's perception of tactics and the use or lack thereof may also be influenced by how well the game system enables non-character sheet options to work and how well that's communicated to the players and to the DM.

Vogonjeltz

2016-01-22, 10:02 PM

Is that how you define it? because the places I live aren't my home. That's the thing I own that I never get to see. And the two places I grew up as a kid. So yeah, your definition is meaningless. It doesn't cover all possibilities for home, and it's outright wrong in some cases.

Are you trying to tell me you think a magazine is a book, or isn't a book? Because either is a possible depending on the definition of book.

That sounds like dodging the point to me. Norms, practices, rules, they're all the same thing for the purposes of certain games. Again, which is my point. Definitions vary based on context.

"The rubric by which tactical options are considered" varies based on context. The parity or lack thereof of tactical options depends on the game you're playing, and how it's rules typically work. Or the portion or reality you're dealing with. (ie military maneuvers vs stock market vs politics etc etc.)

As I said, being wrong about the definition really doesn't change it:
the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household

I didn't speak to whether a magazine qualifies as a book or not. Though I would note it needs to be sewn or glued, staples don't count.

A norm is social expectation, not so with a rule. A practice isn't a hard and fast thing, or even necessarily codified (a rule is).

Stubbazubba

2016-01-22, 10:27 PM

Perhaps the options that succeed might vary based on DM, but the system can't be judged on the subjective basis of an inferior DM anymore than the system could be called bad on the basis of such.

The system has the variation, that there could be a bad faith actor, or an inept one involved is irrelevant.

Sure it can. There are plenty of games out there that seek to minimize that variation, even while still being an open-ended RPG. There's no reason that variation can't be a valid metric.

MaxWilson

2016-01-22, 11:44 PM

Perhaps the options that succeed might vary based on DM, but the system can't be judged on the subjective basis of an inferior DM anymore than the system could be called bad on the basis of such.

The system has the variation, that there could be a bad faith actor, or an inept one involved is irrelevant.

I don't think the lack of infinite mental capacity makes a DM "inferior", but I don't really disagree with your position either. I brought up infinite resolution not to challenge your argument, but because I found it interesting. Apologies for the tangent.

georgie_leech

2016-01-23, 12:08 AM

And where did you find a monster with a vulnerability to salt? 4e was pretty hung up on keywords and salt doesn't quite seem to fit with their paradigm

That particular bit was homebrew; it was a monster I designed myself.

Tanarii

2016-01-23, 09:14 AM

As I said, being wrong about the definition really doesn't change it:
the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or householdNice. That's one of many definitions of the word 'home' and it's one that doesn't often apply.

I didn't speak to whether a magazine qualifies as a book or not. Though I would note it needs to be sewn or glued, staples don't count.again just one definition of the word book excludes staples. (Which are a form of binding btw). So again, it's one that does at always apply.

Thanks for making my point for me with such excellent examples.

JackPhoenix

2016-01-23, 12:51 PM

*I honestly shouldn't comment on 3e because I can't recall anything about target DCs in that system at this point. It's been too long.

Problem with DCs in 3.x was that they were all over the place, different for every skills without a general "easy, medium, difficult, impossible" rule. DC 20 included things like crafting any (non-alchemical, non-poison) item, picking very simple lock, being able to pickpocket at all, curing any (non-supernatural, and that's only because you need magic to remove Mummy Rot) disease or jump 20 feet.

Those things are hardly comparably difficult.

LordVonDerp

2016-01-24, 10:41 AM

The DM has already communicated the size of the creature. How is he to know how the player intends to succeed?

The problem with these theory crafted examples, and in fact in game play, is that any two people are making different sets of assumptions about what is happening.

The DM should never make assumptions about what the players know or are trying to do.

It is the DM's responsibility to make sure the players understand the situation and make sure that they understand the player's actions to avoid miscommunication.

LordVonDerp

2016-01-24, 10:49 AM

IMO that's trying to deny a tautology. Precise rules enhance tactical play, because tactical play in games is by definition skilled play within the available rules.

Precise rules usually just end up telling you what you can't do.

LordVonDerp

2016-01-24, 04:53 PM

From my own military background, tactics has a specific definition - that of a plan to accomplish a smaller goal under an overall strategy. The dictionary agrees with that definition.

I've been unable to find a definition of "tactics" we seem to be using here, which seem to be describing character options and game rules, rather than tactics in a military or operational planning sense.

I think a lot of my confusion comes from a group of people using a word without a definition - and it makes it confusing for those who use that same word with an established definition.

Weird, I spent three seconds searching on Google and found such a definition

"1b : the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end"

So if the only available means you have to accomplish a goal is to hit something with a hammer then there is neither art nor skill in employing the available means.

Kane0

2016-01-24, 07:17 PM

I have a subquestion, in the context of an RPG and tabletop games in general what is the difference between a plan, a strategy and a tactic?

georgie_leech

2016-01-24, 08:06 PM

I have a subquestion, in the context of an RPG and tabletop games in general what is the difference between a plan, a strategy and a tactic?

The way I've always seen it is that strategy is your overall method, like 'we'll thwart the BBEG'S plans by gather the relics necessary to seal him away. Plans are more granular and tend to be about deciding on goals, like 'first we need to take out the healer keeping us from killing the large beast guarding the temple, then we can focus on it.' Tactics then are how you go about the former, for instance grappling with the Guardian so that Rogue has an open path to stab the healer.

There's plenty of overlap mind you depending on how specific or granular you want your ideas to be, so it's not a distinction I view as all that important.

Dimers

2016-01-24, 08:34 PM

A strategy is a broad-strokes view of how to accomplish a given goal. For the goal of "Put an end to the peasants' insurrection in the fort", a strategy might be "Set fire to the fortification to force the enemy mob out, then capture the ringleaders and disperse the remainder."

Tactics is the how of the how, on a momentary basis that interacts with the actual world. For that example, you might start fires with fire arrows, catapults hurling burning brush, targeted spells, area spells, a reeeeeally big magnifying glass, commanding summoned firey creatures to charge forward, infiltrating the compound to light things from within, mind-controlling a mob member to do it himself, et cetera. Any of those would be a tactic (some good, some bad, of course). They're not strategy for lack of scope, unless your entire goal is "express my character trait of pyromania".

Tactics come in small packets and are frequently tied to each other. To employ the tactic of fire arrows, you'll need people who can shoot bows, weapons, ammunition, and something to remain on fire during flight -- that's all part of one tactic. The tactic of foot troops shooting oily rags at buildings by longbow, that can be supported by mages or horse-mounted shortbowmen taking potshots at anybody who tries to shoot back or put out the fires, and you might want to think about what happens if the enemy mob decides to rush you instead of being forced out. A plan is any preconceived set of connections between tactics. (At least on the tactical level; there are also strategic plans, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking.)

I would say that plans are intentions while strategies and tactics are actions ... But the word "strategy" is used so often in place of the phrase "strategic plan", my distinction is pretty unhelpful at that level. Remember, I submit to language evolution!

There's no fine line between strategy and tactics. "Knock down redshirt #4 in this spot so that he's both within fireball range of Danny and Mobility range of Esme" is clearly a tactic, and "Retreat to Castle Sceadu" is clearly a strategy, but at some point in between you'll find pegs that don't neatly fit into either hole.

Kane0

2016-01-24, 09:03 PM

So essentially:

Long Term

Strategy

Plan

Plan

Plan

Immediate

Tactic

Tactic

Tactic

Tactic

Tactic

Generally speaking.

Vogonjeltz

2016-01-24, 09:17 PM

Sure it can. There are plenty of games out there that seek to minimize that variation, even while still being an open-ended RPG. There's no reason that variation can't be a valid metric.

There is no game involving an adjudicating party that can not being totally ruined by said party. As I said, don't judge a game based on the theoretical referee.

Nice. That's one of many definitions of the word 'home' and it's one that doesn't often apply.

again just one definition of the word book excludes staples. (Which are a form of binding btw). So again, it's one that does at always apply.

Thanks for making my point for me with such excellent examples.

There are no definitions of home that exclude its purpose.

I didn't say staples weren't a form of binding, I said the definition of a book excludes staples.

I have a subquestion, in the context of an RPG and tabletop games in general what is the difference between a plan, a strategy and a tactic?

Plans presumably encompass intentions, so they could be either tactical, or strategic, or even operational (the mid ground between the two).

Strategic is policy level, tactical covers firefight level actions, operational are the area in between with theater operations. So a war typically has a strategic goal (i.e. Win the war, gain control of a body of land, etc...). That strategic goal is accomplished via operations (destroy this refinery, capture that city, etc...) and tactical is literally how you go about achieving those operational targets (i.e. Sabotage the refineries intake, or an air strike, or frontal assault, etcetera).

Stubbazubba

2016-01-24, 10:41 PM

There is no game involving an adjudicating party that can not being totally ruined by said party. As I said, don't judge a game based on the theoretical referee.

That includes nearly every game, though. Are you telling me that basketball, football, American football, hockey, etc., are actually just Whose Line Is It Anyway, where everything is made up and the points don't matter? Since there are referees who can screw it up, the enjoyment of the game comes from gentleman's agreements to do things a certain way, and not actual rules? That I can't judge whether or not I like the rules of baseball or basketball because the only time I've ever played it, there was a referee defining my experience for me?

If that's your contention, it is neither true nor does it apply to RPGs. The refs in those games have a far, far narrower purview than a GM does in an RPG. The rules in traditional games are clear as to what happens under certain conditions, the only question referees answer is "were the conditions met in this case?" So you can judge the rules as one thing, and the referee's adjudication as another. Refs can, in fact, be wrong. When you have complete, official rules, everyone knows how to play, refs get to adjudicate without much fuss, and the game is far smoother for everybody. That is objectively better than the alternative.

We can and should judge games based on their rules, separate from how a certain GM uses them. If the game has left something unfinished that requires the GM to make up a rule, then the game is on the hook for however the GM fills in the blank (assuming the game does in fact make the GM the "arbiter of the rules" as most do). Now if this only happens in truly corner cases that simply won't come up that often (how does a Wizard's Death Ray affect a time-traveling android?), it's not much of a mark against the game. But if the unfinished rule is something that would foreseeably come up in many, if not most, games, then it potentially is (e.g. how does stealth interact with combat? How does a Wizard's Death Ray affect animated constructs?). At the very least, the game is incomplete to some degree. While all RPGs are, by their nature, incomplete rule-sets, some still cover the subject matter better than others.

EDIT: As a counter-point, consider Chess. Chess' rules are complete, so much so that no adjudication is necessary. We can judge and evaluate Chess' rules entirely on their own merits. At the same time, playing with someone who is really unpleasant or trying to cheat would be unpleasant regardless of the rules. This only shows that the quality of those you play with is a separate influence on your experience from the quality of the rules, and that holds true if the bad actor is the adjudicator or rule-maker.

Kurald Galain

2016-01-25, 08:38 AM

I have a subquestion, in the context of an RPG and tabletop games in general what is the difference between a plan, a strategy and a tactic?

A plan is simply anything your character wants to do and thinks about in advance. Strategy and tactics are about making choices that matter.

Generally, a game (board/computer/RPG) is called "strategic" if the player can make long-term or large-scale decisions between multiple viable alternatives, and these have a substantial impact on gameplay. Common examples of strategy in RPGs are character creation, daily spell selection, and kingdom building. Note that the impact is important; e.g. in most games, choosing between a sword and an axe is not a strategic decision (because they have pretty much the same effect in combat), but deciding whether to specialize in melee or on ranged attacks is. Likewise, choosing between a high or a low intelligence as a wizard is not a strategic decision (because one of the choices is trivially better), but choosing a school to specialize in is.

Conversely, a game is called "tactical" if the player can make numerous short-sterm decisions between multiple viable alternatives, and these have a substantial impact on gameplay. Again, the impact is important. For example, choosing between hitting an enemy's body or his legs is not a tactical decision in D&D (because there is no mechanical difference). Likewise, flavorfully describing your actions to get Advantage is not a tactical decision (because it's trivially better than not doing so). Flanking is a tactical decision if it gives a bonus (as it makes no difference otherwise), and a possible tradeoff such as opportunity attacks (otherwise, flanking would be trivially better than not flanking). If your character does the same thing every round (e.g. "pick closest enemy, shoot arrow, next"), or the same sequence of actions every combat (e.g. "cast shield, cast flame weapon, engage biggest target"), then there's no tactical choices involved.

If the impact of your choices isn't codified in the rules, then it falls on the DM to make tactics matter, and not all DMs are capable of (or interested in) doing so. For instance, if your DM's philosophy is "say YES! (but it makes no real difference)" then this negates tactics (because it doesn't actually matter whether you swing from the chandelier; it may be fun but it's not tactical). For the same reason, heavy railroading negates tactics: the DM has already decided what will happen, so the player's choices don't actually matter. So it's generally (but not universally) true that less rules leads to less tactics, but it's also true that complicated rules that make only a marginal difference lead to less tactics.

It should be obvious that "tactics" is not the same as "fun". Indeed, not all players or DMs like tactics. Looking at the traditional roleplayer types, the Real Man (Timmy) tends to enjoy tactics but not strategy, the Brain (Johnny/Melvin) tends to like both, the Munchkin (Spike) usually likes strategy but not tactics, and the Thespian and the Loonie (both Vorthos) don't particularly care about either.

SpawnOfMorbo

2016-01-25, 11:06 AM

I've missed a lot but..

There are two types of tactics to a game.

Intrinsic tactics, tactics that are giving to you by the game. They are options that the game actually allows you to perform without outside addition.

Gaining cover is an intrinsic tactic, you don't have to make up rules for cover. Of you are completely behind a wall, you have full cover.

Extrinsic tactics, tactics that are added by the player or DM. These are tactics that it is up to the player to input and then the DM would need to approve of such tactic.

Extrinsic tactics are not part of the game. The game doesn't allow it, the player and DM does.

Anytime a DM has to rely on rulings and not rules, you are in the domain of extrinsic tactics.

===
Example

Goblins are behind full cover. You use the ready action to shoot one when they pop up to shoot at you. Ready Action is that intrinsic tactic.

You are behind full cover and the goblins are coming. You set up your hat on a stick and put it barely visible to the goblins. While they sneak up on that you sneak away so that, by the time they get there, you are long gone.

====

5e isn't a very tactical game. It gives you a little bit of intrinsic tactics and relies on the DM and player to add in their own tactics.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but for some players it could be.

4e had a lot of tactics intrinsically built into the game. The players and DM didn't need to rely on rulings over rules so much.

5e isn't as tactical because it isn't what is giving the player's the tactical options. You, the players and DM(s) are.

People seem to mix up what a game gives you and what you give the game. 5e works off taking more from the DM and player than giving them when it comes to tactics.

pwykersotz

2016-01-25, 07:14 PM

That includes nearly every game, though. Are you telling me that basketball, football, American football, hockey, etc., are actually just Whose Line Is It Anyway, where everything is made up and the points don't matter? Since there are referees who can screw it up, the enjoyment of the game comes from gentleman's agreements to do things a certain way, and not actual rules? That I can't judge whether or not I like the rules of baseball or basketball because the only time I've ever played it, there was a referee defining my experience for me?

If that's your contention, it is neither true nor does it apply to RPGs. The refs in those games have a far, far narrower purview than a GM does in an RPG. The rules in traditional games are clear as to what happens under certain conditions, the only question referees answer is "were the conditions met in this case?" So you can judge the rules as one thing, and the referee's adjudication as another. Refs can, in fact, be wrong. When you have complete, official rules, everyone knows how to play, refs get to adjudicate without much fuss, and the game is far smoother for everybody. That is objectively better than the alternative.

We can and should judge games based on their rules, separate from how a certain GM uses them. If the game has left something unfinished that requires the GM to make up a rule, then the game is on the hook for however the GM fills in the blank (assuming the game does in fact make the GM the "arbiter of the rules" as most do). Now if this only happens in truly corner cases that simply won't come up that often (how does a Wizard's Death Ray affect a time-traveling android?), it's not much of a mark against the game. But if the unfinished rule is something that would foreseeably come up in many, if not most, games, then it potentially is (e.g. how does stealth interact with combat? How does a Wizard's Death Ray affect animated constructs?). At the very least, the game is incomplete to some degree. While all RPGs are, by their nature, incomplete rule-sets, some still cover the subject matter better than others.

EDIT: As a counter-point, consider Chess. Chess' rules are complete, so much so that no adjudication is necessary. We can judge and evaluate Chess' rules entirely on their own merits. At the same time, playing with someone who is really unpleasant or trying to cheat would be unpleasant regardless of the rules. This only shows that the quality of those you play with is a separate influence on your experience from the quality of the rules, and that holds true if the bad actor is the adjudicator or rule-maker.

I personally would disagree that having the rules "unfinished" as you say, "flexible" as I say, is a bad thing or that it is a mark against the game. The devs have told us exactly what 5e is, just like they've told us exactly what 3.5 and 4e were. It's not worse because it's different than those others. For my purposes, it is far better. Also, I dislike chess. I don't find it fun or engaging at all.

Just my 2cp, carry on. :smallsmile: