Precise Tactical Rules that we want to see?

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
I wanted to start a discussion on what players feel is needed to make D&D tactical for them.  I saw this come up in this discussion on 13th Age vs DNDNext.  I wanted to list out what the players want, and hopefully be able to satisfy the requests with elegant solutions that could perhaps even fit in as core rules if they follow intuitively and have that good quality we would want in a tactical game of "easy to learn[and understand], difficult to master"

Please add what you feel is missing.  This is the list that was suggested and my comments on them

Square Movement & Distances
Area Templates
Flanking
Cover

Squares Movement and Distances:
 what precisely do we want rules for?  As written we have rules for how many squares you can move, and how far any attack can reach.
 Area Templates: I am assuming this means line, cone, sphere, cylinder, etc? What more do we want for this?  I believe this was explained in the How to Playp24
Flanking: A simple enough fix to add (either just as we would expect from 3.x/4) or allow a player to attack at disadvantage to begin flanking an enemy (regardless of the outcome of their attack) until the end of their next turn.
Cover: Also was covered in How to Play p11.  What else were we looking for here?
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Thanks for the thread.

On top of my mind:

- Distances: it would be very handy for all distances to be espressed both in metrics AND squares, to make grid use easier

- Movement: we need Opportunity Attacks of some kind, or constraint when engaged (defining an engaged/in melee state would be required too). 

- Disengaging: rules for moving our of melee reach without incurring in OA (move action to 'shift' 1 square, skill check....)

- Threatening areas/intercept: we need a way to establish when and how a character becomes subject to OA 

- Difficult terrain/obstacles: rules for how they affect movement 

- Area templates: may be fine as they are 

- Flanking: can be handled like in 4E, or just consider that you get flancking as soon an ally is engaged to the enemy, providing you are not engaged yourself with someone else.

- Cover: we would need rules to assess cover and cocealment on the grid (line of signt/line of effect) 

- Friendly fire: rules to assess if and how that may happen

- Forced movement: types and rules for how it affects characters/enemies subject to it 

 
Rules that explain if we count diagonal movement as 2 squares every other square, or just one square.

Balanced rules that explain how to balance vancian casters with at-will fighters (one of the main contentions the 4E crowd has). This could be done in the tactical module as most 4E players will include it.

Rules on flight.

Rules on how to interpret the TotM combat powers into Tactical Combat (TC).

Rules on how to interpret area effects (whether it be cardboard cutouts that you overlay on the board, or like 3.xE did with visual representations). So we don't have to pull out our geometry books to figure things out.

Rules on half square effects. Burning hands affects 5 squares and two half squares when not used at an angle.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Cobbling from the above posts: These of course are just my suggestions

Distances: I would suggest "paces" as its archaic and fitting for dnd, is approximately 5ft (the roman pace) and thus is 1 square
Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"

Movement/Disengaging: A character who chooses to disengage will avoid the threat of an OA but be at disadvantage for any rolls this turn.
Threatening areas/intercept: A character is subject to an OA when they move while in reach of an enemy capable of OAs.  Since OA is a reaction it's only once per turn per creature (and only if they have the feat)
Difficult terrain/obstacles: difficult terrain is in How to Play p 6.  Obstacles I think we'll need more detail on.
Flanking: "can be handled like in 4E, or just consider that you get flancking as soon an ally is engaged to the enemy, providing you are not engaged yourself with someone else" combat is pretty crazy I'd leave out that complexity.
Cover: I'd go with center to center = no cover, center to one corner is partial cover, and if thats not possible its full cover.  You may not pass through a square containing a creature or obstacle for this (allies are still blocking you)
Friendly fire: if you attack through a square with an ally and miss it hits the ally for half damage, this does not work on enemies since a miss is bad luck, not good luck.  It may seem overly simple, but I don't think shooting past through ally's area is very tactical.  You should probably move so this isn't a concern.  The same is true if you're shooting at an enemy with your ally on the other side.
Forced movement: assume forced movement "sliding" is any direction unless it says otherwise, i.e. slide away, slide closer, or slideI am not sure what you mean by how it affects monsters/players beyond repositioning them.
Diagonal movement is one square as per 4e
Balanced rules that explain how to balance vancian casters with at-will fighters (one of the main contentions the 4E crowd has). This could be done in the tactical module as most 4E players will include it. I am assuming they are balanced, as is I believe the design goal.  I can't see how a module would create balance if the classes don't already
Flight- do you mean 3d combat like two super heroes flying around or just how people fly- since I think that is going to be just a fly speed which tells you how far you can fly while flying (like the rats climb speed int he playtest)
Interpret the TotM combat powers into Tactical Combat (TC) I don't follow what you mean by this
Area effects- So we don't have to pull out our geometry books to figure things out. So the 3.5 pictures that show what an area of effect looks like on the map?
Half square effects. Half effects are cannonically ingored to my knowledge since we round down on everything.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
I can add one thing I certainly don't want to see: rules for facing.
Cobbling from the above posts: These of course are just my suggestions

Distances: I would suggest "paces" as its archaic and fitting for dnd, is approximately 5ft (the roman pace) and thus is 1 square


Sounds good and neat.


Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"


I wouldn't require e feat for this, as it may become a feat tax. Ok for the flat damage but I would still require an attack (or a saving throw from the disengaging enemy), so that payers may decide to take their chance.

Movement/Disengaging: A character who chooses to disengage will avoid the threat of an OA but be at disadvantage for any rolls this turn.


You mean when his turn comes? I'm not too keen of tracking stuff across turns if we can help that. 




Flanking: "can be handled like in 4E, or just consider that you get flancking as soon an ally is engaged to the enemy, providing you are not engaged yourself with someone else" combat is pretty crazy I'd leave out that complexity.


Good point. Agree.

Cover: I'd go with center to center = no cover, center to one corner is partial cover, and if thats not possible its full cover.  You may not pass through a square containing a creature or obstacle for this (allies are still blocking you)


Yep, keep it simple.

Friendly fire: if you attack through a square with an ally and miss it hits the ally for half damage, this does not work on enemies since a miss is bad luck, not good luck.  It may seem overly simple, but I don't think shooting past through ally's area is very tactical.  You should probably move so this isn't a concern.  The same is true if you're shooting at an enemy with your ally on the other side.


Feels a bit punishing for ranged attacks. Perhaps friendly fire may happen just on a roll of 1.

Forced movement: assume forced movement "sliding" is any direction unless it says otherwise, i.e. slide away, slide closer, or slideI am not sure what you mean by how it affects monsters/players beyond repositioning them.


Cases like what happens if you push someone beyond a cliff? What happens when forced movement happens across enemies threatening zones? 
I can add one thing I certainly don't want to see: rules for facing.



This actually is a great example of something that should show up as a module.  (I don't want it either) Where as many other things I think should be apart of the core rules and not require a module.

Or there needs to be a good guide for how to proceed when you don't have rules for things - the improv contested rolls i'm using, but it'd be nice to know how much I should shove a guy if I'm not doing damage, or should he take damage from that etc 
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Movement/Disengaging: A character who chooses to disengage will avoid the threat of an OA but be at disadvantage for any rolls this turn.
You mean when his turn comes? I'm not too keen of tracking stuff across turns if we can help that.

this would be during the turn of the character who is disengaging (since they're moving now they must be acting now) and would not affect people who are forced to move
Friendly fire: if you attack through a square with an ally and miss it hits the ally for half damage, this does not work on enemies since a miss is bad luck, not good luck.  It may seem overly simple, but I don't think shooting past through ally's area is very tactical.  You should probably move so this isn't a concern.  The same is true if you're shooting at an enemy with your ally on the other side.
Feels a bit punishing for ranged attacks. Perhaps friendly fire may happen just on a roll of 1.

perhaps if they roll a 5 or less, to me its bad planning to attack through your ally and should increase your risk- its also only half damage so its not like you're critting them
Forced movement: Pushing them off a cliff is encouragable- but same of them to you.  Allow a saving throw to let them grab on like this:

The cliff is there for a reason right? Forced movement can't trigger an OA since the OA is goign to say "as a reaction... when an enemy moves (not slides)" while forced movement will hopefully use the word "slide"
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"
I wouldn't require e feat for this, as it may become a feat tax. Ok for the flat damage but I would still require an attack (or a saving throw from the disengaging enemy), so that payers may decide to take their chance.


The reason I'd make it a feat is because not everyone does them or wants to be bothered with them.  And having reactions as feats seems like a fun way to let anyone take them, but others may take other feats.  If everyone has them then it bogs play with a "may I" concept I have always disliked.  When not everyone has it, but enough do you can be on guard, but never be 100% sure you needed to disengage.  I'm ok with a saving throw roll if damage is flat, I just want to limit the time OAs take to deal with- and players must regardless choose to use it- just like the knight's abiltiy
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
 this would be during the turn of the character who is disengaging (since they're moving now they must be acting now) and would not affect people who are forced to move



I see a problem with this. If you disengage at the end of your turn, so likely after having attacked (imgine the case of a rogue) that bears no ill effect to you. Unless we say that disengaing requires a check (for each engaging enemy).
I see a problem with this. If you disengage at the end of your turn, so likely after having attacked (imgine the case of a rogue) that bears no ill effect to you. Unless we say that disengaing requires a check (for each engaging enemy).



Simple: if you already acted you CANT disengage- so you get hit if you move away. You didn't prepare to get away by disengaging as a part of your action, so you now must stay or risk the hit.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
My thoughts on some of these.

Cobbling from the above posts: These of course are just my suggestions

Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"


I think this should available for everyone, but with a low damage (1 or 2) without a feat. I agree that not rolling helps keep play moving. Those who want to specialize in this can put character resources into upping the damage or adding other effects.


Movement/Disengaging: A character who chooses to disengage will avoid the threat of an OA but be at disadvantage for any rolls this turn.


This is okay, but could probably be improved. Maybe disengaging requires an action or uses extra movement (e.g., "you must spend 15 ft of movement to move 5 ft out of a threatened area or you suffer on OA").
 

Flanking: "can be handled like in 4E, or just consider that you get flancking as soon an ally is engaged to the enemy, providing you are not engaged yourself with someone else" combat is pretty crazy I'd leave out that complexity.


The basic rules for when a creature is flanked from 4e are fine, but I would change the basic effect. I think advantage is too powerful for this. Instead I would say you get a boost to melee damage rolls if you are flanking a creature.


Friendly fire: if you attack through a square with an ally and miss it hits the ally for half damage, this does not work on enemies since a miss is bad luck, not good luck.  It may seem overly simple, but I don't think shooting past through ally's area is very tactical.  You should probably move so this isn't a concern.  The same is true if you're shooting at an enemy with your ally on the other side.


Seems a bit tough on ranged combatants. Your allies already provide cover; to me this penalty represents trying not to hit them. Not sure if there is a better solution.


Balanced rules that explain how to balance vancian casters with at-will fighters (one of the main contentions the 4E crowd has). This could be done in the tactical module as most 4E players will include it. I am assuming they are balanced, as is I believe the design goal.  I can't see how a module would create balance if the classes don't already

I completely agree. Balance comes from class design, not optional modules.


Interpret the TotM combat powers into Tactical Combat (TC) I don't follow what you mean by this


The R&D team has said that they want to design all combat rules and actions do be neutral concerning TotM vs Gridded, so if this is done right, no interpretation is needed.


The reason I'd make it a feat is because not everyone does them or wants to be bothered with them.  And having reactions as feats seems like a fun way to let anyone take them, but others may take other feats.  If everyone has them then it bogs play with a "may I" concept I have always disliked.  When not everyone has it, but enough do you can be on guard, but never be 100% sure you needed to disengage.  I'm ok with a saving throw roll if damage is flat, I just want to limit the time OAs take to deal with- and players must regardless choose to use it- just like the knight's abiltiy



I can see your point, I'm just not fond of the feat solution. However it is true that, say, a wizard won't have much interest in doing an OA, which will likely miss anyway or deal little damage. But he may be given the choice of doing something else with that reaction, like for instance perform a move action to resposition himself on the board.
Weapon Type vs Armor Type Rules  
DR for armor
Damage points for Armor
Item saving throws
Mounted Combat rules that work the same for monster and PCs
Setting a spear/polearm to receive a charge.
Weapon speeds
Casting Times
Spell Interruption
Overbearing rules
Morale
Allowing afflictions like petrification to be reversed during combat.  (ie. Remove affliction or flesh to stone is not a ritual, but an in-combat spell)
Pre-combat spells like Protection from Fire, Remove Fear/ Courage, etc.







I can see your point, I'm just not fond of the feat solution. However it is true that, say, a wizard won't have much interest in doing an OA, which will likely miss anyway or deal little damage. But he may be given the choice of doing something else with that reaction, like for instance perform a move action to resposition himself on the board.



which I would definately says requires a feat.  I don't really see it as feat tax, since again not everyone will want these options, some may rather just do damage on a miss- etc

Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Opportunity Attacks (OAs):I think this should available for everyone, but with a low damage (1 or 2) without a feat. I agree that not rolling helps keep play moving. Those who want to specialize in this can put character resources into upping the damage or adding other effects.

I'd really not like to see this as a general rule- its so time consumign to deal with OAs.  And really OAs should only be ok when the enemy is moving away and they were the ONLY person you were engaged with imo From a fluff standpoint.
Movement/DisengagingThis is okay, but could probably be improved. Maybe disengaging requires an action or uses extra movement (e.g., "you must spend 15 ft of movement to move 5 ft out of a threatened area or you suffer on OA").

I hate extra movement costs, since they are really wonky in ToTM.  Which is why I went with disadvantage on rolls
Flanking: 
The basic rules for when a creature is flanked from 4e are fine, but I would change the basic effect. I think advantage is too powerful for this. Instead I would say you get a boost to melee damage rolls if you are flanking a creature.
I don't really see advantage being too powerful- but perhaps you could gain brutal+1 while flanking? so your minimum damage bumps up- it was the main way a rogue got sneak attack in 4e in my groups so I tend to favor the advantage deal (I'd go with if your attacking an enemy who is threatened by an ally you get flanking)
Friendly fire: 
Seems a bit tough on ranged combatants. Your allies already provide cover; to me this penalty represents trying not to hit them. Not sure if there is a better solution.
Did you see my suggestion that it happens on a die roll below 5? I think thats a fun solution
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Weapon Type vs Armor Type Rules  
DR for armor
Damage points for Armor
Item saving throws
Mounted Combat rules that work the same for monster and PCs
Setting a spear/polearm to receive a charge.
Weapon speeds
Casting Times
Spell Interruption
Overbearing rules
Morale
Allowing afflictions like petrification to be reversed during combat.  (ie. Remove affliction or flesh to stone is not a ritual, but an in-combat spell)
Pre-combat spells like Protection from Fire, Remove Fear/ Courage, etc.


The bold ones I see as great examples of module things. As they add a lot and are defintaly niche stuff.
I'm assuming Item saving throws are for magic items you're trying to destroy?
I don't know what overbearing means in this case
Reversing afflictions and pre-combat spells I think should be core (optional at the player level for spells- what spells you pick) Reversing afflcitions the same way but perhaps having terrain effects for the combats that have them being additional ways you can handle them, which I think should be suggested in the bestiary with the monsters that bestow the afflictions.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Cobbling from the above posts: These of course are just my suggestions

Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"

Movement/Disengaging: A character who chooses to disengage will avoid the threat of an OA but be at disadvantage for any rolls this turn.




If there is a feat for OAs then every fighter type class should have it as a free class mechanic. It would give them a natural advantage over the fighting cleric types. Otherwise it probably becomes a feat tax.

Rules for counter magics.

Casting the opposite of a spell to cancel out another spell: fire vs water

Casting a spell in reverse. 

Casting a spell that has a contradictory effect: reverse gravity vs fly

 


Simple: if you already acted you CANT disengage- so you get hit if you move away. You didn't prepare to get away by disengaging as a part of your action, so you now must stay or risk the hit.



Not sure, it looks like a special case, which oftern leads to problems (and is one more thing to bother remembering).
I'd rather disengage to require a check / roll of some kind. If it fails you don't manage to and cannot move (that means that if you want a sure movement you have to take your chances with OA: the 'safe' route can be slow).

If there is a feat for OAs then every fighter type class should have it as a free class mechanic. It would give them a natural advantage over the fighting cleric types. Otherwise it probably becomes a feat tax.

I don't think any class mechanics should exist as feats- since that makes anyone able to replicate it. Also OAs should be something anyone can get or not get as a feat.  I don't see it as a tax- why does anyone NEED OAs? There already are:
Defender: You can interpose your shield between your allies and their attackers.
Benefit: While you are using a shield, when a creature within 5 feet of you is attacked, as a reaction you can give the attacker disadvantage on the attack.

Hold the line: You can use your shield to stop oncoming enemies in their tracks. 
Benefit: When a creature of your size or smaller enters your reach, as a reaction you can cause the creature to lose the rest of its movement this turn.


Both of which are tank options, if you want to tank. OA could be yet another option, but you don't need OAs to tank.  Take Hold the Line instead and just be sticky or another feat that might read:
Oh no you don't: Enemies have a difficult time getting away from you.
Benefit: When a creature leaves your reach, as a reaction you can cause the creature return into your reach and lose the rest of its movement this turn unless it passes a DEX Saving throw with DC equal to 10+your strength modifier.


or something along those lines.  Having different ways to tank via different feats I think is a really cool way to play.
 
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext


Simple: if you already acted you CANT disengage- so you get hit if you move away. You didn't prepare to get away by disengaging as a part of your action, so you now must stay or risk the hit.



Not sure, it looks like a special case, which oftern leads to problems (and is one more thing to bother remembering).
I'd rather disengage to require a check / roll of some kind. If it fails you don't manage to and cannot move (that means that if you want a sure movement you have to take your chances with OA: the 'safe' route can be slow).



If you just acted it still is your turn, that doesn't seem like much to remember.  I'm hoping to limit the number of extra dice rolling/tallying as it takes time up which slows down the battle. I'd like OAs and other reactions to follow the same model as the existing reactions where it doesn't add extra rolling/tallying- it just happens.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext
Rules for counter magics.

Casting the opposite of a spell to cancel out another spell: fire vs water

Casting a spell in reverse. 

Casting a spell that has a contradictory effect: reverse gravity vs fly

 


This is good- I think it could be core and explained within the "casting spells" section and mentioned in specific spells.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext

If you just acted it still is your turn, that doesn't seem like much to remember.  I'm hoping to limit the number of extra dice rolling/tallying as it takes time up which slows down the battle. I'd like OAs and other reactions to follow the same model as the existing reactions where it doesn't add extra rolling/tallying- it just happens.



Or we can just do with the tactical movement/shift from 3.x/4e: you disegage with a move action but that just allows to move 1 square away. 
Or we can just do with the tactical movement/shift from 3.x/4e: you disegage with a move action but that just allows to move 1 square away. 

Yep burn all your movement (provided you have at least 2) to move 1 square sounds reasonable.
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext


Simple: if you already acted you CANT disengage- so you get hit if you move away. You didn't prepare to get away by disengaging as a part of your action, so you now must stay or risk the hit.



Not sure, it looks like a special case, which oftern leads to problems (and is one more thing to bother remembering).
I'd rather disengage to require a check / roll of some kind. If it fails you don't manage to and cannot move (that means that if you want a sure movement you have to take your chances with OA: the 'safe' route can be slow).




I would say that the disadvantage aspect of the disengagement is really there to simply mark the creature and keep it from attacking someone other than the player it was engaged with. So if the creature attacks and moves second, then the mechanic has done its job.

Cobbling from the above posts: These of course are just my suggestions

Distances: I would suggest "paces" as its archaic and fitting for dnd, is approximately 5ft (the roman pace) and thus is 1 square
Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"

Movement/Disengaging: A character who chooses to disengage will avoid the threat of an OA but be at disadvantage for any rolls this turn.
Threatening areas/intercept: A character is subject to an OA when they move while in reach of an enemy capable of OAs.  Since OA is a reaction it's only once per turn per creature (and only if they have the feat)

snip ...


In 3.5 and 4e OAs where triggered by more than movement, as I'm sure you know.  Casting spells, standing from prone, making ranged attacks ext ... all used to trigger OAs.  IMO if OAs require a feat, then they should be triggered by more than movement.  It adds a little complexity, since you need to keep track of what does/does not trigger OAs but it would make the OA more feat worthy.

On a slightly related note, I think reach weapons would be a good tactical modual add on.  
Cobbling from the above posts: These of course are just my suggestions

Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"




How about an archer themed ranged OA? It could allow a Ranger or trained archer to sacrifice their move action and use their reaction to notch an arrow and fire off a ranged OA against a creature that moves more than half its max distance.

Cobbling from the above posts: These of course are just my suggestions

Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"




How about an archer themed ranged OA? It could allow a Ranger or trained archer to sacrifice their move action and use their reaction to notch an arrow and fire off a ranged OA against a creature that moves more than half its max distance.



This could probably be covered with a readied action as described in How To Play pg. 10.  It would be weaker than you describe though, since it would take the ranger (or any class) to use their action instead of their move.
This is a chance to really simplify the rigid movement rules of previous editions.  Are we going to assume that the tactical module goes back to Standard/Move/Minor discrete action types?  Here's what I've been using:

As a Move action (or Standard action, down-ranked to a Move action), you can either perform Tactical Movement or Fast Movement.

Tactical movement lets you move up to your speed, and you don't provoke opportunity attacks [unless your enemy has reach and you're moving from a more distant space (2 squares away) into a closer space (1 square away) - because that's the whole point of reach weapons in the first place].  You can change direction any number of times, move through your allies, and over difficult terrain (at double cost).  Use this for disengaging.

Fast movement lets you move up to twice your speed, but you provoke from anyone you move past.  You can't change direction (declare your endpoint ahead of time, and each step has to take you closer to that point), you can't move over difficult terrain, and I'm still on the fence about allies.  If you want to go really fast and you have a clear path, you can just take two fast movements.

The metagame is not the game.
I think mini battlemat/tile combat should be a module.  Or rather a Miniatures With Tiles Module since they are used for not just combat.  I don't associate tactics with minis, and if Next does then the TotM game will be rather lacking for me. 

Then these core tactics can be addressed in that MwT module.  Distance, area effects, flanking, cover, and movement especially in 3D need their own exceptions on a battlemat.  Specifically counting squares, square templates, opposing squares, corners of squares and I overlooking a dimension for the most part. 

With that in mind, here's my reply to diversionArchitect's list.

Distances: measured in feet.  Five feet increments is easy and I am not anti Minis w Tiles, but sometimes a spell slot level dependant description can just be in feet with a "reaches" square rule in the mini module.

Opportunity Attacks: I think the creature making them should have to be doing something.  I would prefer a stance, but anything would work.  Finding ways to reduce the number of OAs will help game play more than speeding them up.

Disengaging: I am all for the move, action, more movement rules in Next.  I think Disadvantage for disengaging is a great rule to avoid OA.  Works to reduce OAs, which I like.

Threatening Reach: I think this should be a monster specific exception - even if you want to give it to all the Giants.  Sticky shouldn't be core, imo.

Difficult Terrain: as movement penalties.

Flanking: is a battlemat rule.  Come up with a new name for multiple allies in melee with same creature as a bonus to their attack or simply Advantage and then Flanking is a specific case of this mechanic in the MwT module.

Cover: was better, imo, showing orcs behind some stalagmites.

Friendly Fire: maybe.  Not sure if it adds what it will take away in terms of tactics.

Forced Movemement: better in the abstract.

Flight: is relative.  Everything is relative in TotM.  There is nothing, then there are PCs, then there are NPCs, and then there is world.  So the distance of PCs to each other and the NPCs is the realtion you need to keep in mind.  If there are at least three PCs, then you can sort of triangulate all the NPCs from them. But only when it matters, which it often doesn't. 

Flight on a battlemat... that's why 3D is so poorly handled in 4e because the game is so square driven.  If the Flight rules work well in TotM, then you can use them with flight over the battlemat.

Pardon, but I had just assumed that it was already covered, and a retrospection reveals that it has not been.

I want to see a return to discrete Actions, of the Standard/Move/Minor variety.  None of this uncertainty over how many doors you can open in a turn, or standing up only eating five feet of your movement.
The metagame is not the game.
Weapon Type vs Armor Type Rules  
DR for armor
Damage points for Armor
Item saving throws
Mounted Combat rules that work the same for monster and PCs
Setting a spear/polearm to receive a charge.
Weapon speeds
Casting Times
Spell Interruption
Overbearing rules
Morale
Allowing afflictions like petrification to be reversed during combat.  (ie. Remove affliction or flesh to stone is not a ritual, but an in-combat spell)
Pre-combat spells like Protection from Fire, Remove Fear/ Courage, etc.


The bold ones I see as great examples of module things. As they add a lot and are defintaly niche stuff.
I'm assuming Item saving throws are for magic items you're trying to destroy?
I don't know what overbearing means in this case
Reversing afflictions and pre-combat spells I think should be core (optional at the player level for spells- what spells you pick) Reversing afflcitions the same way but perhaps having terrain effects for the combats that have them being additional ways you can handle them, which I think should be suggested in the bestiary with the monsters that bestow the afflictions.



Yeah I agree with those as options except for the mounted combat rules.   I would hate for pets and such to work as they did in 4e.  The action sharing rule really stunk. 

Overbearing was a combat option in 2e. It allowed multiple attackers to pull down a single target, make only one attack roll with a +1 bonus for each attacker beyond the first.

I think there should be item saving throws for all types of items including magical items (but with a rare chance).    For example, what is the chance that after failing to  catch the potion vial that it breaks on the ground? That would be an item saving throw for glass vs a fall.


If there is a feat for OAs then every fighter type class should have it as a free class mechanic. It would give them a natural advantage over the fighting cleric types. Otherwise it probably becomes a feat tax.

I don't think any class mechanics should exist as feats- since that makes anyone able to replicate it. Also OAs should be something anyone can get or not get as a feat.  I don't see it as a tax- why does anyone NEED OAs? There already are:
Defender: You can interpose your shield between your allies and their attackers.
Benefit: While you are using a shield, when a creature within 5 feet of you is attacked, as a reaction you can give the attacker disadvantage on the attack.


Hold the line: You can use your shield to stop oncoming enemies in their tracks. 
Benefit: When a creature of your size or smaller enters your reach, as a reaction you can cause the creature to lose the rest of its movement this turn.


Both of which are tank options, if you want to tank. OA could be yet another option, but you don't need OAs to tank.  Take Hold the Line instead and just be sticky or another feat that might read:
Oh no you don't: Enemies have a difficult time getting away from you.
Benefit: When a creature leaves your reach, as a reaction you can cause the creature return into your reach and lose the rest of its movement this turn unless it passes a DEX Saving throw with DC equal to 10+your strength modifier.


or something along those lines.  Having different ways to tank via different feats I think is a really cool way to play.
 


I agree that that alternate tanking by feats/themes will lead to cool options, but I also think the OA is something that arises naturally from combat (or has been considered a natural component of combat in previous editions) rather than specific training. I'd say give it to all since it will be primarily main-line combatants who use it.

The other thing I would do is give every class an option to sacrifice their move action and replace it with a class or scheme specific action. For fighters this could simply be a second reaction which would give fighters more flexibility to take an OA and a Gaurdian or Hold the Line type action. Rogues could sacrifice a normal move action to perform an acrobatic scheme action like a short range tumble that doesn't induce an OA or something that opens up a backstab option for an assassin scheme. Wizards could sacrifice a move to sustain a limited number of spells.
Instead of Opportunity Attacks, how about Opportunity Actions, with a variety of actions attached to the characters theme. Melee based classes would still by and large have opportunity attacks, with the most dedicated Defender themes maybe getting an Improved Opportunity Attack at at the certain level.

An Archery theme would grant you advantage against the disengaging enemy during your proceeding turn. This would be representing the enemy turning their back on you, leaving you time to prime a clean shot (If you choose to use your next turn attacking him).

An Illusionist theme would grant an illusory flourish that distracts the opponent disengaging. They'd receive a penalty to attack or perhaps induce "Blind" if they fail a save.

A thief theme would perhaps try some dirty trick, such a tripping or spitting to hinder their opponent.


Not every theme would need an opportunity action, as it's not about giving everybody a reaction, but when it's sensible that a class would take action when someone leaves themself vulnerable, well... The mechanics should represent that.
http://i1003.photobucket.com/albums/af156/Tom_Shambles92/DrSeuss.jpg http://www.last.fm/user/Pogo92 Endorsed by the C.C.A.A. Booty Patrol. "If all the classes can compete on equal footing in a combat situation then it becomes less about "Which is the best" and more about "Which conveys the character I want to play"." - Areleth
I wanted to start a discussion on what players feel is needed to make D&D tactical for them.  I saw this come up in this discussion on 13th Age vs DNDNext.  I wanted to list out what the players want, and hopefully be able to satisfy the requests with elegant solutions that could perhaps even fit in as core rules if they follow intuitively and have that good quality we would want in a tactical game of "easy to learn[and understand], difficult to master"

Please add what you feel is missing.  This is the list that was suggested and my comments on them

Square Movement & Distances
Area Templates
Flanking
Cover

Squares Movement and Distances:
 what precisely do we want rules for?  As written we have rules for how many squares you can move, and how far any attack can reach.
 Area Templates: I am assuming this means line, cone, sphere, cylinder, etc? What more do we want for this?  I believe this was explained in the How to Playp24
Flanking: A simple enough fix to add (either just as we would expect from 3.x/4) or allow a player to attack at disadvantage to begin flanking an enemy (regardless of the outcome of their attack) until the end of their next turn.
Cover: Also was covered in How to Play p11.  What else were we looking for here?

I was perfectly happy with burst, blast, wall, etc. It is quick, doesn't require someone to either try to lay down some template or sit their figuring out if the guy half in the blast is in or out, or count out squares this way and that, etc. Its fine if you want to describe some irregular shape or something, but you better have a GOOD reason for it. 99% of the time if you laid down a circle or a cone and just said "every square this touches is hit" you'd have a burst or a blast anyway. Really, given that even "a 20' sphere" is only a rough approximation I never understood the fetish against just doing the easy thing and using a square "blast 3" into some room isn't going to really vary from that enough to matter.

I honestly prefered measurements in squares vs feet. Constantly translating is distracting and truthfully adds little to the game when whatever measurements would be used in the game world are surely different from whatever we use anyway. I seriously don't see that changing though, oh well.

4e's flanking rule was workable, it can be used in 5e. It was one of the good solid tactical advantage things that made sense. Why change it? This talk of 'facing' seems unhelpful to me. I have never missed facing not being in 4e. If for some reason it is important narratively that someone is looking one way or another then either use a perception check, or just work it out from the story.

I think LoS and LoE could be cleaner as just a 'center to center' thing. For LoS you have to have a clean line from center to center, for LoE you get cover if anything touches the line, otherwise not. If you can see one corner only, then Superior Cover. Bit simpler but gives ALMOST the same results as the 4e system. Lots easier to explain though.

OAs somehow need to exist. There's got to be some way for a character with a weapon to control the space around him at least somewhat. Maybe the 13a version would work basically, a disengage check and then if you fail you can choose to continue and take an attack. Its a bit more rolling, but not much. Some classes can be better at it than others. Due to 5e's action mechanics you can have shifting, but shift+charge from 4e won't work (assuming the 5e rule is basically you move and if your move meets the requirements for being a charge then you just say get advantage on your attack).

Really there's not much else IN the 4e combat system except a few fiddly reaction type things that really aren't needed much.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Cobbling from the above posts: These of course are just my suggestions

Distances: I would suggest "paces" as its archaic and fitting for dnd, is approximately 5ft (the roman pace) and thus is 1 square
Opportunity Attacks (OAs): Require a feat/monster feature for it, and it's a reaction that flat out does damage. (Ideally we don't want to add extra attack/damage rolls since that slows down play)  It can be used when a creature adjacent to you moves without "disengaging"

Movement/Disengaging: A character who chooses to disengage will avoid the threat of an OA but be at disadvantage for any rolls this turn.
Threatening areas/intercept: A character is subject to an OA when they move while in reach of an enemy capable of OAs.  Since OA is a reaction it's only once per turn per creature (and only if they have the feat)
Difficult terrain/obstacles: difficult terrain is in How to Play p 6.  Obstacles I think we'll need more detail on.
Flanking: "can be handled like in 4E, or just consider that you get flancking as soon an ally is engaged to the enemy, providing you are not engaged yourself with someone else" combat is pretty crazy I'd leave out that complexity.
Cover: I'd go with center to center = no cover, center to one corner is partial cover, and if thats not possible its full cover.  You may not pass through a square containing a creature or obstacle for this (allies are still blocking you)
Friendly fire: if you attack through a square with an ally and miss it hits the ally for half damage, this does not work on enemies since a miss is bad luck, not good luck.  It may seem overly simple, but I don't think shooting past through ally's area is very tactical.  You should probably move so this isn't a concern.  The same is true if you're shooting at an enemy with your ally on the other side.
Forced movement: assume forced movement "sliding" is any direction unless it says otherwise, i.e. slide away, slide closer, or slideI am not sure what you mean by how it affects monsters/players beyond repositioning them.
Diagonal movement is one square as per 4e
Balanced rules that explain how to balance vancian casters with at-will fighters (one of the main contentions the 4E crowd has). This could be done in the tactical module as most 4E players will include it. I am assuming they are balanced, as is I believe the design goal.  I can't see how a module would create balance if the classes don't already
Flight- do you mean 3d combat like two super heroes flying around or just how people fly- since I think that is going to be just a fly speed which tells you how far you can fly while flying (like the rats climb speed int he playtest)
Interpret the TotM combat powers into Tactical Combat (TC) I don't follow what you mean by this
Area effects- So we don't have to pull out our geometry books to figure things out. So the 3.5 pictures that show what an area of effect looks like on the map?
Half square effects. Half effects are cannonically ingored to my knowledge since we round down on everything.

I think you're better off to give EVERYONE an OA once per ROUND. If you want someone to be able to do better than that, THEN they take a feat. Even the most basically trained person can threaten a space.

I'm thinking 13th Age style disengage checks instead of shift. You move away, you have to pass a check. Of course with less OAs there are plenty of times when the opponent has to choose who he's going to OA, and by those rules you can abort your move if you fail the check, or take the OA. There will be a LOT less of them than in 4e. you don't need a disadvantage added onto that, but maybe a fighter could have that as a feature.

Friendly fire kinda rots, and what does half damage mean for say 'Ray of Frost'? I'd frankly ignore it, but if you do have it, then you're going to have to create some way to make ranged attacks more effective because friendly fire degrades their value a lot fast if it happens.

I continue to say templates and half squares and such are just not worth the effort. Burst, blast, and wall really did a great job of covering virtually everything you need.

4e flying/3d combat isn't super detailed, but it works. I'd keep it and you can always slap on a flying combat module if you really want to play "Fight in the Skies" (a great set of rules to adapt too, and WotC probably owns them! haha).

Forced movement is a fine mechanic as-is in 4e. I mean it is all about what you use it for and who gets it. What else would you do really? I can't think of any other obvious way to model knocking someone back or dragging them towards you, etc. A lot of times in 4e it is used in a way that I think is basically supposed to model predicting something and reacting to it, etc. Like all the warlord and bard stuff where you move your allies around, the idea is you just helped them move better and they went HERE instead of THERE basically. I guess that bothers some people. I dunno, it is an interesting capability to have, but the whole thing could be relegated only to physical force or mental compulsion, then it is fairly rare, but that's cool.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
 this would be during the turn of the character who is disengaging (since they're moving now they must be acting now) and would not affect people who are forced to move



I see a problem with this. If you disengage at the end of your turn, so likely after having attacked (imgine the case of a rogue) that bears no ill effect to you. Unless we say that disengaing requires a check (for each engaging enemy).

13th Age rules. You have to make a disengagement check ANY time you move away from an enemy. If you succeed, you just move away with no penalty. If you fail you can either give up your move, or suffer an OA (basically you turn and leave). If there are multiple enemies, then I don't recall if they had you roll against each one or all at once. It was a bit more abstract than this.
That is not dead which may eternal lie


Simple: if you already acted you CANT disengage- so you get hit if you move away. You didn't prepare to get away by disengaging as a part of your action, so you now must stay or risk the hit.



Not sure, it looks like a special case, which oftern leads to problems (and is one more thing to bother remembering).
I'd rather disengage to require a check / roll of some kind. If it fails you don't manage to and cannot move (that means that if you want a sure movement you have to take your chances with OA: the 'safe' route can be slow).


Eh, I think it works fine that you can say attack, and then (try) to disengage, or you can (try to) disengage, move away and hit someone else if you are otherwise able. This way you can't exactly 'kite' really, but you can 'skirmish' where maybe you go from one opponent to another, and then maybe back again the next round, but with some possible risk. It gives you ways to say attack one guy but then try to block a different guy momentarily (You could hold off a couple enemies this way for a round if you can do it right and the turn order is in your favor.

I liked the 13a way of "do the check, then decide if you will actually move or not" that lets you always avoid the OA if you're willing to just hang where you are. My feeling is not a LOT of OAs will happen with that system, but if you have a pressing need to be elsewhere you can risk it. Remember, 5e has nothing like an "MBA" exactly, so being hit could be pretty ouchy. This makes fighters pretty sticky, as they can punish well, and maybe they can force disadvantage on the disengage check or something (maybe with some feat or whatever).
That is not dead which may eternal lie

Opportunity Attacks (OAs): 

How about an archer themed ranged OA? It could allow a Ranger or trained archer to sacrifice their move action and use their reaction to notch an arrow and fire off a ranged OA against a creature that moves more than half its max distance.

I think this is an awesome idea- but I'd make the movement either have a value (5 squares) or some other action like moving 3 squares in completely clear LOS or whatnot.

I wouldn't force the extra cost of their movement- its more to keep track of than it should be, and you can always scale damage (I would have all reactions do flat damage to save time- and I wouldn't even roll to attack, it just hits if they choose to use their reaction)
Please collect and update the DND Next Community Wiki Page with your ideas and suggestions!
Take a look at my clarified ability scores And also my Houserules relevent to DNDNext

Opportunity Attacks (OAs): 

How about an archer themed ranged OA? It could allow a Ranger or trained archer to sacrifice their move action and use their reaction to notch an arrow and fire off a ranged OA against a creature that moves more than half its max distance.

I think this is an awesome idea- but I'd make the movement either have a value (5 squares) or some other action like moving 3 squares in completely clear LOS or whatnot.

I wouldn't force the extra cost of their movement- its more to keep track of than it should be, and you can always scale damage (I would have all reactions do flat damage to save time- and I wouldn't even roll to attack, it just hits if they choose to use their reaction)

I think the problem with the flat damage is it is kinda boring, and the DM (or player) will simply sit there KNOWING when it will be trivial and when it won't, so if you're down to X hit points you're stuck. Let it be a regular full-fledged attack. I think it is dramatic, and honestly it is a misnomer that OAs lengthen combat. The quickest way as a 4e DM I know to speed things up is to start provoking. Fights end REAL fast (or else the gambit works and all of a sudden Mr Spellguy over there has an orc in his face and a nice scimitar wound).

I think as long as combat is generally quick and easy and the majority of what goes on is once you get the jump on an opponent tactically they are pretty hosed, then combat will be quick, things like that won't really add much to time. If your fight lasts 15 minutes and everyone gets a move every 2 minutes they're going to be right there working those OAs and it won't be a problem.

This is especially true if there's exactly ONE thing you can do off-turn, an OA. No hard decisions and weird triggers and which thing should I do. That's where it can slow you down, or when it takes an hour to do a fight and someone is zoned out. Nobody should ever feel like zoning out. Actually, even with fights always going a while in my 4e games I have found that the players pay attention well, better than they ever did back in the old AD&D days.
That is not dead which may eternal lie