What is tactical combat?

Ok, so we have a new packet and no tactical combat module. That means it's still time to think about it and hopefully give the game designers ideas on how to design this one.

But that got me thinking. What is it that you guys call tactical combat?
Combat where player abilities interact in such a way that the group is greater than the sum of their parts. Combat where teamwork can make the difference between victory and defeat.

Tactical combat does not require a grid and can function just fine in ToTM.

5e is sorely lacking any kind of tactical combat.
Rules like flanking (rules where positioning matters), more opportunity attacks, some kind of penalty for using ranged attacks or casting spells in melee, or firing into melee. These are the kinds of things I'd expect to see in a tactical combat module.
To me, tactical combat involves:

  1. Flanking and other positional issues.

  2. Bonuses and penalties based on terrain, formations, etc.

  3. Morale rules.

  4. Some halfway decent mass-combat rules; especially if they could simplify things by turning units into "swarm"-equivalents. 

Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
tatical combat is how you roleplay the combat and how you work together with your party. you dont need rules on flanking to play a tatical game. there is a diffrence bwteen a tatical wargame and a tatical roleplaying game.
Anything more then rolling dice and doing damage. 
Well i will just start it as these kind discussions always lead to what is strategy and what is tactics.
 
Strategy: any battle plans and posisioning done before the combat starts.
this does include things like that spels you decided to learn, and setting up ambushes.
and planing ahead what areas of spels might be placed where.

Tactics: ways that alouw you to take advantage of situations that arise on the battlefield after the combat has started.
 
Well i will just start it as these kind discussions always lead to what is strategy and what is tactics.
 
Strategy: any battle plans and posisioning done before the combat starts.
this does include things like that spels you decided to learn, and setting up ambushes.
and planing ahead what areas of spels might be placed where.

Tactics: ways that alouw you to take advantage of situations that arise on the battlefield after the combat has started.

Tactics comes from the Greek word taktika, meaning to arrange or place.  Tactics were originally about what happens right before combat.  It was about taking gaining intel and using one's knowledge of the enemy and terrain to come up with a plan for combat prior to combat.  This can include avoiding combat entirely.  In modern military usage, it does indeed refer to maneuvering troops in combat, but that is not where the word or concept originate.

Strategy comes from the Greek word strategia, and roughly translates into "generalship".  It is the planning stage above tactics.

Neither need a grid or positioning rules to be implemented in an RPG.
Let's check first the difference(s) between strategy and tactics.

Within the context of a TRPG, specifically that which D&D 4E did quite well at...


  • Strategy : management of resources (PCs, spells/powers, items) in an effort to reach an objective


    • Vancian magic, healing surges, X/day powers all required strategy both to maximize in use and help achieve the objectives of any quest


  •  Tactics : management of PCs (both their resources and actions) in an effort to complete an encounter


    • Pre-4E this was exemplified by the informal roles that each class -- especially the core four -- had, specifically the positioning of PCs and the basic tactics that included the following:


      • Non-Casters: Keep casters from getting harmed

      • Non-Casters: Keep healbot from going down

      • Casters: pull off the right spell for the task


    • 4E had tactics at the core of its design through the formalization of roles and the expansion of tactics.


      • The exclusivity of functions between casters and non-casters tactics-wise was blurred; instead, the roles helped outline the basic functionality of each class in an effort to maximize group synergy

      • The tactics of 4E (as opposed to that of pre-4E) involved stuff that went well beyond just flanking rules and bottlenecking


        • Specifically, the application of powers and conditions that synergized well with each other (which used to be casters only, sometimes pulled off by just one caster within the party)


          • It's difficult to pin-point specific tactics due to the exception-based nature of the system, but I think the Killswitch build exemplifies how powerful this tactical approach to combat could be

          • Speaking of Killswitch, it's certainly not difficult to imagine that the Warlord (as a 4E class, not as this super-weak pom-pom Fighter build that we got in the playtest) exemplifies what tactics is all about, as the class is basically seething with tactics.  Could've been done better I suppose, but at least the concept was solid enough.





Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging

Interesting.

A fighter grabs a goblin and holds him so that the rogue can slit the goblin's throat. Because the other goblins aren't stupid; one of them positions himself so that the rogue can't reach the goblin's throat without a nasty opportunity attack while another goblin takes advantage of the fighter being in a grapple to get some kind of advantage.

A fighter charges into a group of bugbears to cover the party members in the back. The wizard takes advantage of the favorable situation to cast a devasting 2-round long spell that will most likely kill the bugbears. One of the bugbears uses a bull rush to get the fighter out of the way and the others grab their bows and shoot the wizard in hope of interrupting his spell.

Are these examples of tactical combat?

Can it be that simple to be enjoyable from a 4th edition fan's perspective? It includes teamwork, positionning and plans that can fail miserably when your opponents aren't stupid.

In 4th edition, were there any winning tactics? I'm thinking about some kind of pattern in the way players interact with one another. I could imagine for example that an automatic winning tactic would be to wait for your leader to give you a bonus to hit before you use one of your dailies.

tatical combat is how you roleplay the combat and how you work together with your party. you dont need rules on flanking to play a tatical game. there is a diffrence bwteen a tatical wargame and a tatical roleplaying game.

No matter how you define it, if DDN doesn't have a fleshed out tactical wargaming part I won't be playing it

To me, tactical combat has to do with movement and positioning in combat.  It includes any decision a player makes to engage, disengage, or effect the battlefield.  Even now, in our games, we can play tactically using the "disengage" option to get out of combat, or using other standard options (dodge, grapple, hustle, knock down, Ready an Action), use terrain/cover especially in conjunction with split moves, and use feats/abilities.  To me, there are plenty of tactical options in this playtest package.   

Here is a list of feats/abilities that grant more tactical options in combat:  Bull Rush, Charge, Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Combat Superiority, Covert Strike, Disarming Attack, Evasive Movement, First Strike, Hold the Line, Interposing Shield (one of my favorites), Polearm Training, Reposte and Seize the Advantage, Shove Away, Spring Attack (another favorite), Trip Attack, Tumbling Movement, Warding Polearm.

All of the above feats influence the way PCs move in combat, sometimes encouraging tactical play because the feat depends on movement and positioning, or another combat option that could help others or hinder foes in some way.

Class abilities also influence the way PCs move and or attack in combat and become ways to add to tactial combat.

Barbarian abilities including rage, reckless attack and fast movement all influence the way the Barbarian moves and behaves in combat sometimes leading to tactical decisions.

Cleric's use of Channel Divinity can also add to tactical play....Spiritual Vestment, for example is a safety net so that a Cleric can take chances triggering AO to get into better postion...many other Cleric abilities also grant tactical options.

Fighter Options and Expertise is all about tactial combat.   Superior Defense (nimble dodge, parry, warning shout) all give fighters the ability to move around more freely in combat to seek better positions.

Ranger abilities like Weave through the Fray, Small Target, Avoid Reach, all encourage movement to get to a chosen foe, becoming a tactical decision.

Rogue abilities like Tumbling Strike, Backstab and Isolated Strike all encourage tactical movement and decision making.

I think the best thing D&DNext could do is just keep the "DMs best Friend" rule from previous editions so that if a DM wants to grant +2 bonus he can feel free to do so.    Some DMs would use this rule to encourage interesting improvised maneuvers, or acrobatic attacks like diving onto an opponent  from above, or flanking (or attacking from behind).                        







A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Regardless of what "tactics" actually means, when someone says "tactical combat module" on this forum, they mean a set of rules that make the game more like a wargame, not just the general sense of tactics in the game. Half of you are missing the point.
at best it would be a seperate book or suppliment. this is not a wargame it is dnd, if you want a wargame there are alot of them out there im a huge avalon hill fan and also some gnome wars, but i dont want my dnd and wargaming to mix.

Interesting.

A fighter grabs a goblin and holds him so that the rogue can slit the goblin's throat. Because the other goblins aren't stupid; one of them positions himself so that the rogue can't reach the goblin's throat without a nasty opportunity attack while another goblin takes advantage of the fighter being in a grapple to get some kind of advantage.

A fighter charges into a group of bugbears to cover the party members in the back. The wizard takes advantage of the favorable situation to cast a devasting 2-round long spell that will most likely kill the bugbears. One of the bugbears uses a bull rush to get the fighter out of the way and the others grab their bows and shoot the wizard in hope of interrupting his spell.

Are these examples of tactical combat?


Yup.

Can it be that simple to be enjoyable from a 4th edition fan's perspective? It includes teamwork, positionning and plans that can fail miserably when your opponents aren't stupid.

Yes, as long as the rules don't gimp you for providing tactics that aren't explicitly written down; it's harder to work with a DM that requires a single player to make multiple checks -- especially if at least some of which has penalties -- just to take a particular action, which is why powers are very much welcome in 4E.

I think one of the biggest appeals that 13th Age has for me is that while powers aren't as extensive and concise as 4E's -- indeed, some classes don't even have powers -- the overall design of the system combined with the constant encouragement for DM-player communication and the use of the "yes, and...", "yes, but..." and "failing forward" DMing philosophies means that improvisation is much more welcome, and thus encouraging tactical combat without the need for powers to do so.

In 4th edition, were there any winning tactics? I'm thinking about some kind of pattern in the way players interact with one another. I could imagine for example that an automatic winning tactic would be to wait for your leader to give you a bonus to hit before you use one of your dailies.

CharOp boards has some team synergy theorycrafting going on so that's a nice place to take a peek at the more extreme ways of doing so, but as far as I can tell, winning tactics in 4E vary wildly depending on what you're fighting, where you're fighting, and who you're fighting with (assuming it's a fight in the first place).

Of course there's always the "buff everyone to yin yang and nova all enemies to hell" tactic, which was more of a strategy pre-4E but worked in pretty much the same way (especially in 3.x)...

Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
Regardless of what "tactics" actually means, when someone says "tactical combat module" on this forum, they mean a set of rules that make the game more like a wargame, not just the general sense of tactics in the game. Half of you are missing the point.

From the OP:
"What is it that you guys call tactical combat?"
Who is missing the point?  I do not call a set of rules that make D&D more like a wargame tactical combat at all.  In fact, I take umbrage with those rules being called tactical in any way, shape, or form.  I have no problems with the rules themselves, but I find their misrepresentation in an attempt to make them more than they are (just another set of rules) to be both detrimental and an attempt to marginalize other playstyles/rules.
Yes, as long as the rules don't gimp you for providing tactics that aren't explicitly written down; it's harder to work with a DM that requires a single player to make multiple checks -- especially if at least some of which has penalties -- just to take a particular action, which is why powers are very much welcome in 4E.

I think one of the biggest appeals that 13th Age has for me is that while powers aren't as extensive and concise as 4E's -- indeed, some classes don't even have powers -- the overall design of the system combined with the constant encouragement for DM-player communication and the use of the "yes, and...", "yes, but..." and "failing forward" DMing philosophies means that improvisation is much more welcome, and thus encouraging tactical combat without the need for powers to do so.



That's kind of my problem with Next right now. With bull rush feats, and trip feats, and expert feats, it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for improvised actions.

Of course there's always the "buff everyone to yin yang and nova all enemies to hell" tactic, which was more of a strategy pre-4E but worked in pretty much the same way (especially in 3.x)...



That's funny. The kind of combat I described happened mostly when I was playing AD&D with very lose open-ended rules. It did depend on the DM though. I'm a "yes" DM. If it's fun, it's cool, it makes a better story and it's reasonable, you usually get away with it.
Regardless of what "tactics" actually means, when someone says "tactical combat module" on this forum, they mean a set of rules that make the game more like a wargame, not just the general sense of tactics in the game. Half of you are missing the point.

From the OP:
"What is it that you guys call tactical combat?"
Who is missing the point?  I do not call a set of rules that make D&D more like a wargame tactical combat at all.  In fact, I take umbrage with those rules being called tactical in any way, shape, or form.  I have no problems with the rules themselves, but I find their misrepresentation in an attempt to make them more than they are (just another set of rules) to be both detrimental and an attempt to marginalize other playstyles/rules.



How would a self-contained, optional module compromise anyone else's playstyle? And how does misusing the word "tactics" marginalize anyone? It's semantics.
Tactical combat has a few parts to me:

1. You have multiple interesting actions you can take on any given round
2. You do something different most every turn, in response to things developing
3. What you do on your turn changes the battlefield, what others do on their turn, and what you do on your next turn
4. Combat can ebb and flow where one side can be winning one round, losing two rounds later, and then come from behind to in in the end 
...whatever
Regardless of what "tactics" actually means, when someone says "tactical combat module" on this forum, they mean a set of rules that make the game more like a wargame, not just the general sense of tactics in the game. Half of you are missing the point.

From the OP:
"What is it that you guys call tactical combat?"
Who is missing the point?  I do not call a set of rules that make D&D more like a wargame tactical combat at all.  In fact, I take umbrage with those rules being called tactical in any way, shape, or form.  I have no problems with the rules themselves, but I find their misrepresentation in an attempt to make them more than they are (just another set of rules) to be both detrimental and an attempt to marginalize other playstyles/rules.



How would a self-contained, optional module compromise anyone else's playstyle? And how does misusing the word "tactics" marginalize anyone? It's semantics.

I never mentioned compromising anyone's playstyle.  I mentioned marginalizing.  Calling something tactical implies that the other options are not tactical, when in this instance they can actually be more tactical.  Neurolinguistic Programming shows that words are not just semantics.

I also said I had no problems with the rules themselves.  I want them to be in a module.  I even want that module and other modules to be "core", since I believe core needs to have modules in it if it is to be modular.
 

That's kind of my problem with Next right now. With bull rush feats, and trip feats, and expert feats, it doesn't leave a whole lot of room for improvised actions.




You can still perform all of the listed maneuvers, to the best of my knowledge, you just can't use them in conjunction with an attack.

at best it would be a seperate book or suppliment. this is not a wargame it is dnd, if you want a wargame there are alot of them out there im a huge avalon hill fan and also some gnome wars, but i dont want my dnd and wargaming to mix.



That sounds completely bizarre to me. I've played 2e, 3e and 4e and i've never experienced a version of the game that wasn't part wargame. Its like saying you don't want peanut butter in your reese's peanutbutter cup.
I don't know if this is like a dictionary definition or anything - it's probably not even close, but when I think of what I'd want out of what I think of "tactical combat" in a TTRPG, I tend to think -

- Positioning matters to a significant degree
- The terrain/environment/architecture routinely has a significant effect on how combat plays out
- It's generally very rewarding to be aware of what allies are doing and capable of and to plan something out together
- The fundamentals of combat are such that decision making is genuinely interesting
- Related to that, the fundamentals of combat are such that there's not a single dominant battle plan. (Note that the desiderata is that this is due to the fundamentals of combat, not due to 4% of the monster manual being immune to something so just for those guys we need a different plan. That's certainly a good thing to have in the game, it's just not this goal.)
- Enough chaos to occasionally force plans to change or adapt
- Not so much chaos that planning feels pointless
- Enough challenge that making good combat decisions feels important
- Enough complexity that combat decisions are intellectually stimulating, but not so much that they're exhausting
- Combat set up so that incremental advantages eked out with good planning and decision making feel like they're actually tipping the outcomes of battles. (Not between winning and losing every single time, of course, but in terms of significant resources expended.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
It's mechanical choices; to a greater or lesser degree (depending upon system) it can be the non-mechanical choices as well.

Making the combat in an RPG feel tactical means that every turn any player has several mechanical choices to make, paths toward success to pick.

Does the rogue use his more damaging power this round, or does the rogue incapacitate the critter the fighter can't get to that is about to eat the wizard? Does the cleric save his heal for the fighter or use it on the barbarian that is just about down on the ground? Does the barbarian charge the enemy spellcaster or does he help the fighter?

You don't actually need a grid for mechanical choices. That's one of many routes towards a game with "tactical combat".

What can be argued is how much a lack of rules for this sort of thing affects gameplay. More rules for this sort of thing tends to encourage it and provide DMs with a solid backbone for making interesting combat easy to deal with; fewer rules provides players with less structure to know what is and is not possible and is significantly more difficult for a newer DM (or any DM, really) to adjudicate.

But in the end, it all boils down to how many choices (or the lack thereof).

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

at best it would be a seperate book or suppliment. this is not a wargame it is dnd, if you want a wargame there are alot of them out there im a huge avalon hill fan and also some gnome wars, but i dont want my dnd and wargaming to mix.



The firdt edition that added a "tactical" batle mat modual was ADnD 2nd edition in the combat and tactics book.
so to you would it be unacceptable is some options simular to the combat and tactics optionsn would be contained in the modual section of the PHB or DMG ?
at best it would be a seperate book or suppliment. this is not a wargame it is dnd, if you want a wargame there are alot of them out there im a huge avalon hill fan and also some gnome wars, but i dont want my dnd and wargaming to mix.



The firdt edition that added a "tactical" batle mat modual was ADnD 2nd edition in the combat and tactics book.
so to you would it be unacceptable is some options simular to the combat and tactics optionsn would be contained in the modual section of the PHB or DMG ?




those books came out at the end of the 2nd edtion life cycle and at the time not many groups used them as we had a bad taste in out mouths with battlesystem which was a tatical wargame/dnd mix so you are wrong on that front the blood stone modules in 1st edition and battlesystem boxed set and greyhawk wars were the first. and they all  sold poorly and were not well loved.
Just playing the game is tactical, when considering what spell a wizard memorizes, to where a party rests, or whether a rogue has a advantage to backstab. But the most important thing regardless of the level of tactical detail you want, is a standardized action economy, without it, things start to get clunky, non-intuitive, and is begging for arguments.
at best it would be a seperate book or suppliment. this is not a wargame it is dnd, if you want a wargame there are alot of them out there im a huge avalon hill fan and also some gnome wars, but i dont want my dnd and wargaming to mix.



The firdt edition that added a "tactical" batle mat modual was ADnD 2nd edition in the combat and tactics book.
so to you would it be unacceptable is some options simular to the combat and tactics optionsn would be contained in the modual section of the PHB or DMG ?




those books came out at the end of the 2nd edtion life cycle and at the time not many groups used them as we had a bad taste in out mouths with battlesystem which was a tatical wargame/dnd mix so you are wrong on that front the blood stone modules in 1st edition and battlesystem boxed set and greyhawk wars were the first. and they all  sold poorly and were not well loved.



As you say combat and tactics was somthing you could chose to use or ignore.
That is why to me combat and tactics is a good example of what a tactical modual could look like.

You could make a ADnD character and then when the group said we are going to use the combat and tactic combat rules there was nothing you had to change about your character, so al the tactical options where contained in the modual.

But many here seem to want somthing that goes much deeper into the system.
Where character classes would also have class specific options and feats to interact with the tactical system, so you would have to keep in mind if the tactical system will be used or not as you make your character.
This to me seems a unrealistic option at this point. 


 
Okay, what all gets included with the tactical module.

First, there's the grid and grid based movement. And since the tactical module is optional and for people who really like tactics you could get a little finicky and add things like facing and turning consuming speed.
I can see something like the first 90 degrees you turn is free but after that it costs five feet of movement. (I'd refer to degrees in case people also want to go hex based where you can turn 45 degrees. Which would add an advantage to hexs as you can make two small turns for free rather than one big side turn for squares). This also means you can't zig-zag and U-turn at full speed. Semi realistic while also meaning you have to be careful about how you move and where, because movement matters more. 
Likewise, because we're dealing with people opting into a detailed tactical module, you can return to the "each second diagonal counts as 2 squares" rule or just a "each diagonal counts as 1.5 squares"

As for opportunity attacks, I might just say that leaving a threatened square into a non-threatened square provokes unless you disengage. So stepping away from someone provokes but you can dash around them freely (but unless you want to end up with your back to them you have to turn). 


Flanking gets added as well. Since we're adding facing we can have granular flanking. So if you and an ally are on either side of an enemy you both get a bonus (the traditional definition of flanking) but if you're behind but the ally is in front only the person at the rear gets the bonus. 
This prevents congo lines but also adds a movement incentive to get away and turn, choosing which enemy you want on your six or trying to get away. 

Of course, there'd need to be a "reposition" off turn free action to allow you to spin around/ follow an opponent or combat becomes a game of people running around in circles trying to attack from the rear ala Warcraft PvP. Something like "the first time in a turn an adjacent enemy moves around you, you can turn up to 90 degrees" or "once per turn when an enemy enters an adjacent square you can turn up to 90 degrees". I think there should also be a rule letting the character use their Reaction to turn more. 


From there I think we need universal maneuver rules. Options that allow anyone to trip, push, bull rush, disarm, and the like. This expands the tactical toolbox of all characters. Not something you want in the base game as it dramatically increases hand size. Anyone can do the manuevers but there might be a penalty or the opponent might get a free attack. They're less reliable than having the feat: unsurprisingly, someone who spent resources to become a master tripper via a feat is better at it than some amature just jamming his legs between an opponent's. 

But, of course, monsters get these as well.

That should cover most of it. There might be other add-ons as well.
I think it'd be fun to have something akin to weapon speed of casting time. So you have your base Initiative but your weapon can move you up or down a few points as can your spells. So if you're in a bad initiative point you can pull out a faster weapon or opt for a cantrip, but if you're in an advatagous slot you can go for your regular slow weapon or a higher level spell. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Okay, what all gets included with the tactical module.

First, there's the grid and grid based movement. And since the tactical module is optional and for people who really like tactics you could get a little finicky and add things like facing and turning consuming speed.
I can see something like the first 90 degrees you turn is free but after that it costs five feet of movement. (I'd refer to degrees in case people also want to go hex based where you can turn 45 degrees. Which would add an advantage to hexs as you can make two small turns for free rather than one big side turn for squares). This also means you can't zig-zag and U-turn at full speed. Semi realistic while also meaning you have to be careful about how you move and where, because movement matters more. 
Likewise, because we're dealing with people opting into a detailed tactical module, you can return to the "each second diagonal counts as 2 squares" rule or just a "each diagonal counts as 1.5 squares"

As for opportunity attacks, I might just say that leaving a threatened square into a non-threatened square provokes unless you disengage. So stepping away from someone provokes but you can dash around them freely (but unless you want to end up with your back to them you have to turn). 



Facing can be intresting but i would do difrent implementation from what you sugest.
I would steal a lot of it from the facing rules from ADnD 2nd  combat and tactics.

you can change your facing as often as you want on your turn.
a medium creature has 3 front facing squares 2 sides and 3 back
you can only atack targets in front of you, you treaten your 3 front facing squares.
Attacking a enemy from the side gives a +1 bonus to hit attacking from the back a +2 (this would replace flanking rules)
If you change your facing in a way that turns your back to a creature that is treatning you that creature gets a attack of opertunity.



 
30 feet of movement every 6 seconds is very, very slow (appropriately cautious for a battle). I'm not sure turning should decrease your speed, you're already barely walking.
Okay, what all gets included with the tactical module.

First, there's the grid and grid based movement. And since the tactical module is optional and for people who really like tactics you could get a little finicky and add things like facing and turning consuming speed.
I can see something like the first 90 degrees you turn is free but after that it costs five feet of movement. (I'd refer to degrees in case people also want to go hex based where you can turn 45 degrees. Which would add an advantage to hexs as you can make two small turns for free rather than one big side turn for squares). This also means you can't zig-zag and U-turn at full speed. Semi realistic while also meaning you have to be careful about how you move and where, because movement matters more. 
Likewise, because we're dealing with people opting into a detailed tactical module, you can return to the "each second diagonal counts as 2 squares" rule or just a "each diagonal counts as 1.5 squares"

As for opportunity attacks, I might just say that leaving a threatened square into a non-threatened square provokes unless you disengage. So stepping away from someone provokes but you can dash around them freely (but unless you want to end up with your back to them you have to turn). 



Facing can be intresting but i would do difrent implementation from what you sugest.
I would steal a lot of it from the facing rules from ADnD 2nd  combat and tactics.

you can change your facing as often as you want on your turn.
a medium creature has 3 front facing squares 2 sides and 3 back
you can only atack targets in front of you, you treaten your 3 front facing squares.
Attacking a enemy from the side gives a +1 bonus to hit attacking from the back a +2 (this would replace flanking rules)
If you change your facing in a way that turns your back to a creature that is treatning you that creature gets a attack of opertunity. 


I assume you mean 3 front, 2 sides, and 1 back. 

While that doesn't work for hexes, but I imagine they could just do a diagram of what counts as front/back/side for each. 
You should be able to attack any enemy at your front without penalty, especially as facing diagonally is wierd in a square grid. Better to stick to facing four directions rather than have people facing angles (and moving forward diagonally is the same as moving straight ahead). 

Changing facing as often as you want on your turn has the problem of people doing an 180 without penalty. And it allows you to zip around obstacles and opponents a little too easy. It makes someone sneaking up behind you less of a issue after the first round as you just spin around and attack.
But that's something playtesting would have to wrangle.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Okay, what all gets included with the tactical module.

First, there's the grid and grid based movement. And since the tactical module is optional and for people who really like tactics you could get a little finicky and add things like facing and turning consuming speed.
I can see something like the first 90 degrees you turn is free but after that it costs five feet of movement. (I'd refer to degrees in case people also want to go hex based where you can turn 45 degrees. Which would add an advantage to hexs as you can make two small turns for free rather than one big side turn for squares). This also means you can't zig-zag and U-turn at full speed. Semi realistic while also meaning you have to be careful about how you move and where, because movement matters more. 
Likewise, because we're dealing with people opting into a detailed tactical module, you can return to the "each second diagonal counts as 2 squares" rule or just a "each diagonal counts as 1.5 squares"

As for opportunity attacks, I might just say that leaving a threatened square into a non-threatened square provokes unless you disengage. So stepping away from someone provokes but you can dash around them freely (but unless you want to end up with your back to them you have to turn). 



Facing can be intresting but i would do difrent implementation from what you sugest.
I would steal a lot of it from the facing rules from ADnD 2nd  combat and tactics.

you can change your facing as often as you want on your turn.
a medium creature has 3 front facing squares 2 sides and 3 back
you can only atack targets in front of you, you treaten your 3 front facing squares.
Attacking a enemy from the side gives a +1 bonus to hit attacking from the back a +2 (this would replace flanking rules)
If you change your facing in a way that turns your back to a creature that is treatning you that creature gets a attack of opertunity. 


I assume you mean 3 front, 2 sides, and 1 back. 



you have 8 squares around you.
C character F front S side B back

FFF
SCS
BBB 

and when facing diagonaly
SFF
BCF
BBS 

hex would probebly have 2 front 2 side 2 back. 
tatical combat is how you roleplay the combat and how you work together with your party. you dont need rules on flanking to play a tatical game. there is a diffrence bwteen a tatical wargame and a tatical roleplaying game.

There's no difference.

You need to be able to locate everyone, grid or not grid, and you need some rules to handle special case, like what happens when flanking, or when a creature attacks while flying. Without a minimum of coherence to handle every similar situations, there's no tactical decision possible, as similar choices can lead to different results depending on the memory capacities of the DM. And if the DM has a good memory, then we can consider that there's a rule.

If mass combats are handwaved by the DM, there's no tactical dimension.

If combat with teleporting demons/devils able to summon teleporting allies, some of them able to cast spells like domination turning enemies into allies are just handwaved by the DM with vague positions, leaving all the visualization work to each player head (with all the bugs due to verbal communication), there's also no tactical dimension.

I'm not saying it's bad to handwave sometimes. But it's bad to sell it as being tactical Smile


you have 8 squares around you.
C character F front S side B back

FFF
SCS
BBB 

and when facing diagonaly
SFF
BCF
BBS 

hex would probebly have 2 front 2 side 2 back. 


Sorry... For some reason I thought you meant two Side squares on each side. Weird brain hiccup that.

Although
F F F
S c S
S B S
would work as well without making the rear too much of a blind spot and easy target. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

I'd prefer seeing tactical rules as a series of modules rather than a single large mega-module.  I know people who would love to have flanking and OA rules without a grid.  Lumping all of these options into one entire package seems like pigeonholing groups into one playstyle rather than letting them play their way.
And this is why I'm probably just going to stick to 13th Age even once D&DN comes out.

Plenty of tactics, without bogging down of the rules.

Seems like in every threat I look at, I'm just thinking "13th Age does this better".

Sad/Amusing when a different company* makes a better 5th Ed that WotC.

*knowing full well that the two lead designers for 13th Age were both lead designers on two different editions of D&D...

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

And this is why I'm probably just going to stick to 13th Age even once D&DN comes out.



I don't want to pay for it without reading it first. What are the main features of tactical combat the 13th Age way?
13th Age's combat is somewhat different than D&D's combat in that it's not concerned with exact distances or shapes or ranges. As someone who really likes 13th Age, I'm comfortable saying that the game is not as strictly tactical as 4th edition is; not only is it not gridbound, but playing it on a grid isn't even particularly useful. Playing with a map is of course as useful as it is in any edition of D&D. That is, it's useful for making sure that everyone is roughly on the same page regarding what the encounter space looks like and where everyone is in it.

13th Age is mainly concerned about who is engaged with who at any given point in time, and tactics feel largely centered around managing engagement, rather than strict positioning. Incremental advantages feel relatively important. It also has a relatively high level of chaos, which demands that battle plans change on the fly to a greater degree than 3.5/PF or 4e. (The two editions I have meaningful levels of experience with.) Combat is significantly faster than 3.5 or 4e, although this can vary a lot depending on the party composition. Rogues and Wizards in particular have some options that encourage both the DM and the player to improvise pretty heavily, while some other classes are set up much more as "I bash/blast it!" classes. Additionally, the game has such a narrativist heart that it pushes some of its narrativist elements into combat itself. (Combat is also faster due to the relatively simple rules and some elements that help combats conclude faster once they're mostly a foregone conclusion.)

It's hard to describe completely just in terms of D&D language; like combat in any other edition, it's only possible to really "get" what it feels like with experience. It's certainly not exactly like any edition I've ever played; maybe a (much) lower-power 3.5, with the reduced power allowing incremental advantages gained through planning and cleverness and use of various class abilities to shine more brightly.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
maybe i will do a test run how 5th will work if i aply the ADnD 2nd edition combat rules to it.
As the whole combat and tactics systems stand seperate from the base game like a modual should it should not be to hard to apply it. 


you have 8 squares around you.
C character F front S side B back

FFF
SCS
BBB 

and when facing diagonaly
SFF
BCF
BBS 

hex would probebly have 2 front 2 side 2 back. 


Sorry... For some reason I thought you meant two Side squares on each side. Weird brain hiccup that.

Although
F F F
S c S
S B S
would work as well without making the rear too much of a blind spot and easy target. 



The system could use both actualy.

F F F
S c S

B B B
would be the basic version and

F F F
S c S
S B S
would be the version you would use then withing 30 feet of a friendly warlord/tactician.