D&D 5E So whatever happened to the Tactics Variant/Module or Whatever

dave2008 · Jul 21, 2019

Garthanos said:
Not what I was saying I was saying so there is that. You wanted to know why I thought it would be difficult and that was an element I would like to see but also an example of how such an element could touch on wide varieties of other design elements and that is a reason tactical elements tend to not be easy squeezy lemon peasy

Yes, but that was my previous response wasn't it? It is hard to determine how a tactical module would affect other parts of the game if we don't know what we mean by "tactical module." So I guess I will ask in another way:

1) What would you want in a tactical model.

2) What would you have to have to be considered a tactical module (without these things you wouldn't consider it a tactical module)?

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Part of the philosophy of the slow pace of release and reluctance to errata is that they are selling a /starting point/.

I prefer a foundation and some assumptions in the foundation make changing it pretty difficult. For instance 4e assumed heros were most likely gradually approaching something akin to demigod status able to perform stunts which parallel works of magic through skill alone now if you wanted to pretend to being just a farm boy who could accidentally kill beasts the size of buildings through brute strength cough cough cough and get only that while never ever doing impossible stunts because well you are a mundane not an awesome sort of godling schmuck you might have difficulty playing that character.

/snark

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

dave2008 said:
1) What would you want in a tactical module.

It was already mentioned something other than boring bags of hit points monsters consider that your starting point ... then one needs abilities which interact with those on the player side and that depends on what abilities you give those monsters doesn't it devil is in the details and one thing you provide cascades into other things remember how I mentioned "what good is an ability that allows me to regain my feet from prone more easily" if monsters do not knock you prone. One might add selectable utility/skill powers which address things monsters now do they didnt before like reducing forced movement. The development may sometimes move the opposite direction make some abilities characters have actually be more useful. Allow spending HD in heroic effort ie give skill user types a resource they can use to go over the top in a reliable way.

Strikers cannot be the only ball game in town. I recently adjusted the Fireball and Lightning bolt to actually be more controller for 4e... inducing movement and creating zones and inducing some more conditions.

For a module to be tactical it has to have well defined situational choices. I know that is vague but my spark is languishing in near 100 degree heat

Tony Vargas · Jul 21, 2019

Garthanos said:
Strikers cannot be the only ball game in town.

There are no strikers in 5e. There are characters that have little to contribute /in combat/ but damage, and have more to do outside of combat, and there are tougher characters who have little, at all, to contribute besides damage. But there are no strikers.

Anyway, the only ballgame in DnDtown is Fire/ball/.

dave2008 · Jul 21, 2019

Garthanos said:
Strikers cannot be the only ball game in town. I recently adjusted the Fireball and Lightning bolt to actually be more controller for 4e... inducing movement and creating zones and inducing some more conditions.

That is interesting. Fireball was not a control spell in 4e, it just did damage.

Garthanos said:
For a module to be tactical it has to have well defined situational choices. I know that is vague but my spark is languishing in near 100 degree heat

Yep, that is pretty vague and hard to design too. I'm engaged in another project at the moment. But I think this is an interesting challenge I might want to take up. Though I think my goals would be different than yours.

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

dave2008 said:
That is interesting. Fireball was not a control spell in 4e, it just did damage.

Yep, that is pretty vague and hard to design too. I'm engaged in another project at the moment. But I think this is an interesting challenge I might want to take up. Though I think my goals would be different than yours.

Fireball and lightning were iconic wizard magic from Chainmail they had indirect control because they were ubiquitous and as large area of not-ally friendly effects influences enemy behavior to not-clump together and 2 get close to allies of the wizard so the wizard cannot easily smash
you - A wizard always had 1 or the other (which they could do every turn of the
battle). Other consistent abilities included counterspell, immunity to normal missile
fire, seeing in the dark and being invisible until they attacked.

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
There are no strikers in 5e. There are characters that have little to contribute /in combat/ but damage, and have more to do outside of combat, and there are tougher characters who have little, at all, to contribute besides damage. But there are no strikers.

It took an expansion to get what looks like a functional defender... unless I am missing something

dave2008 · Jul 21, 2019

Garthanos said:
Fireball and lightning were iconic wizard magic from Chainmail they had indirect control because they were ubiquitous and as large area of not-ally friendly effects influences enemy behavior to not-clump together and 2 get close to allies of the wizard so the wizard cannot easily smash
you - A wizard always had 1 or the other (which they could do every turn of the
battle). Other consistent abilities included counterspell, immunity to normal missile
fire, seeing in the dark and being invisible until they attacked.

I am not sure why you have said the above as it doesn't seem relevant to my statement. My point was simply that a fireball in 5e works just like a fireball in 4e. The 4e fireball didn't have any added control aspects. That which was there in 4e is there in 5e.

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

dave2008 said:
Yep, that is pretty vague and hard to design too. I'm engaged in another project at the moment. But I think this is an interesting challenge I might want to take up. Though I think my goals would be different than yours.

Sure and ones best designs are likely something you buy into yourself.

I also think battlefield role support is a component of tactical game play. 5e is not very flush with that. So a module that built a series of subclasses to bring that on might be good. Had not even seen the Cavalier till I asked about defenders.

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

dave2008 said:
I am not sure why you have said the above as it doesn't seem relevant to my statement. My point was simply that a fireball in 5e works just like a fireball in 4e. The 4e fireball didn't have any added control aspects. That which was there in 4e is there in 5e.

Not everything is a comparison and 4e will not always be better

- it cannot be ubiquitous like it was in chainmail (nor as absolute) so giving it other subtle control like the control I added which fit flavorwise seems a compensation for the indirect control it used to get.