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

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

dave2008 said:
Didn't mean to upset you. Look, I don't know you and I prefer not to assume intent or mastery of the written word. The internet is not the best way for humans to communicate as we miss the visual and audio clues. That is why I was asking for a specific, simple, clear answer. Sorry to offend, I was not trying to obtuse.

Yeh I couldn't understand how there was a failure to communicate... which is evidence of a failure to communicate too LOL

dave2008 · Jul 21, 2019

Garthanos said:
Ah I was kind of hoping you had some inspiration on that which I lacked to be honest.

Sorry, no. I have no special insight. I personally don't have a need for a tactical module as my players are not tactically minding (even when we played 4e). However, i do find it interesting. I was hoping you had some ideas or at least an idea of what you considered a "tactical module" to be or perhaps a list of trait / abilities / actions that would make such a module.

Xaelvaen · Jul 21, 2019

dave2008 said:
Sorry, no. I have no special insight. I personally don't have a need for a tactical module as my players are not tactically minding (even when we played 4e). However, i do find it interesting. I was hoping you had some ideas or at least an idea of what you considered a "tactical module" to be or perhaps a list of trait / abilities / actions that would make such a module.

Talents -somewhat- help bring some more in depth character development, which leads -somewhat- towards tactical play. It really increased our tactical-mindset with our 5e games... -somewhat-.

This lead us to understanding that 5e could be just a backbone of a system, and sort of went crazy with all the little twists we made when we play at home. It now plays a lot closer to 4e in terms of strategic options, with 5e's speed. That linked resource was the starting point (for us).

dave2008 · Jul 21, 2019

Garthanos said:
Which is why I mentioned that having a set of subclasses which supported roles yes
like the 4e ones or split out an enhancer role separate from the leader role or a couple others which are definitely possible.

I definitely that is an interesting way to do it. Makes it a lot easier in some sense.

Garthanos said:
It was not expressed as a "requirement" in the sense that you were thinking.

You act like it was a trap...

But I am not even sure what you mean by tactical choices if they somehow entirely do not interact with roles.

No I didn't see it as a trap. However, I am more personally interested in a simple 5e approach. A set of optional rules that would provide tactical options. These would sit on top of or along side existing rules. Possibly some alternate rules, but make them have as little impact on existing rules as possible. However, it is pretty clear to me that such a set of rules would not be what your looking for. I don't think it is possible for a simple set of rules to provide the depth you're looking for. That is really a complete re-write basically.

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

dave2008 said:
Sorry, no. I have no special insight. I personally don't have a need for a tactical module as my players are not tactically minding (even when we played 4e). However, i do find it interesting. I was hoping you had some ideas or at least an idea of what you considered a "tactical module" to be or perhaps a list of trait / abilities / actions that would make such a module.

I shoot for not overwhelmingly specific partly because it could differ a lot It's a method for inspiring people without over-riding their own inclinations.

someone just shared a homebrew everyman/simple action that allows someone to "Take a hit" when their adjacent squishier allie is about to be hit they can interpose, hoping maybe their greater defense helps them out. It could be seen as a tiny tactical module.

Pretty sure I gave one recipe for creating a big tactical module and it started off with monsters who create differing challenges based on varying effects then creating abilities which can be used to deal with the new things those monsters now accomplish (and since you are familiar with 4e you know what that can mean)

It is only one sided or reactive recipe so its not super awesome.

dave2008 · Jul 21, 2019

Xaelvaen said:
Talents -somewhat- help bring some more in depth character development, which leads -somewhat- towards tactical play. It really increased our tactical-mindset with our 5e games... -somewhat-.

Interesting and thank you for sharing! They even have talents for monsters too!

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

dave2008 said:
I definitely that is an interesting way to do it. Makes it a lot easier in some sense.

No I didn't see it as a trap. However, I am more personally interested in a simple 5e approach. A set of optional rules that would provide tactical options. These would sit on top of or along side existing rules. Possibly some alternate rules, but make them have as little impact on existing rules as possible. However, it is pretty clear to me that such a set of rules would not be what your looking for.

Not sure that is entirely true myself I was targeting a big tactical module as much as something WOTC could produce as anything. The earlier edition had a Tactical expansion of 192 pages; The set of role oriented subclasses some may already exist minor tweaks on Cavalier. Monsters which create more varied problems than a big bag of hit points and something like a more explicit stunt system which would not exclude simpler things you mention.

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

Xaelvaen said:
Talents -somewhat- help bring some more in depth character development, which leads -somewhat- towards tactical play. It really increased our tactical-mindset with our 5e games... -somewhat-.

This lead us to understanding that 5e could be just a backbone of a system, and sort of went crazy with all the little twists we made when we play at home. It now plays a lot closer to 4e in terms of strategic options, with 5e's speed. That linked resource was the starting point (for us).

Pretty murky behind paying for it, not that I would begrudge doing so if it managed to clear up the problems I currently see with 5e.

Garthanos · Jul 21, 2019

Xaelvaen said:
This lead us to understanding that 5e could be just a backbone of a system,

It almost has to be seen that way when it takes so much time and energy for me I have to decide if it's even worth it.

Li Shenron · Jul 21, 2019

Charlaquin said:
We’ve known the promise of modularity was an empty one since before the end of the playtest. Unfortunate, because 5e has a really, really solid mechanical underpinning that WotC just doesn’t seem to have any interest in experimenting with.

Huh? The "solid mechanical underpinning" IS the modularity.

We did get the modularity, we just didn't get the modules.

And the main reason IMHO is that gamers have not be asking for them. One module has been attempted twice in UA, the mass combat rules, and gamers turned it down twice, while praising more subclasses and feats, what's WotC supposed to do?