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

[Garthanos]

Re: OP's question.

Simple, they changed their minds due to complexity of the task, current/projected sales, and the resulting risk/versus reward.

Thumbs up for being very on topic

 

[Garthanos]

@dave2008 creating non-combat tactical role support might be something brand new to D&D even. Though I have heard of the face and similar ideas I do not remember them ever being rich with tactical choices.

 

[dave2008]

Adjectives cannot stand alone they describe the other and I pointed out you could in theory also create a non-combat tactical module which might be very intriguing to be honest.

It is interesting that you still haven't answered the question directly. You seem to assume that because the adjective is not the subject that it cannot be important? I do not. I simple asked which was more important to you: the adjective or the noun. Frankly I can't understand why you don't simply say what is important to you. It only takes 1-5 words and it would be very clear. Instead you feel the need to describe the rules of the English language to me (which don't answer the question)? It just feels oddly obtuse to me.

However, based on your responses I assume the important part to you was the "role(s)" So, correct me if I am wrong, to you a tactical module would have to emphasis/support PC roles. Is that correct? So, if I created a module that didn't support specific roles, but did create tactical options, that wouldn't be something you are interested in as you wouldn't see it as a tactical module?

 

[dave2008]

@dave2008 creating non-combat tactical role support might be something brand new to D&D even. Though I have heard of the face and similar ideas I do not remember them ever being rich with tactical choices.

Yes, there is a 5e 3PP supplement that created something they called "social combat." I downloaded that draft, but I didn't end up backing the kickstarter. I think the idea of non-combat tactical options is very interesting, but I have even less of an idea of how to implement them.

 

[Garthanos]

It is interesting that you still haven't answered the question directly. You seem to assume that because the adjective is not the subject that it cannot be important? I do not. I simple asked which was more important to you: the adjective or the noun. Frankly I can't understand why you don't simply say what is important to you.

You are being obtuse I told you that you could swap out the adjective for its opposite and the sentence and idea still sounds interesting why would you have ever assumed I meant the adjective was ?
"important"? Explain how it even makes sense to look at the words I want to meet a fancy dancer and assume your can remove the word dancer and have it even be meaningful let alone
important? Especially if they say it could even be NOT fancy.

You acknowledged already that the combat part was probably assumed so somebody says battlefield roles and you ask is battlefield the important part (when I said even non-combat roles would be interesting)... for crying out loud yes damn it paying attention to roles and how they are supported by tactical choices is important because tactical choices almost automatically fall into roles based on what they accomplish recognizing there are roles allows your offering to have diversity and breadth.

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, there is a 5e 3PP supplement that created something they called "social combat." I downloaded that draft, but I didn't end up backing the kickstarter. I think the idea of non-combat tactical options is very interesting, but I have even less of an idea of how to implement them.

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

 

[Garthanos]

So, if I created a module that didn't support specific roles, but did create tactical options

Show me how show me.

An ability might support one role when used one way and another role when used another way... does that mean it somehow doesn't support roles?

 

[Garthanos]

The party was according to Arneson originally inspired by the US fireteam of 4 soldiers. With classes approximately reflecting its composition/roles.

The above is pointing out how recognizing roles as specializations of PCs is not a new thing

I think if you make a diverse set of tactical choices they will undoubtedly interact with roles. 5e classes are pretty locked down design elements hurray for supporting classes but it means that the fighter is a meh defender without something like the subclass Cavalier. And arguably he needs a way to grant improved saving throws to actually protect allies from casters.

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.

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.

 

[dave2008]

Show me how show me.

I don't know as I haven't tried or given it much thought. Like I said, I have other projects at the moment, but maybe in a few months.

An ability might support one role when used one way and another role when used another way... does that mean it somehow doesn't support roles?

No.

 

[dave2008]

You are being obtuse I told you that you could swap out the adjective for its opposite and the sentence and idea still sounds interesting why would you have ever assumed I meant the adjective was ?
"important"? Explain how it even makes sense to look at the words I want to meet a fancy dancer and assume your can remove the word dancer and have it even be meaningful let alone
important? Especially if they say it could even be NOT fancy.

You acknowledged already that the combat part was probably assumed so somebody says battlefield roles and you ask is battlefield the important part (when I said even non-combat roles would be interesting)... for crying out loud yes damn it paying attention to roles and how they are supported by tactical choices is important because tactical choices almost automatically fall into roles based on what they accomplish recognizing there are roles allows your offering to have diversity and breadth.

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.