• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

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

dave2008

Explorer
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

Arcadian Knight
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
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
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
 
Last edited:

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
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

Explorer
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.

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

Arcadian Knight
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

Arcadian Knight
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

Explorer
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

Arcadian Knight
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

Arcadian Knight
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.
 

dave2008

Explorer
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.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean as I feel there is plenty of battlefield support. Is the important part there "role" and not battlefield?
 

dave2008

Explorer
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.
OK, it just threw me off. ;) FYI, I do give my dragons some control as there BW leaves an area of effect and often applies some conditions (sorry the fireball just reminded me).
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I guess I'm not sure what you mean as I feel there is plenty of battlefield support. Is the important part there "role" and not battlefield?
Adjective is battlefield indicating type and noun is role ... could call it combat role too.

( though in theory you could actually have a non-combat tactical expansion)
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
That is interesting. Fireball was not a control spell in 4e, it just did damage.
Controller was as much an excuse to grandfather in more of the wizard's favorite toys as a role, but, the rationale appeared to be that large-area damage would limit enemies' tactical options. Thus minion-sweeping also fell to the controller.
 

Garthanos

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

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Controller was as much an excuse to grandfather in more of the wizard's favorite toys as a role, but, the rationale appeared to be that large-area damage would limit enemies' tactical options. Thus minion-sweeping also fell to the controller.
And the early edition had fighters become minion sweepers too as they levelled (if the DM used them zero levels it could in theory make fighters feel pretty badass)
 

dave2008

Explorer
Adjective is battlefield indicating type and noun is role ... could call it combat role too.

( though in theory you could actually have a non-combat tactical expansion)
Ha! I didn't ask which was adjective and which was a noun, I asked which you thought was important.

I still don't know which is important to you from your response.
 

dave2008

Explorer
Controller was as much an excuse to grandfather in more of the wizard's favorite toys as a role, but, the rationale appeared to be that large-area damage would limit enemies' tactical options. Thus minion-sweeping also fell to the controller.
I don't disagree there is some control implied with a fireball, but I was trying to point out that the spell is the same in 4e as it is in 5e.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I still don't know which is important to you from your response.
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.
 

SkidAce

Adventurer
Re: OP's question.

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

Advertisement

Top