• 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

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
@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

Adventurer
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

Adventurer
@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

Arcadian Knight
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.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
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

Arcadian Knight
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

Arcadian Knight
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.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Adventurer
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.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
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

Adventurer
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

Explorer
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

Adventurer

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.

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

Arcadian Knight
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

Adventurer
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

Arcadian Knight
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

Arcadian Knight
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.
 

Li Shenron

Adventurer
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?
 

Advertisement

Top