Sensible Use for Knowledge Tactics - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Sensible Use for Knowledge Tactics

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Master_Vega
Feb 23, 2010 14:54:48 So I just had (or rather, stole) an idea for giving Knowledge Tactics an non-GM-fate use.

See, my experience with K(Tactics) is me rolling high, then looking at the GM, who stares blankly at the die for a moment before saying, "Uhhh... They're... trying to lure you back, probably to flank you..." or something similar.

Over a year ago, I had my first experience with BattleTech, which uses its tactics skill in place of initiative. Taking a page from that, perhaps we could use Knowledge Tactics to affect your ally's initiative?

Roll Result - Effect
15 - +1 to allies' initiative
20 - +2 to allies initiative
25 - +3 to allies initiatve
etc...

How does this sound?
#2
TheRealOrion
Feb 23, 2010 17:28:18 That seems a bit powerful considering that you normally have to buy a feat to get an Initiatve bonus. The problem K:Tactics is that it's a "knowledge" skill. Those don't provide you with bonuses; they provide you with information that your character ostensibly knows. You might be able to reconise a classic pincer movement, but that doesn't mean you get a bonus to counter-act it. You just know about it now and can act accordingly, the same as if you roll K:Arcana to know the nature of the magical beast you're fighting. You don't get a bonus to attack the beast. Instead, you know that it's vulnerable to cheese.
#3
Master_Vega
Feb 23, 2010 18:21:47 The problem with K.Tactics, at least from what I've observed in every gaming group I've played in, that the GM doesn't always have a knowledge of what classic tactics are. He doesn't want to explain to the PC's exactly what the enemies are going to do, but he has to tell them something. More often than not it comes out as something completely useless that the player already knew or the GM gives too much information and ruins the encounter.

Other knowledges work just fine with the book as a guide, but for K.Tactics to be useful the GM actually has to know something about tactics.
#4
AnimeSniper
Feb 23, 2010 18:43:23 Kinda like a friends game where they sneaked into an enemy held installation, Russian I believe, and one of the PC's with K:Tactics had snagged an enemy NPC's radio and knew the enemy was calling air reinforcements to land troops behind them which lead to them taking control of the two gate guardposts HMG... lightly armored troops against a dual HMG in each posts...

Edit: I personally like the Idea of a small initiative bonus to the party to counter the aforementioned enemy tactic; Pincer, Flanking, etc... Still a GM should have a small grasp of the tactics that his NPC's will deploy
#5
TheRealOrion
Feb 23, 2010 18:54:18 Personally, I'm just as happy to remove the skill from the game, but if we were to change it, I prefer to outline exactly what kind of information it yields. But that's just my opinion, as always.
#6
narukagami
Feb 24, 2010 0:27:04 Here is the way I see it:
You know how sometimes monsters' entries in books have that little section on how they usually fight? Like in the 4e MM? Knowledge: Tactics could let you know that information. You know how DMs (should) set up encounters so each opponent has a purpose and tactic in the battle to maximize the enemy's efficiency to challenge the PCs? Knowledge: Tactics would help players know what these roles are. You know how sometimes the mooks attack the heroes is a last minute suicide battle for the sole purpose of giving the BBEG enough time to escape with the MacGuffin? Knowledge: Tactics could let the PCs know what they're up to (if not the EXACT purpose). Enemy troops holding a city block, and your squad needs to flush them out, no one makes that spot check to see if there are any enemies down this street? Knowledge: Tactics could be used to determine where the best vantage points for an ambush would be, and thus where the enemy most likely is waiting. Players setting up an ambush, and they want more information/hints to maximize their killing efficiency? Make them roll Knowledge: Tactics.

In a way, I usually treat it like a combat version of sense motive.

The difficulty with Knowledge: Tactics is, as Orion said, its a knowledge skill. It shouldn't be providing any kind of mechanical benefits, only information. For the most part the DM doesn't really need to be knowledgeable in tactics, but he at least should be knowledgeable in his encounter's tactics.

The only time I think it should have any mechanical effect is in some kind of mass battle system.
#7
TheRealOrion
Feb 24, 2010 2:00:21 That's lovely. I like that: three specific kinds of knowledge that the skill could reveal. All we'd need now is some specific DC's to go with all of that.
#8
backstabbist
Feb 24, 2010 9:48:15 I unfortunately have a much different,
and contra-player,
use of kTactics when I game:

kTactics is what STOPS players from coming up with and using great strategy
that their CHARACTERs would have no idea to use.

It makes perfect sense for the team to split up when attacking the BBeG Lair,
something as simple as forking the attack to reduce the enemy use of cover in a warehouse,
but that is something the Librarian, the DentalHygenist, the TowTruckDriver, and the ITguy wouldnt know.... that lack of tactical knowledge being expressed in the game metric of kTactics: +0

Sure it sounds harsh,
but in the past we used to call that OOC (out of char) knowledge
and it was clearly not allowed to have a character know things the player knew but the char would have no knowledge of... like having your D&D char invent chemical battery electricity and incandescent lights, or having a Librarian with kTactics+0 use the battleplans of the former Marine/Army players

Sux for sure, but sometimes the GM should be forcing players to have the char make a kTactics roll to see if the CHARACTER knows enough to come up with the tactics the player trained in bootcamp.

Of course, the GM at my table had the nasty habit of forcing the kTactics roll to prevent OOC knowledge that would help the char, but then later force the PLAYER to come up with In Character knowledge the player doesnt know but the character obviously would: When I play a Uboat commander, there is no reason to say the character floods the stolen sub because I as a player didnt tell the GM some standard dive procedure the submariner character would know by heart (as well as no junior officer mentioned at the time that the command to dive outside of procedure was killing us all)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Master_Vega Feb 23, 2010 14:54:48	So I just had (or rather, stole) an idea for giving Knowledge Tactics an non-GM-fate use. See, my experience with K(Tactics) is me rolling high, then looking at the GM, who stares blankly at the die for a moment before saying, "Uhhh... They're... trying to lure you back, probably to flank you..." or something similar. Over a year ago, I had my first experience with BattleTech, which uses its tactics skill in place of initiative. Taking a page from that, perhaps we could use Knowledge Tactics to affect your ally's initiative? Roll Result - Effect 15 - +1 to allies' initiative 20 - +2 to allies initiative 25 - +3 to allies initiatve etc... How does this sound?
#2 TheRealOrion Feb 23, 2010 17:28:18	That seems a bit powerful considering that you normally have to buy a feat to get an Initiatve bonus. The problem K:Tactics is that it's a "knowledge" skill. Those don't provide you with bonuses; they provide you with information that your character ostensibly knows. You might be able to reconise a classic pincer movement, but that doesn't mean you get a bonus to counter-act it. You just know about it now and can act accordingly, the same as if you roll K:Arcana to know the nature of the magical beast you're fighting. You don't get a bonus to attack the beast. Instead, you know that it's vulnerable to cheese.
#3 Master_Vega Feb 23, 2010 18:21:47	The problem with K.Tactics, at least from what I've observed in every gaming group I've played in, that the GM doesn't always have a knowledge of what classic tactics are. He doesn't want to explain to the PC's exactly what the enemies are going to do, but he has to tell them something. More often than not it comes out as something completely useless that the player already knew or the GM gives too much information and ruins the encounter. Other knowledges work just fine with the book as a guide, but for K.Tactics to be useful the GM actually has to know something about tactics.
#4 AnimeSniper Feb 23, 2010 18:43:23	Kinda like a friends game where they sneaked into an enemy held installation, Russian I believe, and one of the PC's with K:Tactics had snagged an enemy NPC's radio and knew the enemy was calling air reinforcements to land troops behind them which lead to them taking control of the two gate guardposts HMG... lightly armored troops against a dual HMG in each posts... Edit: I personally like the Idea of a small initiative bonus to the party to counter the aforementioned enemy tactic; Pincer, Flanking, etc... Still a GM should have a small grasp of the tactics that his NPC's will deploy
#5 TheRealOrion Feb 23, 2010 18:54:18	Personally, I'm just as happy to remove the skill from the game, but if we were to change it, I prefer to outline exactly what kind of information it yields. But that's just my opinion, as always.
#6 narukagami Feb 24, 2010 0:27:04	Here is the way I see it: You know how sometimes monsters' entries in books have that little section on how they usually fight? Like in the 4e MM? Knowledge: Tactics could let you know that information. You know how DMs (should) set up encounters so each opponent has a purpose and tactic in the battle to maximize the enemy's efficiency to challenge the PCs? Knowledge: Tactics would help players know what these roles are. You know how sometimes the mooks attack the heroes is a last minute suicide battle for the sole purpose of giving the BBEG enough time to escape with the MacGuffin? Knowledge: Tactics could let the PCs know what they're up to (if not the EXACT purpose). Enemy troops holding a city block, and your squad needs to flush them out, no one makes that spot check to see if there are any enemies down this street? Knowledge: Tactics could be used to determine where the best vantage points for an ambush would be, and thus where the enemy most likely is waiting. Players setting up an ambush, and they want more information/hints to maximize their killing efficiency? Make them roll Knowledge: Tactics. In a way, I usually treat it like a combat version of sense motive. The difficulty with Knowledge: Tactics is, as Orion said, its a knowledge skill. It shouldn't be providing any kind of mechanical benefits, only information. For the most part the DM doesn't really need to be knowledgeable in tactics, but he at least should be knowledgeable in his encounter's tactics. The only time I think it should have any mechanical effect is in some kind of mass battle system.
#7 TheRealOrion Feb 24, 2010 2:00:21	That's lovely. I like that: three specific kinds of knowledge that the skill could reveal. All we'd need now is some specific DC's to go with all of that.
#8 backstabbist Feb 24, 2010 9:48:15	I unfortunately have a much different, and contra-player, use of kTactics when I game: kTactics is what STOPS players from coming up with and using great strategy that their CHARACTERs would have no idea to use. It makes perfect sense for the team to split up when attacking the BBeG Lair, something as simple as forking the attack to reduce the enemy use of cover in a warehouse, but that is something the Librarian, the DentalHygenist, the TowTruckDriver, and the ITguy wouldnt know.... that lack of tactical knowledge being expressed in the game metric of kTactics: +0 Sure it sounds harsh, but in the past we used to call that OOC (out of char) knowledge and it was clearly not allowed to have a character know things the player knew but the char would have no knowledge of... like having your D&D char invent chemical battery electricity and incandescent lights, or having a Librarian with kTactics+0 use the battleplans of the former Marine/Army players Sux for sure, but sometimes the GM should be forcing players to have the char make a kTactics roll to see if the CHARACTER knows enough to come up with the tactics the player trained in bootcamp. Of course, the GM at my table had the nasty habit of forcing the kTactics roll to prevent OOC knowledge that would help the char, but then later force the PLAYER to come up with In Character knowledge the player doesnt know but the character obviously would: When I play a Uboat commander, there is no reason to say the character floods the stolen sub because I as a player didnt tell the GM some standard dive procedure the submariner character would know by heart (as well as no junior officer mentioned at the time that the command to dive outside of procedure was killing us all)