| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Sep 2004 : 09:02:51
|
Under "Purple Dragon Knight - Class Skills"...
Any of you seen that skill before? if so, which book? if not, what kind of answer would a successful Knowledge (tactics) check yield according to you? what kind of synergy bonus would it yield/receive?
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2004 : 09:16:26
|
Ive seen it in the SW setting but not in D&D
Did you check the PGTF errata? |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
 |
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2004 : 10:01:48
|
The errata says nothing about it.
Personally, I'd say it's Knowledge (war) from Sword and Fist and Defenders of the Faith. Since nothing in there listed any game use for it besides the obvious use as a straight Knowledge check, there's nothing to contradict it.
I suppose, if you wanted a game use, you could use the Sense Motive uses listed in S&F. Or you could use it as a synergy provider for that use of the Sense Motive skill.
I don't like the obvious game use, namely "a successful check versus DC Blah-Blah will give Blah-Blah as a morale bonus on the first couple rounds of a battle." Why? Because that's, in effect, cheating. If a player manages to get the party positioned just right for a fight, or directs the battle right, then the DM should reward the player accordingly. That's not possible if the reason it happens is a skill check; it's like saying that you figure out a puzzle the DM put in with a simple roll of the dice. What's the fun in that?
Now, on the other hand, a check might also mean that the DM will slip a bit of information to the player, who then has to use that information as best as he can, or try to convince the party of his plan. That might work as a game use.
Personally, though, I'd just keep it as, mostly, the same as skills like Knowledge (nobility and royalty), whose use is largely (and literally) academic. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
Wood Elf Ranger
Senior Scribe
USA
627 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2004 : 14:38:25
|
5 ranks in Profession (Strategist) would give a +2 synergy bonus to Knowledge (tactics) 
This skill reminds me of Kelemvor from the avatar series when he barks out orders that are usually excellent strategy. I agree with Bookwyrms second option I really like the idea if you make a successful check then the DM will give your character a little tidbit of info (maybe something about the surroundings or about the enemies that isn't easily noticeable) that could be used for strategy in a battle.
Thats just my thought on this skill |
~Lee N.
"Breaktime yes?!.. Yes?.. Maybe?.. Noo, baaack to work.." -Grovel the Goblin from NWN: HotU |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2004 : 20:38:26
|
...or 5 ranks in Knowledge(tactics) would increase your Leadership score by +2?
What say you? |
|
|
|
Capn Charlie
Senior Scribe
USA
418 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2004 : 02:31:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I don't like the obvious game use, namely "a successful check versus DC Blah-Blah will give Blah-Blah as a morale bonus on the first couple rounds of a battle." Why? Because that's, in effect, cheating. If a player manages to get the party positioned just right for a fight, or directs the battle right, then the DM should reward the player accordingly. That's not possible if the reason it happens is a skill check; it's like saying that you figure out a puzzle the DM put in with a simple roll of the dice. What's the fun in that?
Now, on the other hand, a check might also mean that the DM will slip a bit of information to the player, who then has to use that information as best as he can, or try to convince the party of his plan. That might work as a game use.
Here is a problem I have always had with the game... where does the player end, and the character begin? Sure, the players themselves having to figure out all your puzzles personally might be more fun for you, but does this not just smack of metagaming and OOG knowledge? Oftentimes, knowledge of chemistry, mathmatics, and so on and so forth alone give even a player with an average mind and education a significgant legup over what is a relatively medievil society.
ALso, what of Robert who plays Thog the half-orc with 6 intelligence being able to solvcve all the puzzles, because he is rather keen in real life, while Willy playing Thondar the Wizard with a natural 17 stumbles over the simplest of riddles and logic puzzles as he is in real life not exactly the luckiest die in the pouch?
It ends up rewarding players for metagaming, and penalizing those who do not, or cannot. Then we get into the whole area of people roleplaying to do what they can't in real life. Do we penalize the noble warrior in combat, whose player in reality can't hit himself with a bat if he tried? What about Shelly the shy quiet girl, that wants to play the fabulously charismatic Bard, do we scrap all her character's interaction skills because she can't personally back them up?
It sets a definite negative trend of precedents, that we don't neccesarily want to set(at least I don't) and ends in a game that is generally limiting because you can only do ingame what you do in life, and indeed,be what you are in life.
I won't fault my player for having no command experience by not letting him use a skill to position his troops anymore than I would penalize the near sighted player whose rogue is detecting traps, these are traits inside the game, applying to a fantasy character for a reason.
HOWEVER See, it's a big however!
I can see the benefits of players able to assume their roles very well, due RL skills, and how that could enrich the experience for all involved. I really do. I just prefer to reward exemplary roleplaying, and assumption of character and traits, not to punish or even cripple characters because of their player's faults, it is disingenious to the setting, in the end, I believe, though the same could be said with rewarding same traits.
Basically, where do we draw the line? When is enough enough? And why can't Thondar play chess just because Willy was more of a checkers man? |
Shadows of War: Tales of a Mercenary
My first stab at realms fiction, here at candlekeep. Stop on by and tell me what you think. |
Edited by - Capn Charlie on 19 Sep 2004 06:40:26 |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
Great Reader
USA
4740 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2004 : 08:41:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wood Elf Ranger
5 ranks in Profession (Strategist) would give a +2 synergy bonus to Knowledge (tactics)
Perhaps Profession (military officer); "strategist" isn't much of a career path. Of course, I'm not certain that such a Profession skill would really work in most D&D games. (Really just a flavor problem.)
quote:
Originally posted by Purple Dragon Knight
...or 5 ranks in Knowledge(tactics) would increase your Leadership score by +2?
What say you?
I say it sounds like a feat, not a skill modifier.
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Charlie
Here is a problem I have always had with the game... where does the player end, and the character begin? Sure, the players themselves having to figure out all your puzzles personally might be more fun for you, but does this not just smack of metagaming and OOG knowledge? Oftentimes, knowledge of chemistry, mathmatics, and so on and so forth alone give even a player with an average mind and education a significgant legup over what is a relatively medievil society.
ALso, what of Robert who plays Thog the half-orc with 6 intelligence being able to solvcve all the puzzles, because he is rather keen in real life, while Willy playing Thondar the Wizard with a natural 17 stumbles over the simplest of riddles and logic puzzles as he is in real life not exactly the luckiest die in the pouch?
It ends up rewarding players for metagaming, and penalizing those who do not, or cannot. Then we get into the whole area of people roleplaying to do what they can't in real life. Do we penalize the noble warrior in combat, whose player in reality can't hit himself with a bat if he tried? What about Shelly the shy quiet girl, that wants to play the fabulously charismatic Bard, do we scrap all her character's interaction skills because she can't personally back them up?
It sets a definite negative trend of precedents, that we don't neccesarily want to set(at least I don't) and ends in a game that is generally limiting because you can only do ingame what you do in life, and indeed,be what you are in life.
I won't fault my player for having no command experience by not letting him use a skill to position his troops anymore than I would penalize the near sighted player whose rogue is detecting traps, these are traits inside the game, applying to a fantasy character for a reason.
HOWEVER See, it's a big however!
I can see the benefits of players able to assume their roles very well, due RL skills, and how that could enrich the experience for all involved. I really do. I just prefer to reward exemplary roleplaying, and assumption of character and traits, not to punish or even cripple characters because of their player's faults, it is disingenious to the setting, in the end, I believe, though the same could be said with rewarding same traits.
Basically, where do we draw the line? When is enough enough? And why can't Thondar play chess just because Willy was more of a checkers man?
Very, very true. However, all it tells me is that the other suggestion I'd had -- that of a sucessful check meaning that the DM gives a bit more information to be used -- is what should be done. I far prefer something like that to a check that gives a straight numeric bonus. |
Hell hath no fury like all of Candlekeep rising in defense of one of its own.
Download the brickfilm masterpiece by Leftfield Studios! See this page for more. |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 12:02:03
|
| In short (if you fear or refuse to visit the WotC boards), the answer is: replace Knowledge(tactics) by Knowledge(Nobility&Royalty) |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 13:48:57
|
| You could use opposed Knowledge (tactics) rolls to resolve battles. |
|
|
|
Capn Charlie
Senior Scribe
USA
418 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 13:59:45
|
You could...
But then again, you could also do the same with combats, setting up a single opposed roll for the party/enemies to determine it's outcome.
Both would be about as equally enjoyable. |
Shadows of War: Tales of a Mercenary
My first stab at realms fiction, here at candlekeep. Stop on by and tell me what you think. |
Edited by - Capn Charlie on 21 Sep 2004 14:08:34 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 14:36:27
|
| I know from experience that zoomed-out conflicts like that are no less enjoyable than the conventional D&D blow-by-blow ones. There's absolutely no reason why RPG contests shouldn't be resolved with a single roll (when they aren't dramatically important), or over days or seasons, or using non-traditional abilities. And in fact the 3E skill system does resolve some quite protracted situations with one roll, but people are used to combat being fetishized and played out in laborious detail. |
Edited by - Faraer on 21 Sep 2004 14:39:09 |
|
|
|
Capn Charlie
Senior Scribe
USA
418 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 15:01:10
|
My main issue with that method is that a battle is such a (generally speaking) long and protracted affair, with ever shifting fortunes, that it is rather difficult for one roll to cover it all.
For one, there are many variables that are not easily placed into a simple modifier. Terrain, skill of troops, skill of commanders(as in sub commanders of whatever character would be making the skillcheck) morale of the troops, and a thousand other things.
This is no picking of a simple lock, and in the end all a general can really do is lay out the pieces, leaving the rest to the troops.
Secondly, there is so much drama and excitement that can be gained from the shifting tides of a battle, the thrust and parry of the armies, so to speak, with dozens of places for the characters involved to shine in RP, and be heroic.
I by no means suggest rolling for each individual soldier(such could wear out dice, much less the rollers!) but am just against a single roll for an entire battle/war. Perhaps, if a program or strictly layed out formula was designed to take in a plethora of variables, then a series of rolls and checks could be made to determine outcome, but wagering the fates of so many on a single roll just seems... not right. |
Shadows of War: Tales of a Mercenary
My first stab at realms fiction, here at candlekeep. Stop on by and tell me what you think. |
Edited by - Capn Charlie on 21 Sep 2004 15:04:14 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 15:30:10
|
| It would be anticlimactic if the battle was important to the campaign, but might well be appropriate if the battle was a backdrop to the real drama. All those variables could either be estimated by the DM, or ignored for speed of play -- this ain't no military sim. |
|
|
|
Capn Charlie
Senior Scribe
USA
418 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 16:33:17
|
*shrugs*
It depends on who you ask, and their playing style. My players love a good rousing combat as well as good RP. They also enjoy a time to flex their tactical muscles with a larger than usual scenario occasionally. I also enjoy setting a stage for grand warfare scenes myself.
It all comes down to personal play style in the end. Some people dislike any rolled out combat, others like that as the main focus of the game. Some like their war in the background, some like it with them on the front lines, either fighting themselves, or urging troops on to battle... or both. |
Shadows of War: Tales of a Mercenary
My first stab at realms fiction, here at candlekeep. Stop on by and tell me what you think. |
Edited by - Capn Charlie on 21 Sep 2004 16:36:08 |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 16:36:46
|
Dargoths Knowledge Tactics
Knowledge (Cha: Trained Only)
Class skill for Fighter, Paladin and Ranger
Check: Before a battle begins a character with the Knowledge tactics skill may declare that their Commanding the battle when this occurs the character grants the Shieldmate feat (See page 28 of the Minis handbook) to all members of his side that qualify. At the start of combat the DC is 10 each round the character trying to Command the battle must make another check at 10+ the amount of Damage down to the party in the previous round.
For example: Regnor a Human fighter with 4 ranks of Knowledge tactics and a Charisma of 17. The other mebers of the party are Kelgar a Human fighter wielding a Longsword and Steel shield, Tuck a Half orc cleric of Tempus wielding a Large shield and a Battle axe and Sneaky a Human Rogue who uses a Longbow. While travling down a 10 foot wide corridor in a Dungeon the party comes across a party of 3 Orcs (2 wielding Waraxes and one wielding a crossbow. The PCs win Intiative and Regnor elects to command the battle (he rolls 15 which after adding in his Cha bonus and ranks gives him a total of 22 which is well over the 10 he needed Tuck and Kengar have a +1 bonus to their AC), this is Regnors action for the round, Kelgar and Tuck lock shields and take up a position between the orcs and the other members of the party and Sneaky shoots his bow at the suprised orcs.
Its now time for intiative which the Orcs win the 2 waraxe wielding Orcs charge and one hits Tuck for 5hps of Damage and the other misses, the Orc with the crossbow shoots and hits sneaky for 3 Hps. Its now th PCs turn, Rengor elects to Command the Battle again however this time the DC is higher its 15 (10 + the 5 Hps of damage the Orcs did to Tuck, the damage down to Sneaky is not counted as hes not under command, as he doesnt qualify for the Shieldmate feat)Regnor rolls a 9 which is under the required 15 but after adding his CHA bonus and ranks he gets a total of 16 so Kelgar and Tusk get the AC bonus for another round.
Next round 1 of the War axe wielding orcs does 7hps to Tusk and the other does 8hps to Kelgar the orc using the crossbow has a shot and does another 3 hps of damage to Tusk,
Its now Regnors turn he elects to try and command the battle again, this time the DC is 28 (10+7+8+3) he rolls a 15 giving him a total of 22 thats a failure Tusk and Kelgar loose their +1 to AC bonus, they are now fighting for there lives and are unable to be effected by Command the battle for the remainder of the fight (They are simply to busy fighting)
Synergy: For every 5 Ranks of Knowledge tactics a character may add one to their Leadership Score when trying attract followers or Cohorts ie +1 for 5 Ranks, +2 for 10 ranks etc
Comments? |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1796 Posts |
Posted - 21 Sep 2004 : 22:56:26
|
A few comments.
Overall, I like the idea of this skill, as it is original in nature. I like the synergy with the Leadership feat...
In terms of game mechanics though, I have a few issues that would prevent me from using it in my game:
1. Knowledge skills should be Int-based, not Cha-based
2. Replicates the use of a feat -- why not simply take the feat and get a guaranteed +1 to AC to all adjacent allies?
3. Cannot be used more than one round at high level -- high amounts of damage, at high level, will prevent the skill to work more than one round (and that's providing the party wins initiative);
4. Last but not the least, this has nothing to do with tactical knowledge; it won't help tip the scales of a large battle, and it will prevent the fighter, paladin or ranger from using his own valuable actions to actually fight for the party. At best, the skill should be used as a Swift Action to allow the warrior to swing his own sword. A knowledge skill should provide just that, knowledge, and not an in-game bonus to AC. |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2004 : 00:05:40
|
hmmm
Another option might be to use a modified version of the Inspire Skill from Power of the jedi |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Capn Charlie
Senior Scribe
USA
418 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2004 : 00:37:45
|
In my game, I use Knowledge: Warfare and Tactics as a kind of "non skill". The only one that has it is the Commander/Warmaster(*), and he just has it so his character will be able to use the tactical knowledge that he as a player has. I have seen the same thing with characters in my game taking knowledgge skills so they have an excuse for meta gaming a bit with monster stats they already know(the old trolls are killed by fire problem).
In game, all I use the skill for is recalling specific information about major battles, skirmishes, and wars, recalling specific information related to warfare, etc.
Now for a skill that has an in-combat application... I am not a big fan of it. A mite too powerful. However, I could see a feat allowing a skill to be used in such a way. The Commander class has access to two feats in lieu of some of the normal fighter bonus feats. One of them allows him to use the aid another action at a distance(60 feet) and is not very memorable, the other is Rousing Speech.
This allows a commander to make a diplomacy check vs. DC 15, and if succeesful, gives all allies within 60 feet a +1 morale bonus to hit lasting one round for every point the DC is surpassed. I allow the use of the leadership score in my game for this check as well, and at least once or twice the intimidate check for when it was an evil commander.
(*)Commander specialist fighter from Dragon #310, Warmaster from S&F |
Shadows of War: Tales of a Mercenary
My first stab at realms fiction, here at candlekeep. Stop on by and tell me what you think. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Knowledge (tactics), PGtoF p.68
