Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 3934753" data-attributes="member: 8439">Well, aside from the fact that such a player would be shown the door on tone alone....&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> If your character has appropriate knowledge skills, he might in fact know what tactic to use. I prefer a knowledge check to know that weaknesses each creature has to metagaming. Your example is bad not just for slippery slope silliness, but because there is actually no reason why a barbarian would know the right tactics to take against such a varied group of monsters, AND no reason why a barbarian would be versed by default in tactics other than &quot;scream and leap&quot;.* There is, on the other hand, plenty of reason to think that a 20 int wizard would have a leg up on a spacial reasoning puzzle, or a bard with 10 ranks in perform oratory and fluency in 5 languages would do better on a language/pun/mythic reference puzzle.*while tactical knowledge might be reflected in some stat and skill choices, I've more often seen tactics as a roleplaying choice - the glory hounds might flank, but they don't aid another against the incorporeal creature even if there's only one PC with a ghost touch weapon, the charge monkey WILL charge, even if the monster has reach and improved grab, the hiding invisible sniping rogue will go through the routine and if the enemy is uncrittable just kind sit there hiding and invisible rather than do something less typical but more helpful to the given situation. Sometimes being tactical and cooperative is within a character concept, but it often isn't, and the suboptimal performance that results is part of what makes it a roleplaying game. (though if it gets too extreme, it's roleplaying for the other PCs to Have A Little Chat too.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kahuna Burger, post: 3934753, member: 8439"] Well, aside from the fact that such a player would be shown the door on tone alone.... :confused: If your character has appropriate knowledge skills, he might in fact know what tactic to use. I prefer a knowledge check to know that weaknesses each creature has to metagaming. Your example is bad not just for slippery slope silliness, but because there is actually no reason why a barbarian would know the right tactics to take against such a varied group of monsters, AND no reason why a barbarian would be versed by default in tactics other than "scream and leap".* There is, on the other hand, plenty of reason to think that a 20 int wizard would have a leg up on a spacial reasoning puzzle, or a bard with 10 ranks in perform oratory and fluency in 5 languages would do better on a language/pun/mythic reference puzzle. *while tactical knowledge might be reflected in some stat and skill choices, I've more often seen tactics as a roleplaying choice - the glory hounds might flank, but they don't aid another against the incorporeal creature even if there's only one PC with a ghost touch weapon, the charge monkey WILL charge, even if the monster has reach and improved grab, the hiding invisible sniping rogue will go through the routine and if the enemy is uncrittable just kind sit there hiding and invisible rather than do something less typical but more helpful to the given situation. Sometimes being tactical and cooperative is within a character concept, but it often isn't, and the suboptimal performance that results is part of what makes it a roleplaying game. (though if it gets too extreme, it's roleplaying for the other PCs to Have A Little Chat too. :cool: ) [/QUOTE]

Verification