What do you mean by "tactics" or "strategy?"


Advice


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I see this a lot in threads where someone mentions using tactics. I responded to such a thread with a description of what I mean by strategy and tactics at a very high level, and after responding I thought maybe this deserved its own thread. So I am reposting it here:

Re: unusual tactics or strategy.

It has been my experience that players have to be trained to utilize strategy and tactics.

What I try to do in combat (and what I try to teach the game group I play with) is to follow the following general strategy for combat:

1. Knowledge is power. Learn what you can about your opponents. In some cases with extensive lead time that means trips to a library to research local history, in other cases where you've been jumped totally unexpectedly it means observing the enemy in action. Either way "Learn your enemy's strengths and weaknesses" should be among the first thing the party does. That can be done in game context with knowledge checks, perception checks or sense motive checks. USE THESE SKILLS IN COMBAT.

2. Exploit the environment. This is nearly impossible if you don't do #1 above. But it is one of the most powerful ways to turn an encounter to your advantage. Identify what parts of the battlefield give your party a tactical edge. In some cases that means exploiting difficult terrain, in some cases that means utilizing cover or in some cases it means learning how to make the environment an active agent in the combat.

3. Manage the battlefield. Sun Tzu taught over 3,000 years ago that the winner of a battle is usually the army that has a tactical advantage, not necessarily the army that has superior firepower or manpower. This is one of the things that I believe confuses more players than any other part of combat. What does it mean to manage the battlefield? Is that the wizard's job? No, it's everybody's job. Fighters can bull rush opponents, archers can throw tanglefoot bags, casters can throw up walls, create pits, whatever. The important thing about battlefield control is that the party should have some idea of how to structure the battlefield. Does the party benefit from the creation of difficult terrain? Does the party benefit from creating choke points? Etc.

4. Focus on offense. In the words of General George S Patton, the winner of the battle is usually the one that "gets there the firstest with the mostest". Offense is generally superior to defense in combat, but the Pathfinder ruleset actually codifies this by making damage scale faster and higher than healing or armor class. Focusing on offense is best done when items #1, #2 and #3 are also being performed. Knowledge of the enemy will tell you which opponents are the biggest threat. Those should be targeted first. Exploiting the environment will allow you to position your team for the best possible means of delivering damage to those key targets. And managing the battlefield can make them sitting ducks so that they can be more easily damaged or neutralized. Most battles in PF are hit point attrition affairs. Because of that it is key to try to go first. There are very few tactical options that will end up being superior to "get the highest initiative you can manage". If your attacks kill an opponent who has a lower initiative, it's a full round where you did damage and the opponent did not.

5. Communicate and coordinate. In the modern military they call this "command and control". Execute tactical plans, and direct the action. Someone should be the combat tactician. They should be giving orders. "Bull rush the troll into the pit!" Etc. When individual party members are left to operate as free agents, tactical options like "focus fire" or "manage the battlefield" or "know the enemy" become a waste of effort. An effective team is a coordinated team. Coordination requires teamwork, planning and willingness to follow orders.

6. Be prepared to improvise. Yeah, I know that this one seems to contradict all the previous 5. It doesn't contradict them. It is a way of saying that every battle plan will fracture to some degree when the battle begins. The less knowledge you have about your enemy, the more likely you will have to improvise. This means pay attention to what is happening in combat. "Your sword connects solidly, but somehow it doesn't seem to do as much damage as you expected" is a clue that maybe your sword isn't the best way to deal with this threat. Maybe a club would work better. Maybe weapons should be put aside and combat maneuvers or dirty tricks should be attempted so that spellcasters can deal with this particular threat.

7. Have a retreat plan. Who initiates retreat? What are the parameters that lead to choosing to retreat? How is a retreat coordinated? Where do you retreat to? Who provides rear protection while the retreat is in order. If all else fails, who sacrifices themselves so the others can get away?

I have played with groups that do some of these things but not the others. And I have played in groups that do none of these things.

Now, quite frankly, sometimes it can be quite fun to totally ignore all of this and just wade into combat like a bunch of untrained newbs. Fun is not based on tactical success alone, and sometimes not at all.

These are tips to be more effective in combat. They are not tips on how to improve your fun.

Unless winning more combats while using fewer resources is fun for you.

It sort of is for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also never fight a land war in Asia and always keep a extra pair of clean dry socks

but other than that man, just read a lot and pay attention to the game especially when it is not your turn

read about your class and read about the classes other people in your group play so you know how they work, read the combat and magic chapters of the CRB again and again

understand flanking
understand aid another
understand how to avoid or mitigate AoO's
understand how to cast defensively
understand delaying your actions
understand readying an action
understand Combat Manuevers

now for you droogs who are like me and came over from say MMOs, man, study your pathfinder character like you would study a pvp or raid build for an MMO. Break down your class abilities, learn your strengths, learn your weaknesses and read/watch

I was lost when I started a few months ago until I began to approach my builds like I would for an MMO, then I just layer on a delicious coating of RP and character development and set the oven to awesome


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

5. Communicate and coordinate. In the modern military they call this "command and control". Execute tactical plans, and direct the action. Someone should be the combat tactician. They should be giving orders. "Bull rush the troll into the pit!" Etc. When individual party members are left to operate as free agents, tactical options like "focus fire" or "manage the battlefield" or "know the enemy" become a waste of effort. An effective team is a coordinated team. Coordination requires teamwork, planning and willingness to follow orders.

I like what you said, but I have to ask where you draw the line with this one. I have had groups that want to sit and talk for 5 minutes for each member of the party before they make their move. Almost to the point where they are taking a vote before each character takes his action.

I finally drew the line when they tried to advise players on what to do next when their characters where not there. A leader shouting orders out across the battle field = good. Everyone discussing each move like they are sitting in a coffee house over a chess board = bad.

I decided to limit the amount of time someone could take deciding what to do... and that all advice had to be in game, and limited to what was resonable in such a situation.

Pre battle plans where of course open to whatever.


My view:

Strategy-this is the overall plan to defeat your enemies/achieve your goals. Perhaps you want to have a war of attrition. Maybe you want to contain your foes and flank them. Whatever it is, this is the strategy. Your party's build influences strategy. Flanking is nice, but a party with two rogues will rely more on a flanking strategy than one with none.

Tactics: this is more the fight by fight, round by round plans for winning a battle. If your party is built for a war of attrition, the summoner conjures up some flunkies. Your witch throws a debuff. Maybe the fighter uses dazzling display this round. If you want to win through manueverability, the monk and rogue sneak up on the enemy while the wizard casts fly on the fighter. Next fight, maybe the wizard uses dimension door to attain the high ground while the fighter uses slippers of spider climbing to reach a good spot for an ambush.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Excellent additions Lamontius.

The things I posted are at a very high level. There are layers and layers of tactics and strategy.

However, I did think of another item that probably belongs at the same level as those above:

8. Be prepared! The best tactical awareness and planning in the world is pointless if you don't have the stuff needed to execute it. Every melee character should have not only a ranged weapon they can use effectively in a pinch, but they should have the ability to deal with different weaknesses they encounter. A fighter who does not have multiple weapons of different materials or effects is hardly worthy of the name "fighter." If you encounter something that is vulnerable to silver, you better have something available you can use to exploit that vulnerability. That can be a silver weapon, or just a vial of alchemical silver, but you need SOMETHING. Similarly, the fact that a handful of flour can help you find an invisible attacker is useless if you don't have a handful of flour. Tanglefoot bags are great, unless you have to go back to town to buy some. Etc. Think about what you would do if your own skin were on the line before you head into a dungeon. Plan ahead. A cold iron sword and a silver-coated mace give you the ability to deal with four different weaknesses with two weapons. Marbles, caltrops, tanglefoot bags, vials of oil and tower shields are all effective mundane ways to control the battlefield. Before you leave town ask yourself "what can I do if a swarm of spiders attacks?" In short, visualize your party in different tactical situations and ask yourself what things could help the party survive. Then go get them.


Yeah AD, to accompany your point on your #8 I would say the absolute way to get better at that one is to play PFS:

one session you are fighting in the dark against something that cannot be hit

the next you are being swarmed by, um, swarms

the next you are dealing with undead and DR/Piercing

after every session you are looking to add mundane/magic gear in order to be as ready for anything as you can be. You learn to pay as much attention to your inventory and your non-prepared spells as anything else. You learn to adapt and overcome and how to become a swiss-army-knife on the tabletop.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

I decided to limit the amount of time someone could take deciding what to do... and that all advice had to be in game, and limited to what was resonable in such a situation.

Pre battle plans where of course open to whatever.

If my party is taking too much time during combat or some other situation where time is a serious factor with plans or bickering, my GM will politely remind us that the world doesn't stop for lengthy internal monologues by triggering an attack or event to snap us back to fantasy.

Back to Adamantine Dragon's point, learn about the different types of movement and actions in a round. If a 5 foot step can't get you where you need to be try a withdraw. If your fighting something that loves taking full round actions to murderate your party, hit and move so it has to waste a move action to follow you. If your closing in on a ranged enemy, dropping prone is a free action and will give you +4 AC against ranged attacks.
#8 Is my favorite rule so far. My group is always poking fun at me for having tanglefoot bags, alchemists fire, and caltrops, right up to the moment that they save our ass. Do you know what air crystals are? I wish I did a few months ago.
As a player I've found few experiences sweeter then when the GM is sure he has the group over a barrel and I pull out something random from my utility belt and save the day with a Batmanesque hail mary. Gold is cheap, lives cost a diamond worth 10,000 gp.
Most importantly, never post right after someone who chose the same avatar as you.


AD, think your quote is Nataniel Bedford Forrest, but otherwise right on.

And dragonamedrake, that's one of my pet peeves as well, I limit the time a player can take with a turn to prevent it. But as player, I do find myself shouting things like "I'll take the ogre; archer, do something about the harpies!"

And I think that's reasonable, and I think it could be done is six seconds.

And Pocs, I once helped make a list of things that were cheaper than a raise dead. You can find similar suggestions in the PFS thread, where everyone is a professional adventurer.


Lamontius, back when I first started playing this game, preparation was critical because the Gygaxian model was for the GM to metagame shamelessly to exploit party weaknesses. That more or less forced me as a player to deliberately think about the GM throwing specific monsters to exploit party weaknesses. I've always hated that way of gaming, but it taught me that if I have nothing but metal armor and metal weapons, the likelihood of encountering a rust monster just rose to roughly 100%.

I once was playing with a new group in a low level campaign and we encountered a swarm of rats.

That's all, just a swarm of rats. Just the appearance of the swarm terrified the other players. "OMG a SWARM!" None of the melee characters had a single thing they could do to combat the swarm. Nothing. The spellcasters had prepared spells for "normal" monsters, and so had no "burning hands" available.

I was playing a sneaky skill-monkey sort of dude. I took care of the swarm with a flask of oil and a torch.


Dotting for interest.

Liberty's Edge

Point of order- Patton never said anything about "firstest and mostest."

No one ever did in those terms. You are misquoting Nathan Bedford Forrest, who when explaining how his strategy worked, succinctly stated "I got there first with the most men."

Dang. Ninja'ed


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Fighters can bull rush opponents,

Which game system are we discussing?


For table-top RPGs like Pathfinder, the difference between Strategy and Tactics is really pretty simple.

Strategy is long-term, and involves major decisions that create/limit the opportunities available to your character throughout the existence of that character.

Tactics are short-term, and tend to be limited to a single "scene". If you are dealing with a dungeon crawl style event (or other timeline constrained series of events), then choosing when to use limited resources (this "scene" or later) is also tactical.

Feat selection, spell selection (into spell book/witch's familiar or onto spell's known list), item and enhancement purchases, etc. are all strategic decisions.

Spell preparation (as appropriate) can be either strategic or tactical, based on whether you have your "generic load" or have tailored for a situation.

Simplistically, any decision made while using a battle-mat is a tactical decision.

You need to be willing to alter strategic decisions based on what you see/experience/learn, but you need to have a strategic plan in order to maximize your character's contribution to the group.

BTW, a strategic decision to be less useful on the battle-mat in order to be far more capable as a diplomat or B&E specialist is completely valid. Some people tend to forget that strength off the battle-mat can be as important as strength on it.


StrangePackage wrote:

Point of order- Patton never said anything about "firstest and mostest."

No one ever did in those terms. You are misquoting Nathan Bedford Forrest, who when explaining how his strategy worked, succinctly stated "I got there first with the most men."

LOL, fine. How about this Patton quote: "In case of doubt, attack."

Liberty's Edge

Excellent points!


In military terms the difference between strategy and tactics is based on scope. Strategy refers to the utilization of the entirety of options available. Tactics refers to achieving specific objectives.

In etymological terms the two words are actually quite similar and both refer to planning and executing plans. "Strategy" has over time come to refer to higher level plans and "Tactics" has come to mean explicit task-oriented plans.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

Point of order- Patton never said anything about "firstest and mostest."

No one ever did in those terms. You are misquoting Nathan Bedford Forrest, who when explaining how his strategy worked, succinctly stated "I got there first with the most men."

LOL, fine. How about this Patton quote: "In case of doubt, attack."

Our games seem to reflect more this (supposed) quote from Ferdinand Foch:

"My center is yielding. My right is retreating. Situation excellent. I am attacking."

Do you have problems with people starting to lean too heavily on you for being the "preparedness guy"? I've had players view me as some kind of walking antitoxin piggy bank in the past.


According to Hungian psychology, there are 4 major types of intelligence; Tactical, Logistic, Strategic, and Diplomatic. Tactical refers to "in the moment" thinking. If you're driving and someone swerves in front of you, you respond with tactical maneuvers; swerve, break, etc. It's your reactionary thinking. Strategic refers to long-range planning. Driving in such a way that avoids or minimizes the chance of someone swerving in front of you and, if they do, puts you in the best situation to avert a collision or minimize the damage. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Logistic thinking is how well you supply and move. Planning your trip so that you consume the least amount of gas by making an efficient route to all the places you need to go. Lastly, Diplomatic thinking involves how well you relate to other drivers; following applicable laws and thinking not just of how to satisfy your own needs but how everyone can effectively satisfy their needs.

This also relates back to a game like Pathfinder. Strategy is your overall character build in terms of classes and feats you take and what you specialize in. Tactics are the actual moves you make in "tactical movement" scenarios; ie. how to approach without provoking AoO or whether you take out the squishy in a single volley or occupy the heavy, etc. Logistics is what item loadout you maintain and how/when you utilize items, especially consumables, for maximum benefit and minimal expense. It's also how you move as a group; what landmarks you visit and how you arrange your marching order. Lastly, diplomacy is how you relate and communicate with your team and how you glean information from the opposing team's actions.

According to Hung, Myers-Briggs, and Kiersey, you fall into one of 4 major temperaments and each one is specialized towards one of these 4 kinds of thinking. To use Kiersey's terms, Artisans are tactical thinkers, Rationals are strategic thinkers, Guardians are logistic thinkers, and Idealists are diplomatic thinkers. You can get more info as to what temperament you are by visiting MyPersonality and taking the questionnaire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

Point of order- Patton never said anything about "firstest and mostest."

No one ever did in those terms. You are misquoting Nathan Bedford Forrest, who when explaining how his strategy worked, succinctly stated "I got there first with the most men."

LOL, fine. How about this Patton quote: "In case of doubt, attack."

Ooh, I love this game. I've picked some good ones that are pretty applicable to the topic.

A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.

Good tactics can save even the worst strategy. Bad tactics will destroy even the best strategy.

I always believe in being prepared, even when I'm dressed in white tie and tails.

Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Experiment 626 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

Point of order- Patton never said anything about "firstest and mostest."

No one ever did in those terms. You are misquoting Nathan Bedford Forrest, who when explaining how his strategy worked, succinctly stated "I got there first with the most men."

LOL, fine. How about this Patton quote: "In case of doubt, attack."

Our games seem to reflect more this (supposed) quote from Ferdinand Foch:

"My center is yielding. My right is retreating. Situation excellent. I am attacking."

Do you have problems with people starting to lean too heavily on you for being the "preparedness guy"? I've had players view me as some kind of walking antitoxin piggy bank in the past.

In my long-running 4e campaign my playing group started referring to me as "Batman." The most common contextually appropriate joke in the game was whenever my ranger would pull some specific item out of his belt, haversack or backpack to deal with a particular situation was "Where does he get all those wonderful toys?"

Frankly whether I do this or encourage another player to do it depends on the character I'm role playing. Right now my witch is explicitly somewhat irresponsible, so I've asked the party ranger, out of game, to adopt these principles so someone in the party has them. My druid was raised in the wild and is very wise, but somewhat naive, so she only prepares for things she anticipates, which isn't that much.

Again, these are principles I try to encourage the group as a whole to adopt. Which actual character performs the services or carries the item depends on the party makeup. In some cases in spite of me communicating the importance of these things, nobody in the party feels their character would think that way, and in those cases we just wade into battle like a bunch of tactically ignorant morons.

Still fun.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Experiment 626 wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
StrangePackage wrote:

Point of order- Patton never said anything about "firstest and mostest."

No one ever did in those terms. You are misquoting Nathan Bedford Forrest, who when explaining how his strategy worked, succinctly stated "I got there first with the most men."

LOL, fine. How about this Patton quote: "In case of doubt, attack."

Our games seem to reflect more this (supposed) quote from Ferdinand Foch:

"My center is yielding. My right is retreating. Situation excellent. I am attacking."

Do you have problems with people starting to lean too heavily on you for being the "preparedness guy"? I've had players view me as some kind of walking antitoxin piggy bank in the past.

In my long-running 4e campaign my playing group started referring to me as "Batman." The most common contextually appropriate joke in the game was whenever my ranger would pull some specific item out of his belt, haversack or backpack to deal with a particular situation was "Where does he get all those wonderful toys?"

Frankly whether I do this or encourage another player to do it depends on the character I'm role playing. Right now my witch is explicitly somewhat irresponsible, so I've asked the party ranger, out of game, to adopt these principles so someone in the party has them. My druid was raised in the wild and is very wise, but somewhat naive, so she only prepares for things she anticipates, which isn't that much.

Again, these are principles I try to encourage the group as a whole to adopt. Which actual character performs the services or carries the item depends on the party makeup. In some cases in spite of me communicating the importance of these things, nobody in the party feels their character would think that way, and in those cases we just wade into battle like a bunch of tactically ignorant morons.

Still fun.

That's funny, and reflective of my experiences thus far.

I've got a wizard/cavalier in one gestalt game who's "Mr. Preparedness" and a Master Summoner in another who's more like a sleazier version of the Big Lebowski (Complete with a Frazetta-style mural on the side of his caravan.). Its somewhat painful for me to try to be "The Dude" in the one party as others don't do the preparedness/tactical guy thing as well.


pocsaclypse wrote:
Most importantly, never post right after someone who chose the same avatar as you.

No way man, we are just doubling the awesome


Experiment 626, the detective bard I am creating for our upcoming Carrion Crown campaign is deliberately intended to be that tactical guy in this group.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Experiment 626, the detective bard I am creating for our upcoming Carrion Crown campaign is deliberately intended to be that tactical guy in this group.

That's a pretty righteous archetype! I went cavalier on my eldritch-knightish gestalt build to try to capitalize on teamwork feats, but its been like herding cats thus far.


Yeah, everyone keeps telling me to play a dirge bard, but I just can't get excited about a death-centric bard just so I can pwn the undead in the campaign.

I like the detective archetype. I'm looking forward to playing him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Yeah, everyone keeps telling me to play a dirge bard, but I just can't get excited about a death-centric bard just so I can pwn the undead in the campaign.

until you start singing death cab for cutie or the cure songs at the table every time you get down to emo'ing it up you sad boy

oh and eyeliner too

wait

am i the only one that does this


Strategy: long-term planning

Strategy examples:
Planning your character's leveling progression and gear in advance.

Knowing what scrolls/other consumables to keep handy.

Learning about your enemy to exploit his weaknesses.

Working with your party to take feats/spells/class abilities that complement one another.

Tactics: short-term planning

Tactics examples:
Readying actions (such as ranged attacks or spells to disrupt a caster.)

Knowing when to enter or not enter the room your enemy is when fighting him.

Using terrain such as choke points and difficult terrain to your advantage.

Delaying your action (especially until after your caster has cast his spell.)

Using effective combat maneuvers or other actions such as demoralize/Antagonize/stealth.


Lamontius wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Yeah, everyone keeps telling me to play a dirge bard, but I just can't get excited about a death-centric bard just so I can pwn the undead in the campaign.

until you start singing death cab for cutie or the cure songs at the table every time you get down to emo'ing it up you sad boy

oh and eyeliner too

wait

am i the only one that does this

I hear tell it still works for Morrissey!


Heh, perhaps I should have titled this thread differently since it was not my intention to start a debate over the definition of terms.

My goal was to provide a bit of guidance for those people who frequently ask what is meant by "use tactics" in threads where the subject comes up, and for those lurkers who might also be wondering.

I don't really care where the line is drawn between the two terms (and that line can be pretty arbitrary depending on what context they are being used). I just want people who care to make the effort to have some idea of how to better prepare themselves for battle and how to more effectively execute their battle plans.


Lamontius wrote:
pocsaclypse wrote:
Most importantly, never post right after someone who chose the same avatar as you.
No way man, we are just doubling the awesome

I like the way you think sir.


I just think this will always be a touchy subject as long as peeps get all sassy about whether or not roleplaying or rollplaying is what is best in life

*EDIT* pocsaclypse we could not have timed that better, it is a sign


Lamontius wrote:
I just think this will always be a touchy subject as long as peeps get all sassy about whether or not roleplaying or rollplaying is what is best in life

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, all to a soundtrack provided by Strength Ranger!


Lamontius wrote:

I just think this will always be a touchy subject as long as peeps get all sassy about whether or not roleplaying or rollplaying is what is best in life

*EDIT* pocsaclypse we could not have timed that better, it is a sign

MOUSTACHE BROTHERS!

I found this to be a good companion thread.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / What do you mean by "tactics" or "strategy?" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice