Players want more Tactics. What do?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I love 5E. I honestly would play/run it as is forever. My players like it too, to some degree. But several of them want me to add "Tactical Combat" to the game, to reward smart gameplay. The trouble is, most of what they really want is to break the game or add needless math so they can "simulate" things more minutely. I get the feeling he'd be better off with some sort of hyper-realistic d100 percentile system.

For example, he wanted me to allow Axes to automatically do damage against shields. He literally doesn't understand how an axe Can't damage a shield. He doesn't quite understand AC, I think despite playing 3.5 for a long time.

So, is there any way of adding...some sort of tactical/positioning combat to the game? Without his stupid ax-thing? Like, should Reach weapons get some sort of bonus to do "reach weapon" things? Or Heavy? Something to keep my party happy without breaking the game or making too much work for myself?

I don't want to go back to Pathfinder. Don't do this to me. Please help!

[Knaight]

The axe thing would just be sundering type rules - though automatic damage is pretty silly, given the numerous ways a shield can be used against an ax without being damaged. As for the rest, I'd recommend looking less to new rules and more to focusing on making the terrain as interesting as you can.

[calebrus]

So, is there any way of adding...some sort of tactical/positioning combat to the game?

Change the OA rules to more of a 3e/4e style.
Moving at all while threatened provokes an OA.
Allow a 5' step to not provoke, but you lose the rest of your movement that turn.
Flanking grants +1 to hit.

That will make it a little more tactical, while keeping things similar to what they're used to, and it won't break anything.

edit:
And possibly offer an OA when someone stands from prone.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

The axe thing would just be sundering type rules - though automatic damage is pretty silly, given the numerous ways a shield can be used against an ax without being damaged. As for the rest, I'd recommend looking less to new rules and more to focusing on making the terrain as interesting as you can.

I try to make terrain interesting, but how do I reward them for taking advantage of that without just handing out...advantage?


Change the OA rules to more of a 3e/4e style.
Moving at all while threatened provokes an OA.
Allow a 5' step to not provoke, but you lose the rest of your movement that turn.
Flanking grants +1 to hit.

That will make it a little more tactical, while keeping things similar to what they're used to, and it won't break anything.

edit:
And possibly offer an OA when someone stands from prone.

Not sure about 5' step using up Move. Perhaps it costs double movement same as difficult terrain or standing from prone? Representing a slow, defensive movement? I like the +1 to Flank though. I've been toying with Masterwork weapons being normal but with a +1 to damage only. Could something like that work here? A +1 to hit is a big deal after all.

Also, OA on standing from prone is BRUTAL! I might consider it, but only if my players are suicidal.

These were good overall though. Thank you! Have you given any thought as to modifying weapons? My trouble/tactical player wanted reach weapons to provoke OA if you entered their reach. I didn't know if that was a good idea. There was also talk about implementing Facing rules.

[calebrus]

Have you given any thought as to modifying weapons? My trouble/tactical player wanted reach weapons to provoke OA if you entered their reach. I didn't know if that was a good idea. There was also talk about implementing Facing rules.

Tell him to take the polearm master feat. He wants you to give him a feat for free....

[Knaight]

I try to make terrain interesting, but how do I reward them for taking advantage of that without just handing out...advantage?

You don't reward them for taking advantage of it. You present an area with interesting terrain, the players take advantage of it, and then they reap the rewards of that. Maybe it's cover, maybe it's about who can attack whom when, maybe it's who has avenues of retreat that are actually open, so on and so forth.

[Kryx]

This sounds like a needy player wanting to skirt the rules for his benefit. You've said just as much.

Use the alternate rules in the DMG for things like overrun, tumble, etc.
Facing is likely too much for 5e.

Try to use the existing rules for things he wants. If there are no rules then make sure the party is in agreement for those things. At that point search for an existing homebrew system for it or propose one and have it reviewed here.

As others have said attacking a shield is sundering. Have a monster sunder his weapon and see how happy it makes him. imo there is a reason sundering shouldn't be very popular.

[Dimers]

Maybe start a list of special effects that the detail fanatics can accomplish ... but to try one, they have to give up advantage (if they have it) or gain disadvantage (if they don't have either) or draw an opportunity attack themselves. If they're really excited about having diverse options, they'll pounce on it. If they're just looking for an easy win, they probably won't, but then you'll know what it is your players really want from the game, and that's good info for a DM to have.

[Kryx]

If they're just looking for an easy win, they probably won't.
This is definitely the result of that based on the OP's wording.

[gameogre]

Tactics can be overrated for a role playing game. They often draw the attention of the game into the metagaming realm. Now to be honest I still like those types of games. They just scratch different itches for me.

If the party is always using terrain to there advantage, setting up battles to best use the tactics that work best for them and often luring foes into disadvantageous situations then you are probably doing it wrong.

See the bad guys almost always have the advantage over pc's. The bad guys know the terrain inside and out. Started prepping for the fight way before the pc's and often even have time to set up the terrain or environment to best suit their needs. Heck they often have time to make traps and other pitfalls especially for the fight.

For some reason many DM's want to treat the bad guys like total morons because if they don't the party will suffer. In the case of a tactical rpg experience the party is playing just for this reason! Don't give them hollow victories!

My guys love tactical combat for some games but not others. Pathfinder for us is our tactical war gaming rpg. They go in knowing their arses are up against the wall and if they use EVERYTHING they can to their advantage it just might make things even with the bad guys. Now secretly that isn't the case,pc's are just more powerful than npc's and monsters but by pressing the bad guys advantage it gives off that vibe.

5E on the other hand is one of our less tactical Role Playing games. I hardly ever use tactics really and just describe the scene. Tactics seems prebuilt into the game in more simple ways. Pact tactics ect.. give a nice illusion of tactics without all the bother of tracking miniatures ect..

It sounds like you guys want different things from 5E. Sounds like a good talking time to me.

[FightStyles]

With any and all tactics, there must be some imposed risk vs. reward. If there is simply reward with no risk, then they will always do that tactic, therefore not really making it a tactic anymore. (Dis)Advantage are great tools for tactics. I would also look to throw skill checks into the mix to determine the succes of some tactics. As for risks, other than obvious damage risks, also look at dibilitating attributes such as prone or blinded/deafened.

Although, I would consider tactics in 5e more RP during battle than anything. Sometimes, I will give (dis)advantage. Rarely, I will impose a penalty. These usually don't require extra rolls as they usually depend how well they succeed or fail if they try to do something crazy.

[Kurald Galain]

I love 5E. I honestly would play/run it as is forever. My players like it too, to some degree. But several of them want me to add "Tactical Combat" to the game, to reward smart gameplay. The trouble is, most of what they really want is to break the game or add needless math so they can "simulate" things more minutely. I get the feeling he'd be better off with some sort of hyper-realistic d100 percentile system.

Huh.

So you should figure out whether they want (1) tactical combat, (2) more detailed simulationism, (3) an in-game effect for their misconceptions of how medieval weaponry works, (4) more powerful characters, or (5) simply like to make random suggestions with no real expectation that they will happen.

Then get back to us and we can provide a meaningful answer :smallamused:

[Thrudd]

D&D, particularly 5e, is a highly abstract combat system. Minutely detailed actions is not how it works. Explain to him that the attack roll represents a series of attacks, feints and parties which ultimately may result in striking a blow that gets past their defenses. The game is not equipped to handle the level of detail he is talking about, you would have to build an entire separate game for that sort of play. Tactics in D&D involve positioning on the battle field, selecting targets, use of terrain to gain advantage, choosing when to use abilities like the action surge or a spell.

If you want to give him something, you may allow attack rolls to target equipment instead of the enemy (sunder from 3e). In this case, the attack roll represents his attempt to damage the shield, for instance, and if he succeeds then he forces an equipment saving throw which will have a DC based on the type of weapon being used and/or the damage roll. You will need to come up with a chart of various materials and equipment vs different types of attacks, like 1e had. I don't know if the 5e dmg has this already, haven't had a chance to read all through it yet.

I would suggest allowing only fighter classes to do this, since it implies a level of combat skill that most people shouldn't have (being able to choose a specific limb/item as a target and reliably hit it when the opponent is also skilled and actively resisting you).

[aspekt]

OA attack with reach weapon leads to Trip.

Trip leads to OP win.

OP win leads to the Dark Side.

[Stan]

Tell him to take the polearm master feat. He wants you to give him a feat for free....

I agree and think feats are generally a way to go, making new feats as needed. That way you have to track something only if someone wants to focus on it and you don't give them something for nothing. For example, if he wants axes to damage shields make a feat that has something like this

1. If an attack roll misses but would hit the material of the target's shield, armor, or weapon (see dmg p 246), then the attack damages the object.

2. If intentionally trying to damage and object, attack rolls have and do +2 damage.

[JFahy]

Without getting into the players' specific requests, I'd recommend that you...

* Make changes one at a time,

* Give notice - like, announce "next week we're trying X", then the
following week remind them that "tonight we're trying X",

* Emphasize that the rule's on a trial basis, that you'll want to hear
afterwards whether they liked it or not and then you'll decide if you
want to keep it or not, and

* Once the players understand the rule (and not before!) make sure
they fight at least one opponent that uses it against them. If they
aren't okay with that, then they don't want 'tactics' - they want 'buffs
which also make them feel smart'. :smallamused:

I'd start with something broad that can benefit good and bad guys, and
that can encourage cooperation, like the flanking rules - definitely not
a special-snowflake rule like "battleaxes now have a special ability".
With luck, you'll be able to find a small number of changes that get
the players happier without being a headache for you.

[Yagyujubei]

I try to make terrain interesting, but how do I reward them for taking advantage of that without just handing out...advantage?



Not sure about 5' step using up Move. Perhaps it costs double movement same as difficult terrain or standing from prone? Representing a slow, defensive movement? I like the +1 to Flank though. I've been toying with Masterwork weapons being normal but with a +1 to damage only. Could something like that work here? A +1 to hit is a big deal after all.

Also, OA on standing from prone is BRUTAL! I might consider it, but only if my players are suicidal.

These were good overall though. Thank you! Have you given any thought as to modifying weapons? My trouble/tactical player wanted reach weapons to provoke OA if you entered their reach. I didn't know if that was a good idea. There was also talk about implementing Facing rules.

these suggestions seem like they're inspired from the 4E system for OA's.

in 4E you take an OA moving anywhere in an enemies attack range (aside from entering it to actually attack). if you want to move around or get away from an enemy without an OA you "Shift" one square as your entire movement for the turn (think disengage in 5E, but you take a huge movement penalty and can still attack).

standing up from pron provokes an OA unless you use your entire movement in order to stand.

Flanking an enemy (being directly across from an ally, being in front and on the side doesnt work) grants a +2 bonus to attack rolls (which scaling back to +1 works much better with bounded accuracy)

aside from that, Sundering rules might be a nice addition if that's what the players want, but the main thing would be more tactical terrain. Add more obstacles, add WAY more elevation, add choke points and ambushes and traps that can be tripped mid-fight. Add in fight objectives on top of just killing all the enemies, just use your imagination.



I think more than anything though, that you make it completely and 100% clear to your players though that just because something works a certain way in real life, it doesn't mean that's how it works in DnD. That way you can avoid this conversation "but axes traditionally were made to break shields and breach heavy armor so I should be able to do that in game!"

just no. this is DnD not real life historical battle simulator.

[Knaight]

If the party is always using terrain to there advantage, setting up battles to best use the tactics that work best for them and often luring foes into disadvantageous situations then you are probably doing it wrong.

See the bad guys almost always have the advantage over pc's. The bad guys know the terrain inside and out. Started prepping for the fight way before the pc's and often even have time to set up the terrain or environment to best suit their needs. Heck they often have time to make traps and other pitfalls especially for the fight.

All of these are far from guaranteed, and just because the party is using terrain to their advantage doesn't mean their foes aren't doing the exact same thing. Basically, there are five primary ways a fight can start.
The PCs ambush their foes.
The PCs attack a defended point.
The PCs and foes blunder into eachother, fighting ensues.
The PCs defend an attacked point.
The PCs are ambushed by their foes.

In two of these, the PCs likely have some choice of terrain, including one case of actual fortification. In one, nobody is likely to have much of an advantage, and who knows the terrain best could vary. In two, the foes have a substantial edge. There's no particular reason to expect that only the ones that favor the foes will come up, unless the game is extremely tightly focused around exploring a particular type of fortified dungeon.

[Myzz]

to OP, a few questions first:

1. What Sub/Class is this player in question?

2. What levels are we looking at?

3. Are you using a grid of somesort for combat?

4. How many PC's?



Without knowing specifics, my first recommendation is to use a grid if currently not using one. Speak with player in question about developing tactics with PC's...

Ditto on previous mentions of Terrain. As a spell caster one of my favorite spells is Hallucinatory Terrain for this very reason...

AND if you give any Feat... I'd just give EVERYONE Martial Adept for free... AND if they can't figure out how to use that to create team tactics...

[Shining Wrath]

First, add terrain. Difficult and impassable spots on the map make players think. That's already in the rules.

Offer him a trade - if his axe can sunder shields, then greatswords and longswords can shatter the haft of his axe. If he demurs because he's protected his axe haft - well, guess what, shields can be reinforced too. If he still keeps pressing then you have identified a munchkin in your midst; be wary.

Other than that, adding 3.5 abilities like Sunder, Trip, Combat Reflexes, .... Just make certain that he (and the rest of the table) knows Rule 0.5:

Whatever PCs can do, DM NPCs can do.

[Icewraith]

First, add terrain. Difficult and impassable spots on the map make players think. That's already in the rules.

Offer him a trade - if his axe can sunder shields, then greatswords and longswords can shatter the haft of his axe. If he demurs because he's protected his axe haft - well, guess what, shields can be reinforced too. If he still keeps pressing then you have identified a munchkin in your midst; be wary.

Other than that, adding 3.5 abilities like Sunder, Trip, Combat Reflexes, .... Just make certain that he (and the rest of the table) knows Rule 0.5:

Whatever PCs can do, DM NPCs can do.

The only thing that's not in 5e in some form already is sunder (and 4e marking I suppose), because sundering eventually sucks for everyone. But you can shove people prone, grapple, opportunity attacks are a thing, you just only get one because otherwise combat bogs down immensely. One thing 5e kind of needs is a way to stop the monster conga line problem once players have expended their OAs, Sentinel isn't quite enough. Maybe if a Sentinel's threatened area counted as difficult terrain for opponents? That way even if a few monsters rush past him they'll still clog things up enough that all their buddies won't be able to move freely in to attack the squishy and then move back out.

Right now you can't stop a horde of melee monsters with 5' reach from getting to a single caster unless you have a conveniently placed, accessible corner and no fewer than three guys with good AC.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

to OP, a few questions first:

1. What Sub/Class is this player in question?

2. What levels are we looking at?

3. Are you using a grid of somesort for combat?

4. How many PC's?


1) Fighter, Battlemaster. Wanted to go heavy Cavalry, but then changed to Spear and Shield. And then decided that "Spears Suck" because they do 1d6 damage, and he won't let me just change the fluff of, like, the battleaxe or warpick to get him what he wants.

2) Level 4, although they are entering a long dungeon crawl, so soon lvl 5 and 6.

3) We don't use the grid, but we pay attention to space.

4) 4 total. The BM Fighter, an OO Warlock, a Necromancer, and a Sorcerer using the Noble Bloodline (pretty good homebrew honestly).


First, add terrain. Difficult and impassable spots on the map make players think. That's already in the rules.

Offer him a trade - if his axe can sunder shields, then greatswords and longswords can shatter the haft of his axe. If he demurs because he's protected his axe haft - well, guess what, shields can be reinforced too. If he still keeps pressing then you have identified a munchkin in your midst; be wary.

Other than that, adding 3.5 abilities like Sunder, Trip, Combat Reflexes, .... Just make certain that he (and the rest of the table) knows Rule 0.5:

Whatever PCs can do, DM NPCs can do.

Hmmm. The problem is he'd probably enjoy that. He's an odd guy.

[TrexPushups]

The only thing that's not in 5e in some form already is sunder (and 4e marking I suppose), because sundering eventually sucks for everyone. But you can shove people prone, grapple, opportunity attacks are a thing, you just only get one because otherwise combat bogs down immensely. One thing 5e kind of needs is a way to stop the monster conga line problem once players have expended their OAs, Sentinel isn't quite enough. Maybe if a Sentinel's threatened area counted as difficult terrain for opponents? That way even if a few monsters rush past him they'll still clog things up enough that all their buddies won't be able to move freely in to attack the squishy and then move back out.

Right now you can't stop a horde of melee monsters with 5' reach from getting to a single caster unless you have a conveniently placed, accessible corner and no fewer than three guys with good AC.

Caltrops and Ball bearings would they do anything?

[Icewraith]

Caltrops and Ball bearings would they do anything?

How hot are your DM's dice, and what kind of monsters are you using them against? Against low dex monsters with a streak of bad luck on your DM's dice, those will stop everything. If your DM gets good rolls, they're not worth the action to lay them down. Also, how many of those things can you expect to have on hand?

[Shining Wrath]

The only thing that's not in 5e in some form already is sunder (and 4e marking I suppose), because sundering eventually sucks for everyone. But you can shove people prone, grapple, opportunity attacks are a thing, you just only get one because otherwise combat bogs down immensely. One thing 5e kind of needs is a way to stop the monster conga line problem once players have expended their OAs, Sentinel isn't quite enough. Maybe if a Sentinel's threatened area counted as difficult terrain for opponents? That way even if a few monsters rush past him they'll still clog things up enough that all their buddies won't be able to move freely in to attack the squishy and then move back out.

Right now you can't stop a horde of melee monsters with 5' reach from getting to a single caster unless you have a conveniently placed, accessible corner and no fewer than three guys with good AC.

I've houseruled myself out of the Conga Line - the classic "I hold the door against the onrushing horde" moment should not be subjected to a dozen attacks per round from monsters moving up, attacking, and moving back.

[TrexPushups]

How hot are your DM's dice, and what kind of monsters are you using them against? Against low dex monsters with a streak of bad luck on your DM's dice, those will stop everything. If your DM gets good rolls, they're not worth the action to lay them down. Also, how many of those things can you expect to have on hand?

I figured at the bare minimum intelligent creatures might avoid those squares and focus on the beefy high ac player in front.
I don't think they would be available for every fight but they could help.

[Raimun]

Use a battle grid. Battle grid is your friend. One square is 5 ft. x 5 ft. Races list movement speed in feet. Classes add movement and/or movement options. Spells and weapons have ranges. This doesn't break the game and will make it more quick and fun, since you don't have to always answer every round questions such as:

"Okay, what is the nearest monster to my character?"
"Just a normal orc? There was an orc shaman too. Where is he?"
"What do you mean an ogre gets an opportunity attack? You didn't say there was one!"
"Okay... tell me where every monster in front of me is and how far they are from me. You know, those guys I should be able to see, plain as a day."

Instead, you should get:

"I move 30 feet like... this to the left. That way I can avoid all opportunity attacks and stab the orc shaman before he casts any more spells."

The axe thing is just stupid. Is there Sunder-manuever in 5e. Don't know 5e that well yet.

[Jakinbandw]

How hot are your DM's dice, and what kind of monsters are you using them against? Against low dex monsters with a streak of bad luck on your DM's dice, those will stop everything. If your DM gets good rolls, they're not worth the action to lay them down. Also, how many of those things can you expect to have on hand?

Well back in second edition I never left home without them. IIRC it was 1d4 damage crossing them and 1d4 damage to a lot of creatures beat out the 1d8+1 that my cleric had to a single one at the cost of an action. It didn't even burn a spell.

[kaoskonfety]

More tactics is not "I smashed his shield" nor is it a more realistic game. If I recall GURPS has alot of this kind of detail, but D&D has generally been bad at that level of detail - its either too easy or impossible.

For more tactics in D&D - easy answer is a battle map and miniatures, interesting and varied terrain and advantage/disadvantage use liberally (the high ground is loose rubble, advantage on attack, acrobatics check every time you are struck or fall prone, buildings with choke points and stairs). Enemies with interesting positioning and terrain altering powers and hand the party a few similar one use or limited use options (a single charge wand of earth to stone, a bead of force or 2 to block hallways etc.)

Options for his proposed idea of shield smashing... bookkeeping heavier, making it hard but far from impossible to destroy such things

Premise - Missing his armour class is not "I hit him but his chain mail took it" - get square on hit with a battle ax in a breastplate - if you live, when you are out of the hospital, we will get back to this chat.

Idea brain storm
- Shields of middling and low quality do give out in field under repeated hard hits, I assume even the good ones are not perfect.
- But any blow that seriously damages a shield is veriy likely to have shattered your arm.
- When you *hit* the characters AC there is a chance of damaging their shield.
- Combat option - prior to the attack announce if you are trying to damage the opponents shield, this attack roll is at disadvantage.
- On a successful hit you do half damage to the opponent and apply half damage to the shield, assign them hardness stolen al-a 3rd edition - wood 5, steel 10, and say 10 added HP on both
- 30 damage single blow, to outright drop a wooden shield (15 character, 15 shield), 40 for steel, but you can chip away at them - at the cost of losing half of you damage on the opponent for an unclear number of attacks "their armour took it" (adjust shield HP to taste)
- armor damage is healed on a long rest with an armourer skill and tools or by any town artisan (for a reasonable fee)
- yes the bads can totally do this too - and fewer of them will have shields (looking at any non-humanoid and several of those)
- no you cannot sunder weapons - almost any blow that would destroy a weapon will disarm the fellow - go use those rules.


This is alot of rule for not much benefit... but if you really *need* the shield bearing bads AC 2 lower and you are the only one reliably hitting (and have a source of advantage) it might be worth while, denying someone shield master may also make it golden... (which is another reason to veto it, not another reason to approve it)... Paladin smites and a few other tricks probably make the damage output needed a joke as level rise - which may be part of why they ditched the idea of sundering.

the more I look at this the less I like it... battle map, terrain and similar - stick with these.

[Myzz]

think I actually prefer Hexes to the 5x5 squares...

My players do too, so thats what we typically utilize.

[Vogonjeltz]

For example, he wanted me to allow Axes to automatically do damage against shields. He literally doesn't understand how an axe Can't damage a shield. He doesn't quite understand AC, I think despite playing 3.5 for a long time.

So, is there any way of adding...some sort of tactical/positioning combat to the game? Without his stupid ax-thing? Like, should Reach weapons get some sort of bonus to do "reach weapon" things? Or Heavy? Something to keep my party happy without breaking the game or making too much work for myself?

Caution him that simulationist realism is sauce for the goose and gander. Wooden shields catch weapons (like axes) in them, allowing the user to disarm their opponents weapons. Most shields are curved to force a weapon to slide off it, making it difficult to damage even if attacked on purpose. Wooden hafted weapons are prone to breaking if you swing it too hard, metal weapons rust/can get cold enough to cause frostbite (make sure to wear good gloves/gauntlets!).

This list can go on and on. If they really want to do something tactically have them describe the tactic they wish to employ and run it as a contest or similar method for either an improvised action or substituting for an attack (the way grapple and shove do).

Reach weapons already get a bonus, they have 5 feet more reach than non-reach weapons. Heavy is not a good thing, it's actually negative. Halflings, for example, have difficulty wielding Heavy weapons.

Before you tinker with the weapons listed, you should consider that almost every weapon has a niche role to fill.
Some are inexpensive, some are light weight, some do alot of damage, some are ranged, some have special traits (light, finesse, thrown) that let them be used for specific fighting styles. Some have disadvantages to offset their being otherwise much better than alternatives. Removing those built in disadvantages seems like it would imbalance the game making some choices de facto better.

[Tvtyrant]

I would give him a "sunder on a crit" option which would destroy the opponents armor, shield or weapon instead of dealing extra damage. Point out that the chances of rendering equipment unusable in a single battle is low and the dice should respond accordingly.

[themaque]

That shield thing is from the latest Hackmaster. (I actually really enjoy the system for low magic/high tactics games) Shields increase your AC, but take damage as you deflect the blow. Honestly that sounds just like the sort of thing that this player would like, lots of little rules and tactics to keep track of. If he doesn't know the game you should let him know about it.

I think the key is to encourage him in THIS game is to encourage his creativity and not assume anything is automatic. Say yes as often as is reasonable and put some risk/reward to his actions.


He wants to try and attack his shield? Sure, dig up sunder rules from DMG or make them up on the fly.
Use a battle map so he can see the field of battle. This can hinder some people but others have a greater sense of what is possible. What is the rest of your party like? Do they describe vaulting over chairs or "I hit the nearest orc"
Let him set up situations for advantage or maybe an extra d4 damage as he tries to shove a bad guy into the fire on the tip of his spear.


Say yes when you can and offer reasonable compromises when you can't. Tactics players will come to YOU with options provided you prove you are open to it.Pprovided he likes the challenge and not just power gaming, enemies using the same tricks on him will just encourage him to try and be smarter.