Battlefield tactics: Int based or wis based?

[Calthropstu]

So, I have, rl, fended off a group of dogs before. In a game, recently, someone said an animal companion or other animal isn't smart enough to flank... and that just isn't actually true.

A group of dogs will have 2 distract you while another runs around behind you to bite at your ankles. Pretty much textbook definition of flanking to me.

So how much of battlefield strategy is int and how much is wis?

[ryu]

So, I have, rl, fended off a group of dogs before. In a game, recently, someone said an animal companion or other animal isn't smart enough to flank... and that just isn't actually true.

A group of dogs will have 2 distract you while another runs around behind you to bite at your ankles. Pretty much textbook definition of flanking to me.

So how much of battlefield strategy is int and how much is wis?

Either or, whichever is higher. You can learn tactics quite simply as a scholar or through experience. You can also have it literally built into the native instincts of your species no different from such common things as fear of predators and similar.

[Calthropstu]

Either or, whichever is higher. You can learn tactics quite simply as a scholar or through experience. You can also have it literally built into the native instincts of your species no different from such common things as fear of predators and similar.

That's just it though, I know some people who are REALLY smart. People who can understand things like advanced chemistry and physics... but can't play games to save their life. Intellectually, they are brilliant. Tactically... they know about as much as "a novice in a nunnery."
So I am quite thinking tactics might actually be entirely wis based.

[GilesTheCleric]

That's just it though, I know some people who are REALLY smart. People who can understand things like advanced chemistry and physics... but can't play games to save their life. Intellectually, they are brilliant. Tactically... they know about as much as "a novice in a nunnery."
So I am quite thinking tactics might actually be entirely wis based.

If they haven't studied it, why would you expect them to have knowledge of it?

[ryu]

If they haven't studied it, why would you expect them to have knowledge of it?

Ye old ''intellect equates to knowledge'' fallacy of course. Do you have any idea how commonly people will ask people perceived as of particularly high IQ questions far above any coursework they've ever done? It's really annoying.

[SirNibbles]

"Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings."

"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." - SRD

It'd be more Wis than Int, hence animals like wolves (12 Wis, 2 Int) being able to effectively work together to hunt.

[Calthropstu]

If they haven't studied it, why would you expect them to have knowledge of it?

See, I don't think tactical ability can be taught. I know people who have played hundreds of games... and still suck at strategy.

There's an innate ability... which is why I am suspecting wis may be better to determine tactical accumen.

Maybe it would be best to think of it a new way though? Int is the ability to plan an attack, wis is the ability to deviate and adapt in the thick of battle?

[GilesTheCleric]

See, I don't think tactical ability can be taught. I know people who have played hundreds of games... and still suck at strategy.

There's an innate ability... which is why I am suspecting wis may be better to determine tactical accumen.

Maybe it would be best to think of it a new way though? Int is the ability to plan an attack, wis is the ability to deviate and adapt in the thick of battle?

Strategy absolutely can be taught. It's taught at military academies. It's taught at regular universities, too, where it's used for things like business, logistics, game design, marketing, all sorts of fields. If you think that folks with an instinct (high wis) for it get a better footing than naturally smart folks (high int) with equal training (ranks), then I could see that.

[Dagroth]

I've played a lot of table-top war games. When I first started, I wasn't very good. I studied with a number of good players and became better.

I learned to play chess... I became better and better the more I learned and studied.

Strategy & Tactics can be taught.

Some people are naturally adept at seeing multiple moves ahead. Some people can intuitively grasp tactical situations.

Strategy & Tactics can be innate.

[Eladrinblade]

That's just it though, I know some people who are REALLY smart. People who can understand things like advanced chemistry and physics... but can't play games to save their life. Intellectually, they are brilliant. Tactically... they know about as much as "a novice in a nunnery."
So I am quite thinking tactics might actually be entirely wis based.

Same for me (regarding the friends). You know, in fantasycraft, it's a skill.

Animals have instincts. Dogs come from wolves, and wolves just flank. It's what they do. They're not too big on sneaking up on prey (though they've been known to), but cats are. Do lion packs flank? What about bears? Bears also kinda sorta sneak up on prey, but really they just like to grab, hold down hug, aka use their strengths.

Can any of these animals adapt to new situations? Or have they just evolved to play to their strengths against other animals? I wouldn't expect a couple of bears fighting something as big or bigger than they are to intentionally do some flanking.

Your friends, however, have the capacity to become great tacticians.

[Psyren]

So, I have, rl, fended off a group of dogs before. In a game, recently, someone said an animal companion or other animal isn't smart enough to flank... and that just isn't actually true.

A group of dogs will have 2 distract you while another runs around behind you to bite at your ankles. Pretty much textbook definition of flanking to me.

So how much of battlefield strategy is int and how much is wis?

Could you explain a bit more clearly what you mean by "battlefield strategy?" When I think of the term, I don't consider instinctive forms of attack like dogs and wolves flanking or tripping to be it. Another example are spiders, which D&D consider to be utterly mindless, yet are capable of hiding and setting webs as traps for unwary prey.

[Twurps]

I think it can be both.

You can just intuitively understand flanking is a good thing. (Wis), or you can quickly grasp what your buddies (or enemies) are trying to do when they flank, and adept to that situation (int). Both result in equally sound tactics and/or strategies.

I think usually, short term tactics benefit more from int, long term tactics benefit more from wis, but never are they mutually exclusive.

In my personal experience, this holds up RL (chess) too. As a long time chess player I've found short term tactical play is done best by highly intelligent players with a 'flexible' mind. (usually younger people). Long term strategically sound play comes with experience (usually older people). Both can be very effective in winning a chess game.

[nyjastul69]

I don't think tactics should be limited by wisdom. One might put a limit on strategy based on Wis though.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think usually, short term tactics benefit more from int, long term tactics benefit more from wis, but never are they mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure the short term/long term division is completely right*, but I support your conclusion. You can have the greatest wisdom modifier in the world, but at some point, you're going to need to put some skill ranks into Intuit Chess. The other way around, you can have as many skill points as you want, at some point, you're not getting past that rank cap. You can be an effective tactician with either Intellience or Wisdom, but you need both to be a great one.



For what it's worth, any Knowledge (INT-based) skill can provide a strategic advantage (Heroes of Battle, page 71), as can Bardic Knowledge (INT-based), Gather Information (CHA-based), divinations, and anything else the DM deems appropriate.


*I was thinking, based on the chess case, that Wisdom is more about "unusual" play: uncommon moves that surprise the opponent and take them out of their prepared variants (using Sense Motive to determine what they have prepared), but are not as effective against prepared players, because they are not as theoretically optimal. Intelligence, on the other hand, is about slow-and-steady theoretically optimal play, less tailored to the individual player/game, but less likely to turn against you if your opponent researched it. Then again, I'm not a chess player, so I could be barking up the wrong rook.

[Dagroth]

I don't think tactics should be limited by wisdom. One might put a limit on strategy based on Wis though.

Strategy (long-term military planning & large-scale military planning) can most certainly be taught, and taught well. Some people don't absorb the lessons well... but that's another thing entirely.

[PacMan2247]

Pack predators teach their young how to hunt. Wanting to kill and consume other animals is instinct; doing it in concert with others is learned behavior. Tactical combat requires a marriage of both Wisdom and Intelligence- Wisdom to understand the developing situation and your adversary, Intelligence to use that understanding to your advantage.

[nyjastul69]

Strategy (long-term military planning & large-scale military planning) can most certainly be taught, and taught well. Some people don't absorb the lessons well... but that's another thing entirely.

Correct, that's my point.

[Mordaedil]

So, I have, rl, fended off a group of dogs before. In a game, recently, someone said an animal companion or other animal isn't smart enough to flank... and that just isn't actually true.
So they've never seen how wolves attack in flocks?

[Kurald Galain]

That's just it though, I know some people who are REALLY smart. People who can understand things like advanced chemistry and physics... but can't play games to save their life.

Want to bet that those dogs that attack you would do much worse at tactical boardgames than the average physics student? :smallbiggrin:

Tactics and strategy are very obviously int-based, and generally speaking people who are good with math or computers tend to also be good at chess and other tactical board games. What you're overlooking is that attacking somebody from behind is not so much "brilliant tactics", but rather "animal instinct". If you look at a battlefield with e.g. terrain, archers, and cavalry, then more complicated tactics become important, and the dogs just can't compete.

[Mordaedil]

Actually, a lot of strategy and tactics are rooted in experience, which defines a characteristic of wisdom, not intelligence.

Both can really be argued for, but a plan or strategy made by someone intelligent lacks the flexibility to stand up to the test where someone wise would recognize the folly of relying on everyone yielding 100% efficiency all of the time and account for human error or cowardice.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually, a lot of strategy and tactics are rooted in experience
Experience is a characteristic of levels, not any ability score.

[Martin Greywolf]

First off, flanking a dude in small skirmish isn't strategy, it's tactics, and animals are certainly smart enough to use those - you sort of need them to do any kind of pack hunting or ambushing at all, and animals are well known for their willingness to retreat. Well, in real life, DnD animals tend to be psychotic killers without self-preservation just as often.

Now, ability to flank doesn't mean you always do it well - a skilled tactician would, for example, recognize that flanking enemy force that has a forest near the open flank can well be a trap, and there are archers and/or cavalry hidden in that forest with a dose of surprise buttseks. An animal would either smell/see the ambush, or flank anyways. To put it another way, every idiot can swing a sword, but it takes skill and training to swing that sword well.

So, if you want to make tactics into a thing, it should be a skill. As for what stat it gets a bonus from, I'm inclined to say wisdom, since it's based a lot on noticing things, and that is wisdom-based.

Strategy is a different kind of thing entirely and concerns itself with large movements, think armies and divisions instead of squads and platoons. While you can still use flanking, it is a different kind of flanking - you don't get to take potshots at exposed kidneys, you get to attack enemy formation from multiple sides, to, let's say... deny their archers a safe place to set up, and ride them down with your cavalry if they do set up.

A huge part of strategy is logistics - making sure troops are fed, latrines are dug, there is appropriate medical aid, morale is up (whether via pay, glory, priests or scantily clad females) and so on. It requires you to do a lot of math, and so I'd say it's Int based.

If you want to roll both of these into a single skill, well, judge it by what part of it will be used in the game the most.

As for why some people play strategy games and don't get better, well, it's mostly because you have to at first recognize you suck (and not whine about balance), then you need to analyze what you're doing wrong and fix it, and many people just don't have the time or the humility. Also, many strategy games aren't based around strategy as much as you'd think - Starcraft, for one, is based a lot on your APM and precision clicking, and your average player just doesn't have the time to practice. A flip side is that a lot of games you'd say are reflex based actually have a lot of strategy in them once your reflexes are up to the standards, fighting games being the most notable.

[Thaneus]

I am of the opinion it can be both as in:
Profession (WIS) Military Tactitian and Craft (INT) War Tactics
the difference?
Rule-wise the same as Profession Carpenter and craft Woodwork

[weckar]

For purposes of this, you really need to separate tactics from strategy. Tactics is knowing what goals to achieve and in what order - classic INT. Strategy is knowing HOW to achieve these goals - this is WIS. Your example of the dogs only had one goal, so WIS was obviously their most important stat.

[Mordaedil]

Experience is a characteristic of levels, not any ability score.

That's a coincidence of language, not actually deterministic.

I mean... http://existentialcomics.com/comic/177

[Necroticplague]

Yes. Tactics can be both learned, and instincted out. Animals tend to do the latter, while having limited ability to do the former (thus, medium to high WIS, low INT). Almost anything that hunts in groups will have the concept of flanking down, at least at it's rudiments. However, they'd have limited to no ability to apply these instincts to more complicated forms of warfare (such as total war, a concept several leagues over their heads).

[ExLibrisMortis]

Actually, a lot of strategy and tactics are rooted in experience, which defines a characteristic of wisdom, not intelligence.
Since any ability is "rooted in experience", I agree with Kurald Galain: you're trying to find a tenuous connection to an ability score, but the obvious connection is right there: level.

As an additional criticism: your argument works the other way around, as well. Intelligence represents learning, thus experience. Wisdom represents intuition, and intuition is present before experience. Therefore, if strategy and tactics are rooted in experience, they are primarily the domain of Intelligence.


For purposes of this, you really need to separate tactics from strategy. Tactics is knowing what goals to achieve and in what order - classic INT. Strategy is knowing HOW to achieve these goals - this is WIS. Your example of the dogs only had one goal, so WIS was obviously their most important stat.
This makes no sense. "Knowing what goals to achieve" is not Intelligence-based. In fact, it's not associated with any particular score, since your personal goals are rooted in alignment. Knowing how to achieve your goals is typically Intelligence-based, not Wisdom-based, unless you happen to have a particularly intuitive grasp of your opponent's tactics - again, think of Sense Motive.

[weckar]

Sure, your overal purpose may be alignment based, but no one goes out to achieve a purpose; of if they are they are doomed to fail. Breaking up that purpose into goals and ordering those (INT) is what I was getting at.

[Psyren]

The issue I have with this thread is that it does not seem to have a good definition of tactics at all. A wolf is instinctive - they will flank and go for hamstring, then throat. If those tactics don't work, pretty much the only one they'll have left is to run away. They're not going to, say, lure their pray under a boulder while the rest of the pack pushes it off to flatten them. If a pack of wolves are fighting something that can't be flanked or tripped (e.g. an ooze) then they're not going to adapt to that, they're just going to die or flee. That to me is what their lack of Int represents.

Plants and vermin are the same - you won't see any kind of battlefield improvisation from those kinds of creatures.

[Sian]

See, I don't think tactical ability can be taught.

So, what you're saying is that people are unable to learn to be better at tactical problems? ... how does getting better at Chess work then? ... Sure you need a certain instinctual awareness of what's the best way, but a lot of it is hard work learning which tactics work, why they work, and how they can be made to work.

[Stealth Marmot]

Concerning your DM: The actual specific TEXT of wolves in the monster manual says that they flank as their action, and dogs are just domesticated wolves.

But as far as Wisdom or Int for battlefield tactics, it depends on the sort of tactics you mean. Basic stuff like "aim high, aim low, flank" the type of stuff you would decide in tenths of a second are wisdom based. Total battlefield strategy like "Hit the caster in the robes" or "Pull them around to the Hot Gates to funnel them so we can attack them in a small group" is intelligence based.