Playing enemies to their Int

[ImperatorK]

How far do you go with it? I mean, it is perfectly fine when an inteligent enemy is using a smart tactic, but gooing so far as metagaming?
Example: goblins with Int 10 are probably smart enough to figure out that "focus firing" their enemies is a good idea. But I would not think that "focus firing" on the biggest threat (the wizard) is that obvious. Who would you attack first - a weak looking dude in robes whos avoiding contact with you, or the big, strong guy with a dangerious weapon, who is obviously going to hurt you?
Please keep metagaming out of it. Even smart creatures don't have to recognize a spellcaster right on, and even if, they don't posses the knowledge that we, players, have and don't have to know that the caster is a bigger threat.

[Mastikator]

Smart warriors don't just rush in, they send scouts to gather intelligence on their foes to know their weaknesses and strengths. Goblinoids are exceptionally good at sneaking and should be doing this all the time.
Hobgoblins and bugbears are even described as using good and brilliant tactics, it's not metagaming unless you use out of character knowledge.
Ogres and orcs will just rush blindly in though but anyone who's smart and has survival instinct will not give up their lives casually.

[ImperatorK]

Yeah, when the enemy is prepared (has info from scouts, or something) then it's okay, duh. I'm talking random encounter or the players sneaking on their enemies without them knowing, etc.
When prepared even an idiot barbarian can use a tactic. What about on-the-run thinking? Group of players runs into random group of goblins in an uderground cave. What then? Will they attack the caster, couse he's the biggest threat? Maybe when there an more inteligent leader or caster with the goblins, then yeah, but without someone like that?

[Eric Tolle]

Well in the case of being ambushed on their turf the classic response would be to retreat into cover or through any handy boltholes. Any fighting would be to cover the retreat amd buy time for a counter-attack. Once the spellcasters cast a spell they would be targeted, flanked and ambushed of possible.

It's also quite likely that human-level intellects would have knowledge of previous attacks passed down "If a guy in no armor is waving a wand around, then he's THIS; If he has armor and is carrying these symbols, he's THAT". Just consider what human societies faced with repeated attacks would do.

[Gamer Girl]

I go all the way with it, but not metagaming.

Anyone of average intelligence(10) can grasp the ideas of 'focus firing' and 'take out the big threat first'(this is stuff that dodge ball teaches you).

At average intelligence you can also figure out that a wizard can do more damage then a fighter(the same way a guy with a machine gun can do more damage then a guy with a knife).


Other then the above vague ones, you have to figure things out. Do the foes know about spellcasters? Do they know about magic in general? Do they know what a spellcaster looks like? And so on.

First would be some general race ones: For example, elves, gnomes and kobolds would know 'everything' about magic by default. Dwarves and hlaf orcs know very little.

Second would come the groups background. For example, a goblin tribe that lived near a elf woodland, would know plenty about magic from elf encounters.

[Aux-Ash]

"Intelligence is knowing tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a tomato-salad".

"Intelligence will tell you that the water falling on your head is rain, wisdom will tell you to go inside or you will catch a cold".

Those two statements are very important to remember in discussions on how to use intelligence, I think. Intelligence is about retaining and understanding knowledge, calculating and recognicing patterns. It may be used well to recognice the situation, but not necessarily to come up with the appropriate response to it.
Intelligent characters does not necessarily have to be good at tactics or planning, they might be very quick at it. But a lot of their plans might also be unwieldly, impractical, counterintutive and/or just plain the wrong thing to do in that situation. They make excellent engineers, but not necessarily excellent commanders.
An intelligent commander probably knows to put out sentries, a wise commander knows to make sure they are in groups of three. An intelligent commander gives them a horn, a wise commander gives them each a horn.

Above all though, wise commanders knows never to fight on someone else's terms. They know when to run (usually ahead of time).

An excellent commander probably has high values in both stats (but not as high as their charisma). That's also something to remember, it's not the smartest or the wisest that will be the leader... but the most charismatic.

[ImperatorK]

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. Inteligence does not mean that a creature will be always cool-headed and logical.

[Jay R]

You avoid using meta-knowledge by deciding their standard approach to being attacked before the PCs find them, and modify it only based on what they see during the fight.

For instance, goblins in tunnels run and set an ambush if they see a large party. Are they expecting others? Then they should be listening and watching.

[dsmiles]

Example: goblins with Int 10 are probably smart enough to figure out that "focus firing" their enemies is a good idea. But I would not think that "focus firing" on the biggest threat (the wizard) is that obvious. Who would you attack first - a weak looking dude in robes whos avoiding contact with you, or the big, strong guy with a dangerious weapon, who is obviously going to hurt you?
Okay, in this specific example, Goblins. Goblins tribes (or clans, or whatever organization you like) probably have at least one shaman (probably Adept, by class). Shamans cast spells. Spells that can cause death and destruction among the ranks of their enemies. Adepts don't get any armor proficiencies (IIRC). Said shaman is probably a weak-looking goblin in robes.

Really, an INT 10 sapient humanoid/goblinoid/giant/creature with a cultural structure that includes wizards/priests/shamans/whatever not recognizing a caster? That's a little...off, IMO.

Now, a zombie with an INT of -? No way. An animal? No way (unless you're playing Wheel of Time). A magical beast? Seriously doubtful. Those are different matters altogether.

[Runeward]

A lot of it comes down to how sophisticated the strategy is. Survival of the fittest lets a horse identify a good mate to reproduce with, I imagine it would similarly allow goblins warriors who were good at tactics to evolve. As a result, I generally let foes attack with relative sophistication. Where I bring intelligence into the equation is with when they flee. A smart foe will begin making plans to escape when it is obvious they are outmatched. A dumb (i.e. low will) foe will flee when it is proven they are outmatched. In between, they act in between and might stand and die.

[Xanmyral]

It really depends on what the species is, the intelligence level, the wisdom level, the charisma level, and various physical stats. Generally, intelligence deals with tactic complexity. Wisdom deals with back up plans, improvisational plans, and slight affect on general effectiveness of plans. Charisma defines courage, ability to work in a group, and process of both generating and relaying orders. Physical stats will, on a tactical level, matter if in a group that follows a pecking order like that of a wolf pack, being the strongest often is the leader.

Species also varies these, in how the plans are made, used, and brought forth. So, a species with high intelligence, but low wisdom would have quite complex plans, but if the plans fail they will quickly devolve into chaos due to lack of counter measures. Low intelligence but a high wisdom would have very simple tactics, but would be able to switch off quickly, would possibly be able to counter other plans. Having a low charisma would increase chances to rout, they would often work as individuals instead of a group, and often would have difficulty in give out orders.

To put it simply, intelligence is the "strength" of the plan. Wisdom is the "adaptability" in plans. Charisma then would be the "reliability" of the plan. Playing to this, as well as knowledge of the race you are planning tactics for, will help. For example, lets take the Kobold race. It is a race that is good with traps, so most plans will involve traps in some manner. Assuming average mental stats, they would use traps to create choke holds as they had ranged attacks aim at those who are closest to their forces. Melee would rely on not having to face many enemies at once due to the choke points and will use methods to try and keep a distance from their enemies. They would priorities based on distance, unless someone is making themselves an obvious target, such as a wizard flying while throwing around lightning bolts. They would work alright as a group, but take down a good number and they will start to think about fleeing.

The best thing to remember is that these races have survived for a while. They didn't live by being morons and attacking with a kamikaze style of assaults where fleeing doesn't ever enter their minds. Play the race to their strengths, while taking into account of average mental stats, all of them because they are all important when dealing with both tactics and combat, and the mental stats of key individuals. If the race is lead by what would be a genius for them, they would try to use that person's tactics the most. This could hurt them as well however if they are lead by a beefy moron or something like that, as they would also use those tactics even if they are worse, unless the leader allows someone else to do the tactics for him/her.

(Wow, that is a lot longer then I planned on making it. Err... Sorry about that.)

[Mike_G]

Another point is to think about which enemy actions we're talking about. The low level grunts want to kill the enemy who is the biggest immediate threat to them. They won't take an AoO from the Fighter to get at the caster. The same way a newbie, low level conscript modern infantryman probably won't ignore close enemy fire to take out a more distant gunner.

As other have said, unintelligent enemies just go for the closest target.

For elite bad guys, fanatic bad guys and so on, yeah, maybe they will take a free hit to get close to the Wizard, but for most enemy, they know being belted with a sword hurts. They don't know that they have 30 HP and the Fighter can't do that many on his AoO.

I generally have each bad guy attack the closest party member. Uncommitted bad guys attack the perceived greatest threat. So, yeah, if they've seen the elf in a dress doing terrible things, they might ignore the big guy in plate to aim at the Wizard. This falls under the category of "don't make yourself a target." Smart Wizards may try to look like Hirelings or servants, too. Not everybody walks around with a pointy hat covered in stars, wrapped in a palpable aura of eldritch might.

[Frozen_Feet]

Give me a smart enough character and I will pull out all the stops for tactics and play them to all my expertise. This includes using "meta" knowledge where such things interact or overlap with things that'd reasonably be knowable, such as not using spells limited by HD (Sleep, f.ex.) when they're too weak to affect their opposition. (Knowledge checks and several spells actually allow a character to approximate game mechanics from in-universe events.)

Likewise, if the world has abundance of differenct PC classes besides the players, the opposition would reasonably have a hunch of how powerful full casters are in contrast to non-casters, and know what to look for to indentify them. If it's reasonable to assume some tricks have been tried before (15 min workday with ropetrick, scry & die, etc.), the opposition might be aware of those and use the appropriate counters. The more elements of a system have existed in the in-game reality before the PCs, the more of the metagame translates to in-game reality.

[darkpuppy]

My general take on this is: let the character of the species be your guide. I remember running Return to Undermountain, and before that, Eye of the Beholder as a 3.5 campaign. Both times there were weak races involved (goblins in RtU, kobolds in EoB). Both races are well known for a) "cowardice", and b) crude, but nasty traps.

In the case of the goblins, a lone scout led the party back toward the most guarded route to its tribe's territory. More specifically, it led them toward a trap manned by goblins behind illusory walls (the players never *did* figure that one out!). The trap was quite simple, and the players got caught with their pants down. Four times. The trap wasn't the goblins' design, but they figured it out, and incorporated it into their defences.

What was the trap? A log that swung between two clamps. There was a lever that released the clamp. Log swings, smacks through, goes back up to other clamp via mechanism quite quickly. Why did it hit them four times? the first time was a surprise. The second time was also a surprise, because they didn't know about the re-release. The third and fourth times were their own damn fault, for arguing IC while they were still in the area.

The kobold trap was also quite simple. A pair of strong nets, made so they would snap toward each other and trap the first person that triggered it. Lone kobold spots the party, warrior gives chase before the rest of the party, gets snagged, kobold tribe managed to knock him down to 1HP before the rest of the party got there and chased them off.

By contrast, consider an Illithid. 90% of the time, you're not going to see it as it attacks you. It's going to take advantage of the dark, stun the heck out of you, and then move in for the kill. But also remember that Illithids are arrogant. They'll sometimes move before they're ready, before they know everything. Same with drow.

a good 80% of the time, the fluff on the creature gives you a clue as to their tactics. The fluff of the campaign lets you know how common certain things are, and so how easily they're recognised (casters are usually pretty obvious, especially in DnD).

Oh, and one last thing... Sometimes, the EL lies. Best example I've found is a Bulette. Every time I've put one in at anything up to level 7, someone dies. Even lvl 15s can have trouble, because a Bulette's tactics are "Burrow burrow burrow burrow RAKE!"... and that rake, friends, can *definitely* kill a single character of the EL it claims to have in 3.5...

[Elana]

What's this all about taking out the strongest first?

Anything that decreases the number of opponents is good.

So pick the target that is easiest to take down.

Even the strongest is easily to overcome when he has no friends to keep his back free.



Or as a better guideline, watch your players.
And then emulate their tactics for average intelligence characters.
(Also Goblins have spell casters too)

[FelixG]

I would also say it depends on the world. In Forgotten Realms, for example, there are a number of high level people running around and a number of mythic figures, so I figure eveyone and their blind+deaf grandma will know that casters need to be feared.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

For elite bad guys, fanatic bad guys and so on, yeah, maybe they will take a free hit to get close to the Wizard, but for most enemy, they know being belted with a sword hurts. They don't know that they have 30 HP and the Fighter can't do that many on his AoO.

Alternately, they do know they have 30 HP (or the in-character equivalent) and don't know the fighter can't do that much damage on an AoO. :smallwink: There are enough martial builds focused around tripping, Hold the Line, Robilar's Gambit/Karmic Strike, retributive damage from gish buffs or ToB counters, and other "I kill you out of turn" schticks that even the smarter and more powerful bad guys are justified in not going after the caster for a round or two until they can tell whether the meatshield has one of those builds or not.

[Darcand]

There is a quote on one of the DDM cards that goes something like "The typical Greypeak goblin fights more wars in it's short life then an average human even hears about" Considering the violent lives they lead odds are good that your average goblin knows what the PCs can do better then they do themselves.

[KingofMadCows]

Something like that is more of a matter of experience rather than intelligence. Any animal can be trained to behave differently around different stimuli. Any wolf can learn to avoid fights it can't win and attack bigger predators in packs.

Intelligence is more about how quickly someone can learn new skills. For example, it generally takes less time for wolves to learn to get around an obstacle than dogs.

[Frozen_Feet]

Something like that is more of a matter of experience rather than intelligence.

Ergo, the average monster is higher level than average PC, meaning they're more powerful and have more tactical options available. :smallbiggrin:

[Ghost49X]

Depending on the creature the idea of target of choice will vary
and not all creatures understand the idea of focus fire and some
just might not care, here are a few examples and my reasoning behind it

For the discussion it is assumed the creatures aren't lead by anyone or
aren't following any pre-established orders

Zombies and other mindless undead with their limited cognition:
I usually have them attack what ever is closest to them since I see
them with the kill anything in sight mindset, they charge forward and attack
the first person within range, I try to keep all PCs occupied so after
2-3 mobs attacking the first PC the others usually run past him and into the
others, Yes this sometimes provokes AoO... but then again they are mindless
this is part of the fun

Beasts and other predators have a hunter's mentality and their instinct is to
take down the weakess prey, so they'll stalk and attack whomever they percieve
as weak/easily killed or someone seperated from it's companions. AS for what it
considers "weakest" I'd go with most wounded (PC with least remaining HP) for
limping or hurt animals are usually taken down first in a hunt along with younths
and should the party perfectly healthy, HP can still give a rough measure of who's
easier to kill (it's within the predator's instincts to know this)

Orcs and other "warrior races" seeking honnor and glory or just a good fight and some
loot, I split up evenly amongst the group, any leaders amongst them usually single out
the strongest melee threat whom they view as leader amongst the party

[SuperFerret]

It's a roleplaying thing more than an intelligence score thing. Sure, goblins would be smart enough to recognize an obvious spellcaster and know the threat they pose, but even the smartest foe would have to pay attention to the screaming barbarian charging them, just from the emotional response.

[randomhero00]

OP I totally agree with you. Not only would they need a higher int score than 10 to recognize the threat spellcasters are but they'd also need the experience. And goblins live too shortly to likely have any experience fighting spell casting adventurers.

I'm in the SCA (look it up if you don't know it) and while its historical recreation the archers and bolt throwers/catapults are pretty equivalent to spellcasters (you can't "block" anything from a catapult type deally), and despite its unpopularness in the SCA archers/bolters are technically the most dangerous even though there are so few (they arent really fun, mostly cause you need to retrieve ammo after each battle). Usually the older guys play them because they can't take direct battle anymore, say because of knee injuries (quite similar to wizards...)

Anywho, despite the fact that they are the most dangerous, most (3/4ths) just sit there/ignore them. Even when I call out warnings that one is incoming they just stand there and get hit because of the confusion of battle.

Point being, even real humans have a difficult time, much less goblins who are supposedly dumber and live shorter. Strategically they are similar enough to draw conclusions from.

[shadow_archmagi]

Example: goblins with Int 10 are probably smart enough to figure out that "focus firing" their enemies is a good idea. But I would not think that "focus firing" on the biggest threat (the wizard) is that obvious. Who would you attack first - a weak looking dude in robes whos avoiding contact with you, or the big, strong guy with a dangerious weapon, who is obviously going to hurt you?

Well, keep in mind that they live in a world with wizards. They know perfectly well that there have been entire cities destroyed with a gesture, and that the people who destroy cities with a gesture usually wear pointy hats and don't throw many punches.

Random Hero: I'm not sure that a recreational activity is an adequate example.

Not to mention that goblins specifically are going to want to keep their distance from anyone who is a melee powerhouse, and circle around to tear apart the less-armored enemies.

[Solaris]

Random Hero: I'm not sure that a recreational activity is an adequate example.

I've been involved with battles both recreational and less so, with both modern-day and medieval technologies. I'd say it's perfectly adequate.