Why is every creature with Int > 10 a tactical genius?

[Zanos]

This is a sentiment I've seen pretty frequently on the forums that I generally disagree with. It starts that someone complains a DM is playing their monsters too hard for the party to deal with, and other folks argue back that the DM is just playing the monsters to their intelligence scores.

Now, for some creatures, this is justified. A Balor is a general of hells armies, and should have experience with tactical combat. But for a large majority of creatures it just doesn't make sense that it's a tactical genius because it has a positive intelligence modifier. If anything, I'd imagine the rush of battle would make many creatures less apt to use perfect tactics based on careful logic and consideration. I shouldn't even need to mention this last bit, but you can also be smart and not actually know anything about precise combat.

I would definitely peg a creature with high intelligence to be better at coming up with a long term strategy for more prolonged engagements or even a war strategy, or setting up defenses in advanced of an expected attack, but it frankly seems ridiculous that being halfway clever gives you the ability to make 100% optimal choices in thirty seconds battles.

In many cases this just seems to be an excuse for the DM to play at a level higher than the players are, and that the players need to get better at the game. I've never considered D&D to be a "DM vs Players" sort of game.

[A Tad Insane]

I have a feeling some kobolds just left you tuckered out, but can you please give an example of what you're talking about?

[MadGreenSon]

This is a sentiment I've seen pretty frequently on the forums that I generally disagree with. It starts that someone complains a DM is playing their monsters too hard for the party to deal with, and other folks argue back that the DM is just playing the monsters to their intelligence scores.


It's definitely a very important distinction. Playing NPCs/monsters to their level of intelligence/experience and making everyone a super genius mastermind are two very different things.

Take Goblins, for instance. Not terribly dumb or anything, but hardly a race of geniuses. They do have a bare few advantages they can use (small size for sneakiness, numbers for swarming tactics) but if they start losing (and they will, and they're used to it by now), it is entirely appropriate for them to just run. Not start pulling out Xanatos Speed Chess or something.


Now, for some creatures, this is justified. A Balor is a general of hells armies, and should have experience with tactical combat. But for a large majority of creatures it just doesn't make sense that it's a tactical genius because it has a positive intelligence modifier. If anything, I'd imagine the rush of battle would make many creatures less apt to use perfect tactics based on careful logic and consideration. I shouldn't even need to mention this last bit, but you can also be smart and not actually know anything about precise combat.


Balors can be fun that way, as Chaotic Evil types, they're likely to be unorthodox, being bad tempered Chaotic Evil types they're also likely to get caught up in the moment if things get exciting.

It's the Pit Fiend Generals you need to be wary of.


I would definitely peg a creature with high intelligence to be better at coming up with a long term strategy for more prolonged engagements or even a war strategy, or setting up defenses in advanced of an expected attack, but it frankly seems ridiculous that being halfway clever gives you the ability to make 100% optimal choices in thirty seconds battles.

In many cases this just seems to be an excuse for the DM to play at a level higher than the players are, and that the players need to get better at the game. I've never considered D&D to be a "DM vs Players" sort of game.

Full agreement here. I tend not to play creatures as outright stupid unless they actually are outright stupid. But I save the tactical genius stuff for when it makes sense.

[Gavinfoxx]

Does something with Int 12 have Knowledge History trained and a decent Will save? If yes, it knows tactics and won't panic under pressure.

[Ziegander]

Does something with Int 12 have Knowledge History trained and a decent Will save? If yes, it knows tactics and won't panic under pressure.

And if no...

[Tohsaka Rin]

If no, then the players need to recognise that the might just have made a really stupid move, tactically, and made themselves a huge target.

Sometimes it happens. Sometimes we ALL do something that should work just fine, because we're the hero, darnit.

...Sometimes, though, you're not the hero. Sometimes you've just gone and made the one move that turned you into the chump.

We've all been there. Sometimes, you just need to own up to it.

[Twilightwyrm]

Does something with Int 12 have Knowledge History trained and a decent Will save? If yes, it knows tactics and won't panic under pressure.

How many creatures in the MM have a 12 Int, extensive ranks in Knowledge (History), and a high Will save?

[Averis Vol]

Probably because theres a serious issue on the 'grounds with being too easy on your players. Many people think, "well I'm a supposedly normal intelligence person, so anything I can think of is fair game," but don't take into account that they are a god who can look at everything with a 100% objectivity and make choices with foreknowledge the enemy doesn't have.

I have a small problem with it myself, because I take the party composition into account before I make any encounter, so they always fight things that are tactically and defensively stacked against them from the start. For instance I know my group is really combat heavy, so a lot of times I throw in traps that put them into positions they can't fight out of (drop them into pits, force them to take objectives rather than kill enemies, put in enemies immune to specific types of attacks, those things.)

I think the main things DM's need to realize is that they have a lot more information than the NPC's they play do, so saying " I came up with this so it's completely reasonable," doesn't really stand well as an argument. There's also they idea that if you have a lot of training, you may know how to attack or defend against certain things, but when you are in a dangerous situation like combat, most people, even veterans in warfare, revert to basic primal battle tactics when their life is in danger, which is why people are more likely to revert to bashing with their weapon rather then making methodical cuts thrusts and parries.

[Socratov]

ehm, I think intelligence is hardly a stat to use on a horizon of 6 rounds of battle (about 36 seconds), I think wisdom is far better in that respect. We are talking splitsecond decisions and reacting on what the enemy offers you, especially if you are in the thick of it (more sensory input -> more pressure -> less frontal lobe, more reptilic brain). At the point where everything is seeming to happen at once, common sense and reflexes are way quicker then calmly evaluation your options and devising a strategy.

That said, everyone who sets out to do battle probably has a combat routine or mental flowchart. A certain set of options/choices/actions mentally prepared is very good to have and intelligence should improve that (which is why ToB is such a great book if you want to go for realism, despite people calling it DnD 3.weaboo).

But then again, I'm a bit weird about abilites and what they should govern since I believe that a common sense check should be governed by wisdom as well...

[Gavinfoxx]

How many creatures in the MM have a 12 Int, extensive ranks in Knowledge (History), and a high Will save?

At least one rank. Or one-half rank. Not extensive.

[Ziegander]

At least one rank. Or one-half rank. Not extensive.

Uh-huh, and how many creatures in the MM have even half a rank in Knowledge (History)?

[Gavinfoxx]

...WHY THE HELL don't Hobgoblins have that? They are freaking Romans!

DAMN YOU WOTC!

[Twilightwyrm]

At least one rank. Or one-half rank. Not extensive.
Most any random person that has had any exposure to any history class is going to have 1/2-1 or more ranks in Knowledge (History). How many of these people would you expect to have a good sense of combat tactics? Knowledge (History) only encompasses military tactics to a very secondary extant (Because D&D doesn't have Knowledge (Tactics), unless you are in Rokugan). It primarily encompasses History. So no, at least one rank means little to nothing. General comprehensive training is, btw, categorized as 4 or more ranks by the PBH.

[Twilightwyrm]

...WHY THE HELL don't Hobgoblins have that? They are freaking Romans!

DAMN YOU WOTC!

I think this would be a good enough case for an exception to be made. Hobgoblins have a very Spartan lifestyle, and are constantly training for war. Even if your average Hobgoblin doesn't have any ranks in Knowledge (History), their general culture would tend to dictate that your average hobgoblin unit will know to employ certain tactics in certain circumstances, even if they don't know exactly why they work.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Most any random person that has had any exposure to any history class is going to have 1/2-1 or more ranks in Knowledge (History). How many of these people would you expect to have a good sense of combat tactics? Knowledge (History) only encompasses military tactics to a very secondary extant (Because D&D doesn't have Knowledge (Tactics), unless you are in Rokugan). It primarily encompasses History. So no, at least one rank means little to nothing. General comprehensive training is, btw, categorized as 4 or more ranks by the PBH.

And for that matter, I wouldn't trust my history professor to command an army, even though he's probably got more than 1 or even 4 ranks in Knowledge: History.

[Gavinfoxx]

And for that matter, I wouldn't trust my history professor to command an army, even though he's probably got more than 1 or even 4 ranks in Knowledge: History.

Uhhhh...

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3065.0

Read thaaat!

[mabriss lethe]

I've pulled a trick fairly often as a DM that works pretty well for these situations.

For any given encounter, I'll occasionally roll either Int or Wis, whichever seems more appropriate to the given situation. If the monster or NPC rolls well, he'll do something clever (examples might be: Take out the wounded party member/weakest link, use a spell that's particularly nasty for the situation) if he rolls poorly, he gets pressured into making a mistake (either moving through threatened spaces, picking a less appropriate spell than another, engaging an opponent instead of retreating/healing, things like that.)

Furthering that, I give some (but definitely not all) caster NPCs a bonus floating spell slot/spell known. I haven't prepared or chosen it in advance, but will assign it in mid-combat. What spell do they get? That depends on one of those Int/wis rolls. A really good roll might be a showstopper at one of their highest levels, a poor roll might be a significantly sub-par spell at a lower level.

[Coidzor]

It's not so much tactical genius as NPCs and PCs alike benefiting from perfect ability to measure distances in space and being able to instinctively understand things like flanking and where they need to be in order to benefit from their allies on the other end of another creature. And what area will be covered when they throw their fireballs.


And for that matter, I wouldn't trust my history professor to command an army, even though he's probably got more than 1 or even 4 ranks in Knowledge: History.

That does rather represent the dangers of trying to translate from real life to D&D.

Since in D&D it represents knowledge of Wars and Warfare.


Uhhhh...

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3065.0

Read thaaat!

Alternate Source. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9963.0)

[Gavinfoxx]

<snip>

I have been shaaamed!

[squiggit]

What's "too smart" though? Because half the time I see this complaint it's basically whenever a group of orcs doesn't charge blindly into a narrow, trapped hallway.

Plus Int is often used to reflect education as much as anything else, so even an unintelligent creature could still be clever and cautious.

[Coidzor]

I have been shaaamed!

Well, they do go on about the BG site going down at some point, so I try to link to the Minmaxboards stuff when possible. Took me forever and some convoluted search terms to find the minmaxboards reposts of several of those threads though...x.x

[Zweisteine]

There's a difference between "tactical genius" and "not stupid."

Take goblins or kobolds, for example. The default tactics many people assume such species will use is to hide, then charge as soon as they can.

Intelligence 10 is enough to recognize that that isn't the best idea when it comes to strategy. Goblins, Kobolds, and basic humans are smart enough to conjure better strategies than that. It doesn't take training to know that it's a good idea to maneuver into a flank, or to withdraw and use a bow when wounded, or to use tanks to defend the snipers.

The real question, I think, is this: At what point does "using complex strategies" become "using more startegies than you should be able to think of?"

And remember this: One tactical genius in a group is enough to give an entire group a good strategy. Even if the leader of the kobold colony isn't in the raiding party, he's taught them something about how to fight.

[zlefin]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, I don't see THAT much of it myself.
Some of it is people are used to videogames with just plain dumb monsters. Rather than people who, while not brilliant, are at least used to fighting and could be expected to have the acumen of people whose lives feature a lot of fighting.
Remember - a lot of these groups in d&d live as hunters, and if you live as a hunter there's a lot of basic tactics you'd know.
A lot of things are common basic tactics that just aren't used much by people who don't fight for a living.

[Taveena]

Wouldn't Martial Lore be the stat to use for military tactics? I know it's used for military history.

[Thurbane]

On the other hand, how many times have you seen Grud the Half-Orc PC with 6 Int pull off brilliant tactical moves? It's not only DM run monsters that are guilty of this.

[squiggit]

Wouldn't Martial Lore be the stat to use for military tactics? I know it's used for military history.

Er... No. Martial Lore is Spellcraft for Initiators.

[Cerlis]

anything with low intelligence can understand concepts like

"run away when there is danger"

"Pull this lever when bad guys are over there"
and

"do what the smart guy says"

[Keneth]

Define "tactical genius". If anything, I've only ever seen monsters being underplayed.

Not that Intelligence has much to do with combat tactics. Even mindless creatures know how to fight to their strengths if they're predatory.

[Invader]

This seems like a pretty big generalization and to be honest I've never really seen it as a huge problem.

Personally I've had more experience with PC's treating animal companions and summoned creatures as Sun Tzu reincarnate.

[Abithrios]

Personally, I think that tactical abilities of enemies should be used as another way to tune the difficulty of encounters. As long as the enemy has at least about 3 intelligence, play it at whatever level makes it most fun for the players.

Enemies too weak? They have a flash of insight aids their tactics.

Enemies too strong? Maybe these guys slept through their "surviving combat" and "inflicting casualties" classes.

It would not be fun for a low op group to be confronted with a dragon that only strafes with a breath weapon that they cannot resist, always ends its turns on the other side of an obstacle, has really good defenses while in sight, is way too fast to outrun, and has too good of senses to hide from, despite that being perfectly realistic dragon behavior.

Against a low op party, it would be better if the DM hits a few PCs with a breath weapon, lands, and hits several people each round with natural attacks, mostly the fighter, not really focussing anyone down. Do not use spells effectively (even mage armor + shield makes a dragon hard to hit with a sword).

The first dragon murders the party. The second dragon is dumb enough to make a fun first encounter with dragons, introducing the players gently to some of their abilities, but without crushing their will to play.


Wouldn't Martial Lore be the stat to use for military tactics? I know it's used for military history.

As written, martial lore only interacts with ToB. Boring. In my game, my DM let's me use it to size up the martial training of NPCs. Knowledge of tactics would be another good use. Note that if its uses are expanded, then most or all high BAB classes should have it on their lists, plus some others (eg monk).


Uhhhh...

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3065.0

Read thaaat!

Sorry, but that is a rather lengthy read. If you have a specific point you would like to make about it, then I invite you to please do so.


...WHY THE HELL don't Hobgoblins have that? They are freaking Romans!

DAMN YOU WOTC!

An extended version of the martial lore skill would probably be more appropriate, even if it did not exist when the Monster Manual came out. I doubt hobgoblins care much about past peoples' food, music, art, trade, clothing, speech, etc. I would guess they would mostly care about their wars and military styles.

Being an expert on those other things is included in knowing about history, but would not help you at all in a fight. In general, I think knowledge(history) is the closest you get in core to knowledge of tactics (other than BAB perhaps), but it does not seem like a good match to me.

[MadGreenSon]

A good first encounter with dragons?

A good first encounter with dragons would be the PCs getting into a hairy fight with local monsters (a hairy fight, not one they're going to lose, per se.), getting an assist from a young copper dragon Bard who then invites them to share stories and refreshments while giving them some tips about the area.

A bad encounter with a dragon is assaulting a powerful, intelligent creature in it's home without being really sure that they are ready to take on an arcane juggernaut with vast natural abilities and the time to develop powerful skills and recruit plenty of fanatical minions.

60-70% of all dragon encounters that happen in games I run, the PCs don't even realize that they've encountered a dragon until afterward.

But as I said earlier, I'm pro-dragon.:smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

Sorry, but that is a rather lengthy read. If you have a specific point you would like to make about it, then I invite you to please do so.

The most pertinent point is the argument demonstrating how Knowledge: History would cover a knowledge of tactics and "strategery," I believe.


Knowledge

Knowledge skills represent your, well, knowledge of "some body of lore, possible an academic or even scientific discipline." (PHB 78) Basically, they're how much you know about a topic. And of course, informed decision making is important if you want to make correct decisions. Since most PCs, when leading, are of a more military bent, I'm going to focus on the skills that deal with that, but of course for other kinds of leadership, other skills are needed. Knowledge skills, first of all, help you identify the traits and weaknesses of possible opponents (and allies). Knowing the difference between an Ogre Mage and a Troll would be very important for tactical decision making when facing one of those creatures, as the tactics to use against one are very different from the tactics best used against the other. Nearly all knowledge skills are useful in this respect (though not quite all).

And then you've got good ole' Knowledge History. This represents "Wars" (PHB 78). Now, some may say "oh, that's just historical wars" but this is not in fact true. It's just "Wars." Note that other Knowledges similarly have topics in them that don't quite fit their names. Knowledge Dungeoneering covers Aberrations, including those not normally found in dungeons. Knowledge Local covers humanoids, including knowledge of humanoids who are not from your local area. Knowledge Religion covers undead, including undead who are not created by Clerics and who are not religeous. And Knowledge History, following the same pattern, covers your knowledge of Wars, not just ones in ancient history. So, a character with a great deal of ranks in Knowledge History knows a great deal about Wars. Just as someone with a lot of Knowledge Nature might know the best way to attack a Troll or how fierce a particular sort of Dire Animal is, someone with a lot of Knowledge History might know that the best way to attack a archers located in a fortified position or how to use divide and conquer tactics effectively.

And of course we've got page 95 of HoB, which states "a character with knowledge (history) will be well versed in military history and know something of military tactics used in past wars." It then refers to the guidelines on page 70 for dealing with Strategic Advantages, but since PCs are rarely in charge of such large scale units, that's not really my focus here. Having any ranks at all makes you "know something of military tactics used in past wars." Clearly, then "military tactics" is one of the things Knowledge History covers, so a character with ranks in the skill knows about military tactics. Now, some might say "hey, it said past wars!" Yes, that's true... but the past is everything other than the future (and that tiny little bit called the present), so really this part simply means that it's a knowledge skill, not a future divination. Obviously, you can only know about stuff that's actually happened. The point is, "military tactics" is part of what you know about if you have ranks in Knowledge History, and if you've got a lot of ranks in the skill, then among other things you know a lot about military tactics, and if you have no ranks, you cannot answer even basic questions about military tactics (PHB 78, the DC is 15 for that, and you can't make untrained checks with a DC higher than 10 with any Knowledge skill). Note that Knowledge History is the only knowledge skill to be specially called out in the section of Heroes of Battle dedicated to what skills are useful in battle, though the Strategic Advantage section does mention all of them equally. This, in my mind, makes it somewhat special for military campaigns... it's the only skill to be called out twice like that.

Something that will also come up: yes, in real life it's possible to know about military tactics and wars without knowing about the rest of history. That's fine. But in D&D, these things are innately connected. If you know about Fey, you also know about weather. If you know about gods and goddesses, you also know about undead. And if you know about wars and military tactics, then you also know about the founding dates of cities and the like. It's just an inhearent[sic] generalization in a game that didn't want to have hundreds of knowledge skills (something I for one appreciate).

So, it might be asked, how do you use this knowledge, mechanically? Well, the answer is right there on page 78, under "Check." Let's say your character is supposed to be a veteran soldier, so you dutifully put 10 ranks into Knowledge History, representing the fact that your soldier knows a great deal about wars and military tactics. You find yourself looking down into a narrow pass in the mountains where you see three or four soldiers standing around what looks to be a wagon loaded with weapons, and the axle is broken. One of the soldiers is fixing the axle. You say, "I think we'll go take out those soldiers and steal the weapons!" The DM subtly rolls a Knowledge (History) check for you, using a DC based on the guidelines on page 78 of the PHB (or page 64 of the PHB, there are two sets of guidelines available). He decides that it's a pretty basic bit of knowledge that this is a classic ambush scenario, so it's DC 15 to recognize that. He rolls the die, and gets a 20. So he says "you recognize that this looks like a standard ambush often used against enemy raiders." Suddenly you stop, and decide it's wise to check out that ridge above the wagon first, where there might be enemy soldiers lurking.

Or, the inverse. Barbarian raiders and bandits have been stealing from local caravans. The player might ask "what's a standard tactic for dealing with this situation?" And the DM could then roll the dice and say "usually, you'd create a decoy caravan that's broken down somewhere to draw them out, then spring an ambush." Of course, the exact DC is determined by the DM, but there are guidelines on pages 64 and 78 of the PHB for what exactly that DC might be.

As always, this is not saying you absolutely need Knowledge History to utilize tactics. Rather, someone with a strong knowledge of existing military tactics will generally make better tactical decisions due to simply being appropriately trained than someone who has no such knowledge. If you play a character who always has the exact right tactic for the combat situation and is constantly coming up with clever tactics, and yet has low intelligence and no ranks in the skill, that's metagaming, just as playing a character with Int 6 being very clever is metagaming.

Characters with all knowledge skills as class skills and strong Int synergy, such as Wizards, Archivists, and Factotums will be good in this area. Special note goes to Archivists, due to having special class skills related to knowledge combined with the ability to cast spells like Divine Insight and Lore of the Gods. Classes with weak Int synergy and no knowledge skills as class skills, such as Fighters and Barbarians, are poor in this area.

Emphasis added.

[icefractal]

Eh, I feel like monsters don't need to be all that smart to use whatever tactics the DM came up with. I'd say it's a combination of Int and Wis. So if a monster has Int 10, Wis 10, they're average - which means, they're probably on the same level as the DM. And the DM probably has a lot less experience with battle - although that may be compensated for by their knowledge of the rules.

So unless the DM is a genius and an experienced military tactician, then it's probably fair game using whatever tactics they can think of for any monsters of average+ mental abilities. And even for dumber monsters - Goblins are actually just half a point below average. Orcs are a bit dumber, but still only 2.5 below. So fine, use your second-best tactics, that doesn't mean they have to act like complete imbeciles.

I mean, I've seriously seen people complain about stuff like "using cover" and "moving where the PCs can't easily mow them all down in one round". Animals can do that. If anyone can't handle that kind of stuff, then it's not a realism problem, it's that the players want a game without tactics at all. Which is fine, if the whole group feels that way, and otherwise it's something to talk about. But let's not pretend that "monster are complete dumbasses" is the "realistic" way to do things.

[ericgrau]

I think the monsters should know what they're doing in whatever their specialty, probably a lot better than the player, even under pressure. Heck, especially under pressure. It's what they practice. A lot of players aren't sure what to do even after a minute and it would be nice to have time to look something up. Even wolves automatically circle around and begin flanking and tripping. And practically everything sneaks up and ambushes. If anything that aspect tends to be way underplayed.

Where they should be limited is anything outside of their specialty, then it probably falls under meta gaming to use that information and tactics. If it instead comes from you knowing everything in the game books, it might be the wrong kind of tactics.

Really it isn't a matter of int because it works even at int 2. You should be good at what you do. The higher int may only give you access to more information and tricks outside of your specialty.

[The Insanity]

Depends entirely on the individual (or group of) NPC(s)/monster(s), rarely on Intelligence. A non-intelligent character can be a great tactician simply because he studied strategy.
Also employing tactics on the battlefield is more a function of Wisdom supported by Intelligence, at least for someone who's not actually trained in strategy, because no amount of smarts will help you if you don't even know what is going on around you.

[RegalKain]

RAW, Int governs tactics because it governs the Knowledge skill associated with Tactics, as seen in the links other provided, but let's face it, RAW almost never makes sense.

RAI Wis is used to determine tactical knowledge and knowhow, as seen for no better reason then Wolves have an Int score of 2, but a Wis score of 12, and wolves are amazing pack hunters, and they know how to employ basic tactics of surround and engage, tripping etc. But that's RAI and looking at monster stats, it's most easy to do this with animals that we have some real world knowledge of (Such as wolves or Lions or any other animal we can actually find in our world.) because it's not a question of "well how do YOU KNOW they act like that?" unless the animals in D&D are based nothing on their real-world counterparts.

That said, I'm one of those DMs that my players have said "They wouldn't do that, that's to advanced" where I kindly show them the entry and the fact monster X has an int of 14, and a wis of 12 or something like that. I consider myself a vaguely intelligent person, I don't have an Int of 14 though, closer to a 12 on a good day =p . So yes I go under the rule of "If I can think it, so can they" that said, people who say "Well they wouldn't know about flanking, or this or that" Sure they would, anyone who has fought before knows it's easier to win if the opponent can't focus on everyone at once, or if they are surrounded, even animals understand that. As such people who are intelligent with common sense, can easily surround a person because they know it works better.

Now, what I have issue with, is when DMs, or players Meta spell knowledge they don't have. If I am using goblins, and none of them have Spellcraft (Sometimes I'll roll to see if they've encountered wizards before.) they shouldn't spread out in such a fashion that you can't hit more then one of them with a fireball at any given time, without also hitting teammates, there's a difference between tactical thought in battle, and meta. Meta is them knowing something it's not probable they know. Basic battle knowledge is something every creature in D&D knows, they live through it on a day to day basis, the D&D world on average has more fighting then Earth could dream of.

I also love how players will say "HEY THAT'S NOT FAIR no way they are that smart" Then carefully calculate between one another, where they have to stand to ensure Bob the Barbarian isn't hit by Joe the Wizard's fireball, while still leaving optimal room for Bob to go full hulk smash on people. Such double-standards.

[Worira]

What's "too smart" though? Because half the time I see this complaint it's basically whenever a group of orcs doesn't charge blindly into a narrow, trapped hallway.

Plus Int is often used to reflect education as much as anything else, so even an unintelligent creature could still be clever and cautious.

Orcs aren't a very good example, though, because they have a penalty to Wis as well as to Int. In fact, the basic orc warrior has a Wis of 7, even lower than their Int. So unless we're talking about giant exposed spinning blades or something, a group of orcs might well be dumb enough to charge into a narrow trapped hallway, because hey, they're bigger than what's on the other side, so they're sure to win.


Read thaaat!


I have been shaaamed!

I think your 'A' key is broken, dude. Either that or you're a weresheep.

[Gavinfoxx]

Baaa? I'm not a waaaresheep! Honest!

[Tengu_temp]

It's a combination of many people treating Tucker's Kobolds as a holy cow that should be mindlessly worshipped without question, and many DMs preferring to have their genitals gnawed off by an angry badger than getting caught being (GASP!) too light on their players.

[Mutazoia]

hmmm.....if you think a creature has to have tactical training to be effective on the battle field then THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4G4a-Atywo) should be impossible

Any creature, or group thereof, that hunt's as it's primary source of food, that can collaborate with each other, that can learn to adapt current methods to new situations, can be "tactical geniuses" on the battlefield.

If a pack of wolves can use flanking, so can a pack of goblins.

[PaucaTerrorem]

One time a DM had Carrion Crawlers making 5' steps at me so as not to provoke.

[jedipotter]

This is a sentiment I've seen pretty frequently on the forums that I generally disagree with. It starts that someone complains a DM is playing their monsters too hard for the party to deal with, and other folks argue back that the DM is just playing the monsters to their intelligence scores.


Few DM's are tactical genesis, but anything other then where the bad guys and good guys stand in a flat area a couple feet from each other and do a video game ''Lets Fight!'', is too much for some.

It does not take much intelligence to be smart. I lot of animals are tactical genesis's, but they can do some great things.

[skyth]

So if a monster has Int 10, Wis 10, they're average - which means, they're probably on the same level as the DM.

Ummm...No. Not that likely. D&D (Especially DM's) has been the providence of Nerds, et al...Generally smarter than average people. Therein lies the rub. An Int 10 monster is likely dumber than the DM (And the players).

Of course, the real problem is that you have different expecations as to what players and the DM want to get out of the game whenever you have this argument crop up.

[HammeredWharf]

General intelligence isn't the same as combat smarts. For example...


Orcs aren't a very good example, though, because they have a penalty to Wis as well as to Int. In fact, the basic orc warrior has a Wis of 7, even lower than their Int. So unless we're talking about giant exposed spinning blades or something, a group of orcs might well be dumb enough to charge into a narrow trapped hallway, because hey, they're bigger than what's on the other side, so they're sure to win.

Orc raiders may have 8 int and 7 wis, but fighting is what they live for. They do it all day, every day, when they're not pillaging or getting drunk. Combat is their area of expertize, so sure, they're not likely to run into a trapped corridor. Besides, an orc raiding party is very likely to have a scout with them, aka someone who can hide, spot and disarm traps. That could be a scout, a rogue or a trapkiller barbarian. At any rate, them avoiding a place that would obviously disadvantage them is quite likely.

[Tengu_temp]

Ummm...No. Not that likely. D&D (Especially DM's) has been the providence of Nerds, et al...Generally smarter than average people. Therein lies the rub. An Int 10 monster is likely dumber than the DM (And the players).

From my experience, nerds tend to massively overestimate their mental capacity. I'd say that while nerds have on average slightly higher intelligence than normal people, their average wisdom is also noticably lower. And let's not even start on charisma.

What makes the difference is education. Most nerds come from well-educated backgrounds, and average modern age education is already leaps and bounds above average fantasy world education.

[icefractal]

Ummm...No. Not that likely. D&D (Especially DM's) has been the providence of Nerds, et al...Generally smarter than average people. Therein lies the rub. An Int 10 monster is likely dumber than the DM (And the players).I'm just going to leave this here. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2079) While some smart people are nerds, being a nerd doesn't automatically make you smarter. Even education is a matter of having more skills, not a higher base Intelligence.

But, let's even say you're right, nerds are smarter because you say they are. But I don't think anyone's said they're also more wise, so we're going to put an 'average' one at Int 12, Wis 10. That's a +1 modifier over an Int 10, Wis 10 monster. Now, what would be the circumstance modifier for actually have been in battle, repeatedly? I'm going to say - at least +2. So - advantage, team monster. And that's for a totally average monster. A surprising number are above that.

[skyth]

I'm just going to leave this here. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2079) While some smart people are nerds, being a nerd doesn't automatically make you smarter. Even education is a matter of having more skills, not a higher base Intelligence.

Likely, most DM's would have a higher tactical knowledge and ability than your 'average' monster. Especially concerning how things work in the game. Add in omnicience...And the monsters that use higher level tactics are likely being played above their actual intelligence level.

[jedipotter]

What makes the difference is education. Most nerds come from well-educated backgrounds, and average modern age education is already leaps and bounds above average fantasy world education.

Don't forget about expereince and good old common sense. Nerds, like a lot of people have little common sense. Common sense is not as common as you'd think it would be.....

Nerds can be great with game rules "I move unit seven to square B12 to gain a plus one to attack!'' but not so great with ''I don't have my character run across hundred feet of open ground in clear view of twenty five eneny archers''.

[Coidzor]

One time a DM had Carrion Crawlers making 5' steps at me so as not to provoke.

That's less tactical genius and more a concession to the nature of the game, I'd say. Like in Erfworld. And why would a creature do more than a 5' step when it's 5' out of melee range anyway?

And really, if it was instead making 5' steps when more than 5' out of reach of your character that should have merely meant it died without having as much impact on the fight due to having more rounds where you could attack it while it was unable to attack you. :smallconfused:

[mephnick]

From my experience, nerds tend to massively overestimate their mental capacity.

That's the understatement of the year.

[Azoth]

I think it comes from the varied notion on what complex tactics or being a "genius tactician" are. For someone like me who has grown up in a military family and enjoys reading war strategy books some things that seem simple are actually rather complex. To others more skilled and versed than I am some things I consider complex are nothing.

So it can be a tough call when applying it to your monsters. Even a basic tactic like a pincer strike or L ambush formation. How intelligent does a monster have to be to make use of these tactics? Or the basic tactic of baiting the enemy to chase you into a box shaped recess between cliffs/hills so your main archer force can pincushion them safely while your heavy armor troops wade in to seal the exit?

To me all of those tactics can be done by any creature with an Int greater than 6 that have a fluff of being a warlike culture, such as Orcs. They are basic military strategy in my mind.

What about putting fullplate + Tower shield as an outer wall using Total Defense and Combat Expertise to the full and having Glaive trippers right behind them to trip and stab with impunity against anything non AoE.

[Eldariel]

Honestly, basic tactics =/= strategic genius. Few assumptions:
1a) Most animals, monstrous humanoids, primitive humanoids and such live very martial lives. The wilderness isn't unwelcoming just to humanoids. There's a reason basically every real life animal has a hereditary plan for combat; either some way to avoid it (camouflage, climbing, burrowing, speed), some way to drive off predators (herd behavior, tusks, etc.) or actual battle strategy.

That's because mother nature isn't kind. You have to fight for food and survival. Only agriculture or magic, something most of these creatures will never enjoy, will truly provide an alternative for basic sustenance, and even there having to survive the threats you run into in a D&D world (manyfold more fatal than the real world) means combat ability has to be heavily valued. Same applies to tribal creatures and tribes; a large number of the tribe members have to be warriors and they have to be not only capable of fighting, but also armed with strategy at least the level of a wolfpack.

Hell, that's a good level to look at; if creatures that use combat regularly at any point of their lives fight dumber than wolves (Int 2 creatures), something is wrong. So at least wolfpack level for all humanoids living in tribes of any sort - and solitary hunter type creatures need to be all the more adept at both, hunting smart and locating & avoiding creatures they can't fight (and by extension, gauging what they can and can't kill). Magical Beasts are often extremely physical much like animals so they should mostly have a robust combat code for multiple different opponents available in their heritage.

1b) Evil outsiders (and indeed, outsiders in general), aberrations and such are quite possibly even more martial, and certainly quite intelligent as a rule. Evil outsiders have their blood war, wars against good, infighting, etc. They quite live combat and on a tactical scale, even a lowly Imp should probably be very capable of pulling off complex plans (indeed, due to their stature they kind of rely on that).

Aberrations tend to mesh terribly poorly with most surrounding creatures so they too tend to lead lives of strife. While alien, all these creatures certainly should know how to kill, how to not die (if that's in their agenda) and how to make what they wish done happen; what terrain favors them and what does not.

2) Creatures that need to fight for survival need to develop tactics that suit themselves. A Goblinoid tribe won't survive in the wilderness if they can't deal with the monstrous vermins, the occasional magical beast, the local wildlife and other wild tribes.

It's not even like they're a specifically martial race like Hobgoblins; just all kinds of Goblinoids (disregarding the Goblin civilizations you choose to write) basically lack the kind of civilization that would allow the majority to enjoy peaceful life which in turn leads to combat tactics and combat strategy suited for their stature being something they need to learn from a young age. Sure, normal Goblins are like to bend a knee if that can save them making them easy servants to throw for giants or dragons or outsiders or whatever, but e.g. raiding is often a part of Goblin life, and on the other hand e.g. a Monstrous Spider isn't going to care about your servitude.


This isn't really related to intelligence, it's more of a survival of the fittest-sort of thingy. Races that survive need to be able to fend for themselves in ways that suit them; Goblins use their overwhelming numbers, cavernous settlements and vast reproduction rate, giants use their imposing stature, physical strength and such, etc. but they all need to have basic understanding of in what kinds of terrains they can fight what and what types of options they have available when they face something bigger than them (since in D&D World, a rule of thumb is there's always something bigger).

Intelligence would then determine the tools they have available (e.g. complex plans involving traps would seem logical for more intelligent creatures or creatures particularly inclined that way such as Kobolds) and how much they can improvise and react to unexpected adversity or new types of opponents but basically everything with an Int-score should have robust understanding of how to maximize its racial strengths, how to fight what it can fight and escape what it doesn't (tho of course, not all creatures escape; some would always fight a doomed fight to the death).


Short: I find anything with an Int-score above 1 should use its racial strengths and battle style suited for its race. Higher Int is more versatile and adaptable and has more options but even the dumbest of intelligent creatures has some sort of a plan of how to deal with someone trying to kill you/r race.

Classes are harder to utilize efficiently (since learned varied skills aren't a part of a creature's core skill set) and so require more intelligence, but I'd expect any typical class would be very well utilized within the race and the utilization level of the more rare ones would then depend on the intelligence.

[Frozen_Feet]

There's more than one skill and ability that can be used to craft tactics, really.

For example, Knowledge (History) might govern past wars and military tactics... but just as well Knowledge (Nature) governs animal pack behaviour, including predatorous animals which have quite a variety of tactics. Knowledge (Local) includes humanoids and humanoid customs... which again, would include local tactics and military factions.

Then we have Wisdom-based skills like Survival and Sense Motive. The former governs tactics for hunting (which is what wolves do when surrounding humanoids, for example), and the latter allows for anticipating your opponent's moves.

So any creature with Int or Wis above 10 should be able to utilize basic tactics and know when to run away.

[Rakaydos]

I think racial tactics should be considered default, regardless of int or wis.

Kobolds build traps and ambushes. Hobgoblins do formations and aid anothers. (and grapple checks with short sword sneak attacks) Aquatic creatures prefer to destroy the ship first so you have to fight them underwater. Dragons strafe with breath weapons unless cornered.

How WELL they do it can be up for debate, but it's what has worked in the past for them, so they'll keep doing it.

[Coidzor]

I think racial tactics should be considered default, regardless of int or wis.

Kobolds build traps and ambushes. Hobgoblins do formations and aid anothers. (and grapple checks with short sword sneak attacks) Aquatic creatures prefer to destroy the ship first so you have to fight them underwater. Dragons strafe with breath weapons unless cornered.

How WELL they do it can be up for debate, but it's what has worked in the past for them, so they'll keep doing it.

I think you're actually exhibiting elements of what's being discussed right now with these two. As far as I can tell you just invented that tidbit about Hobgoblins, and not all dragons are always going to strafe, especially Reds given their usual personality type and desire to overawe others with their physical superiority. Given hubris and other personality flaws that lead to villainy and/or villainous downfalls, even a creature that knows better might pick a less than tactically sound option or underestimate a foe's capabilities.

[Rakaydos]

I think you're actually exhibiting elements of what's being discussed right now with these two. As far as I can tell you just invented that tidbit about Hobgoblins, and not all dragons are always going to strafe, especially Reds given their usual personality type and desire to overawe others with their physical superiority. Given hubris and other personality flaws that lead to villainy and/or villainous downfalls, even a creature that knows better might pick a less than tactically sound option or underestimate a foe's capabilities.

When attacking Lakedown, did Smaug drop into the middle of the place and full attack some random pesant? Or did he use his flight and breath weapon to wreck havoc with impunity?

As for the grappling hobgoblin, it's actually a rules-conversion of the roman tactic. Press the enemy with the shieldwall so theit weapons are trapped between them, the'r companions, and the shields, and stab through gaps between shields.

[Coidzor]

When attacking Lakedown, did Smaug drop into the middle of the place and full attack some random pesant? Or did he use his flight and breath weapon to wreck havoc with impunity?

As for the grappling hobgoblin, it's actually a rules-conversion of the roman tactic. Press the enemy with the shieldwall so theit weapons are trapped between them, the'r companions, and the shields, and stab through gaps between shields.

Smaug is not a D&D Red Dragon and he was dealing with destroying an entire town rather than fighting a small group of adventurers, so what are you actually trying to accomplish with your argument here? :smalltongue:

So, not the default, but a modification for a DM's take on Hobos. At least, last I checked, Hobos are a pastiche of various martial cultures that are as much derived from a misunderstanding of the Mongolian Empire's earlier forms as any other culture, rather than direct Roman Legionnaire Expys. Maybe it's an edition issue though? :smallconfused:

[Worira]

General intelligence isn't the same as combat smarts. For example...



Orc raiders may have 8 int and 7 wis, but fighting is what they live for. They do it all day, every day, when they're not pillaging or getting drunk. Combat is their area of expertize, so sure, they're not likely to run into a trapped corridor. Besides, an orc raiding party is very likely to have a scout with them, aka someone who can hide, spot and disarm traps. That could be a scout, a rogue or a trapkiller barbarian. At any rate, them avoiding a place that would obviously disadvantage them is quite likely.

Sure, they fight a lot, but that doesn't mean they fight particularly cleverly. They're big, strong, and plentiful, which can make up for an awful lot of tactical errors.

[ben-zayb]

I'm gonna turn this question around (and this is what I thought the topic was about in the first place). Why would a PC, even those with Int and Cha < 10, be a tactical genius and a social butterfly, respectively? I've seen it here plenty of times: the Cha < 10 in PbPs, and the Int < 10 in PvPs.

[ryu]

I'm gonna turn this question around (and this is what I thought the topic was about in the first place). Why would a PC, even those with Int and Cha < 10, be a tactical genius and a social butterfly, respectively? I've seen it here plenty of times: the Cha < 10 in PbPs, and the Int < 10 in PvPs.

PCs tend to be tactical geniuses regardless of stats, because the ones who aren't tend to have rather short lives. Good luck making it to level ten without learning how to properly murderhobo.

[Yogibear41]

One time a DM had Carrion Crawlers making 5' steps at me so as not to provoke.

I would like to start my post with ^ that is completely retarded.

Now on to the topic at hand, monsters with ints of around 10 don't necessarily have to have bullet proof tactics but to say they just run in and start hitting things is incredibly unrealistic. An int of 10-11 represents an average human intelligence, the majority of people in armies around the world most likely have an int of around 10 and they are perfectly capable of following tactics/orders/commands both from their training and or commanding officers that happen to be present.

Now Granted all the monstrous humanoids running around with an int of 10 are not military trained to even a fraction of the degree that most capable military's are, however its a dangerous world out there the stupid monsters generally die, especially when talking about weaker races like goblins.

Its not logical to compare a group of average intelligence people walking around living in today's world where they do not have to constantly fight to survive, with a group of individuals who most likely have been fighting for their lives for years.

This distinction becomes even more apparent when you start talking about things which are advanced with NPC or even PC class levels.


All that being said, for alot of things my DM will roll Intelligence checks in combat to see if the enemy is smart enough to think about doing something that isn't obvious.

For example fought some bugbears the other day, to start the encounter they were smart enough to break up into 2 groups having one group distract us while a few more of them snuck around to jump us from behind, joining the combat a round or 2 after we started fighting the first few initial ones, they flank, and they withdraw when they get very low on health. But when I was basically the last person standing in our group (was only 2 of us at the time) and was getting flanked by basically 5 of them at once, and they kept failing miserably to hit me (Yay for an AC of 24 at level 4) the DM rolled Int checks for everyone to see if they were "smart" enough to do something else (luckily they weren't) managed to hold out long enough to knock 2-3 of them low enough to run away, and one guy to less than 0 but not dead for them to ask for a draw, basically to grab our wounded and go separate ways.

[icefractal]

Eh, I don't know if the Carrion Crawler example is actually bad. I mean, those are Vermin right? Like a spider? Trying watching a spider when a larger than normal insect lands in its web sometime. It approaches quite cautiously, definitely trying to avoid any attack. A lot of predators are actually fairly cautious, because getting injured means not being able to catch prey means starving to death.

[ryu]

Eh, I don't know if the Carrion Crawler example is actually bad. I mean, those are Vermin right? Like a spider? Trying watching a spider when a larger than normal insect lands in its web sometime. It approaches quite cautiously, definitely trying to avoid any attack. A lot of predators are actually fairly cautious, because getting injured means not being able to catch prey means starving to death.

And that's assuming no infections are going to be in play, that no predators will be attracted to the scent of blood, or any number of other nasty little tricks nature throws at people. That all goes double in Australia by the way.

[Captainspork]

Yea...I mean the OP may need to clarify what "tactical genius" means here. Is a group of goblins setting an ambush considered tactical genius? :smallconfused:

I'm not sure I totally agree with the idea that intelligence necessarily = combat tactics. Take an animal like the wolf, who hunts in a very organized pack. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/wolf.htm): "A favorite tactic is to send a few individuals against the foe’s front while the rest of the pack circles and attacks from the flanks or rear."

They have an intelligence score of 2, yet this seems reasonable to most people who know what a wolf is and how they act in the wild. Is it really that unreasonable to say that a group of goblins could attempt the same tactics?

[jedipotter]

Yea...I mean the OP may need to clarify what "tactical genius" means here. Is a group of goblins setting an ambush considered tactical genius? :smallconfused:


Any time the foes do anything other then stand there and let the characters kill them?

[3WhiteFox3]

Any time the foes do anything other then stand there and let the characters kill them?

Nice strawman.

[Zanos]

The original post wasn't complaining that "oh my god my DM makes monsters use tactics at all he's a jerk boohoo." Monsters should use tactics, but they don't know everything the DM knows and they also don't have five minutes between every action to plan their next move. If your players just flatly aren't very good tacticians, you should play down to their level. You should still punish stupidity and reward creativity, but you shouldn't butcher your players because you are better at D&D than them. I have seen a lot of the sentiment going around on the forums that it is okay that DMs do this because monsters are intelligent, which I flatly disagree with. Using a monsters ability scores to justify it being better at D&D than your players is sidestepping the issue that it's poor DMing.

My post was complaining that a lot of people here think it's justifiable to run many or all of their monsters like Ender has a telepathic bond to them and that the monster knows everything the DM does. Or they miss the part in the DMG that actually says that monsters encountered using exceptional tactics or in situations that clearly favor them should have an increased CR and appropriate rewards.


I'm gonna turn this question around (and this is what I thought the topic was about in the first place). Why would a PC, even those with Int and Cha < 10, be a tactical genius and a social butterfly, respectively? I've seen it here plenty of times: the Cha < 10 in PbPs, and the Int < 10 in PvPs.

This is actually a good point I don't have a solid response to. I think mainly it falls into my overarching opinion that your ability to use tactics in combat shouldn't be based on any stat.

Having a character with dumpster level Cha and Int being, well, Charismatic or Intelligent is just poor roleplaying. Policing characters mental stats and their characters personality is a sore subject with most people, but you better have a damn good reason that your character that can't form a coherent thought is leading armies. I would keep in mind though that having an 8 in a stat isn't necessarily awful, it's just marginally worse than average.

[Yukitsu]

In my opinion, your typical pride of lions follows more of Sun-Tsu or Clausewits than the decades of military experience and training that led to the charge of the light brigade, or sending wave after wave of troops at opposing trenches in the world war. How your tactics are at a given time, are based more around your culture at the time than on anything else.

[Madeiner]

I play monster as intelligent as their int/wis says they are, no exceptions.
Also, it depends on the kind of games we are doing.
If the PCs know what a 5 foot step is, monsters know too, even the mindless ones.
I think rules are presented in a way to make the players know how to do things.
NPCs dont need to "know" what a 5 foot step or a withdraw action is. They just will tend to withdraw when injured because that's what you do if you want to escape, trying to cover yourself from more blows, and they are going to approach you cautiosly if they can, whatever their intelligence is.

It is also safe that every monster that doesnt employ basic tactics is dead already, because they have been killed by those that do.

If anything, d&d tactics are really shallow. There is really no point in attacking from two directions or things like that. Someone posted about a group of npcs splitting in two groups, one who engaged directly, the other who attacked from the rear appearing 2 rounds later. Now, in a real fight it would be a massacre. In d&d you waste 2 rounds and get a +2 to hit. And you could have gotten that by simply using the first round to move and flank, instead of disappearing for two.


Edit: actually, there is ONE exception. When i'm playing with new players that dont declare actions by the rules but only what they do, the npcs and monsters do the same. It leads to a different kind of game (even more enjoyable) when players AND monsters sometimes just waste a round circling each other or risking attacks of opportunity even if it makes no tactical sense, but it is way more real.