Inteligent NPC tactics

[Ethernil]

I am about to start dming for the first time. The group is consisted of supposedly experience players but their old dm had lacking understanding of english and so he used a lot of bad homebrew to fill in the blanks, so i ,after having read most books, am slowly teaching them the more complex rules such as action economy and grapling/charging etc.

What i am wondering is how people handle their own monsters or npcs. I mean beasts probably circle their pray and attack but would it be reasonable to have humanoids keep a fighter or 2 in the frontline with reach weapons and archers/casters on the back or on some tree/rooftop? At what intelligence level would you consider that possible? I doubt low level orcs with <10 intelligence are major strategists.

[LudicSavant]

I am about to start dming for the first time. The group is consisted of supposedly experience players but their old dm had lacking understanding of english and so he used a lot of bad homebrew to fill in the blanks, so i ,after having read most books, am slowly teaching them the more complex rules such as action economy and grapling/charging etc.

What i am wondering is how people handle their own monsters or npcs. I mean beasts probably circle their pray and attack but would it be reasonable to have humanoids keep a fighter or 2 in the frontline with reach weapons and archers/casters on the back or on some tree/rooftop? At what intelligence level would you consider that possible? I doubt low level orcs with <10 intelligence are major strategists.

Pack animals will use strategies, and orcs ought to be smarter than animals. I mean geez, their intelligence is barely different from a human's, and a warrior culture that lasts at all is going to have picked up at least a few good tricks.

Also, you don't need a 'major strategist' to come up with an idea like "put archer in back, put tank in front." That hardly even counts as a strategy. Pretty much every medieval warrior is going to know what pikes are for.

[Darth Ultron]

What i am wondering is how people handle their own monsters or npcs. I mean beasts probably circle their pray and attack but would it be reasonable to have humanoids keep a fighter or 2 in the frontline with reach weapons and archers/casters on the back or on some tree/rooftop? At what intelligence level would you consider that possible? I doubt low level orcs with <10 intelligence are major strategists.

There are tons of nature shows that can show you exactly how animals act.

Tactics really don't need genius levels of intelligence, really even ''below average'' people can figure out tactics. So it's not a matter of intelligence, if they have any intelligence they can use tactics.

In game, most humanoids would use tactics, depending on what they want or need, based on their culture or such things. The average, savage orc does not use missile weapons at all as they like fighting in melee. The average, savage goblin always use the ''soften them up with lots and lots of missile attacks from a distance'' tactic. The average, wild elves likes the harassing arrow snipes from hundreds of feet away. But each group or culture, or sub division will be different a bit. Like the orc tribe of Skoz has every third orc a whip master, with the idea of disarming and tripping foes.

Out of game....well, you need to be careful. Even the most simple tactics that a five year old can think of can slaughter a group of PC's that are not paying attention or up to the challenge. A lot of players expect monster encounters to be like video games: the monsters show up and the words ''lets fight'' cover the screen''. Then everyone just stands there and attacks until the PCs win. Also a lot of players don't want to ''think hard'' and want to just ''relax'' and ''kill, loot, repeat''. And also, a whole lot of players lack even common sense for thing like ''you should take cover when be shot at with arrows''.

Tactics can change the game a lot, so make sure everyone likes that style of play.

[ryu]

Pack animals will use strategies, and orcs ought to be smarter than animals. I mean geez, their intelligence is barely different from a human's, and a warrior culture that lasts at all is going to have picked up at least a few good tricks.

Also, you don't need a 'major strategist' to come up with an idea like "put archer in back, put tank in front." That hardly even counts as a strategy. Pretty much every medieval warrior is going to know what pikes are for.

To put this in perspective animals regularly make active use of cover, prediction of prey movement, flanking tactics, the closing of escape routes, deliberate deception, and even complex building. Do not underestimate INT <3. There exist people in our modern world that by rights only beat that standard due to some pretty extreme teaching techniques.

[Zanos]

Asserting that someone smarter than an animal should be able to think tactically because animals have instinct is one of the worse arguments I've seen today. My intelligence is higher than a calculator, but it still adds faster than me.

Most players have an intelligence of 3 or higher, and a good portion of them aren't particularly good at strategy, after all.

On a metal level, playing enemies constantly with perfect tactics is probably going to wipe most parties and be very frustrating to fight. As DM you have perfect control over your side of the board, forming a hand, where the player side is five independent fingers that don't always agree and may not perfectly complement on another. Also, dms tend to be better tacticiasn by sheer amount of experience. I've played with a particularly cruel DM, and the success of every encounter boiled down to whether or not you were smarter than him that day. He also refused to adjust CRs for circumstantial advantages and such.

NPCs shouldn't behave stupidly, as most people know that bows are not generally melee weapons, but a group of five orc tribesmen should not all have build and feat selections that perfectly compliment each other and behave as though they've studied Art of War religiously.

[Eldariel]

Some level of basic tactics should be used by basically everything and everyone. All megafauna on this planet tends to have its species-typical combat behaviour adapted to its environment, and all human tribes have a way to fight and some related organization. Even chimpanzee communities are known to engage in rather brutal territorial wars, let alone humans.

Of course, the kinds of tactics depend. Most animals have their species-typical means of combat; humanoids have a bit more variety and different humanoid cultures can easily result in different styles of combat depending on the weapons and tools available, as well as things like codes of conduct. Martial cultures (such as all the more barbaric creatures) most certainly only survive if they are capable of battle though, particularly in this world with its magical beasts as an added threat to animals. Thus, I'd assume a degree of optimal combat paradigm depending on the types of classes the species usually has available as well as their racial features.

[Gruftzwerg]

a sample tactical Ork encounter for starters:
(adjust according to group size & strength/optimization)
- Ork Leader (maybe give him 1-3lvls of fighter)
- a bunch of melee 3-6
- 1-4 archer flanking at the back lines
- one Ork/Goblin Sorcerer of lvl 2-4

tactics:

- base setup, 1st line melee +2nd line the leader Ork, archers flanking the back, Sorcerer hides in the back lines

- Sorcerer will cast Enlarge Person on the Leader > Players will face Lage size + reach/AoO

- If Sorcerer is lvl 4, he will than use Invisibility & tries to cast Color Spray on the PCs back line.

- Sorcerer casts Enlarge Person on the remaining melee Orks.

- Archer will stay at range at any cost = use movement action + standard action if needed.

- If someone reveals himself as a healer, the Leader Ork will command focus fire.

You can use this encounter several times in a campaign/adventure that starts low lvl and adjust it later on when the PCs lvl & skill rises.

[Algeh]

There are both in-world and at-the-table considerations here:

At-the-table: If your players aren't used to encounters where the opponents use any kind of tactics, there will be a learning curve. If your players are used to an encounter format of "everybody line up and hit at the other guys, who are also lined up and hitting you", you will probably want to start by designing an encounter that they know they should be able to beat easily based on that previous format, and have it be harder-but-still-beatable because those other guys aren't just lining up and being hit but instead using cover, putting the archers out of melee range, choosing better ground, using buffs well, or whatever you'd like to emphasize (probably picking just one new tactic per encounter at the beginning would be a good way to gradually build this. Pick a different new tactic for each encounter and rotate through a bunch of different ones gradually. After players get that idea, start ramping up to more complicated combined tactics). Since it sounds like this is due to a new understanding of how the rules work, I'd suggest taking some time to tell your players first that you've been reading the rulebooks and now we're going to start using the rules for x, y, and z, and explain how those rules work.

You can gradually ramp the inherent difficultly level of the opponents again as the players start getting used to the idea that everyone should use some tactical thinking and the PCs start easily winning over tactics-using encounters that are below their level.

In-world: How much and what kind of tactics are used should depend on the nature of the encounter. A pack of wolves would have a lot of instincts about how to take down a large herbivore, but not really have an instinctual plan for dealing with a pike square. How well those large-herbivore tactics would work against a given group of PCs should probably be related to how much those PCs resemble something wolves typically eat (they would probably be really good at killing off hobbled horses left behind while the PCs explored a dungeon, but not have a plan for fighting against archers).

This is also true of "people-intelligence" encounters rather than animal ones: a bunch of farmers who decided to turn bandit after their farms were ruined by something would probably use only rudimentary tactics at first because they don't really know that much about fighting and are learning how to be bandits on the fly. They are currently solving this problem by preying on people who know even less about how to fight bandits than they do about banditry. On the other hand, a group of experienced guards defending the entrance to something that belongs to their employer should have a pretty good plan in mind and use it. You should ask yourself not how generically smart the opponents are (although that's part of it) but how much experience they have at this particular sort of tactical fighting and/or how much time they've spent thinking about having this particular encounter to plan for it. Some groups should use more tactics than others, and this in turn gives flavor to your setting and possibly useful information to your players.

[Geddy2112]

Creatures don't have to be "intelligent" to use tactics. I would argue that intelligence can plan for tactics, but wisdom is often as good or better. Certainly an intelligent creature can plan on a larger scale, but an equally wise enemy will often be just as tough-sometimes moreso, sometimes less. Circumstance also plays a role-even the most tactically savvy creature can be surprised or caught off guard, and even the most inept creature can get the drop on somebody.

A wolf has garbage intelligence, but good wisdom. A wolf knows that alone, charging a bison and trying to kill it is suicide. It knows the bison is bigger, tougher, and has horns/hooves and a ton of muscle behind those and the wolf is not going to win that fight. Wolves use pack tactics to isolate and gang up on the weakest bison and that works quite well.Spiders are incredibly good predators, yet as vermin they don't even register as intelligent in the D&D world.

For intelligence on enemies, it really depends.

Humanoids are generally smart/wise enough to use tactics, but if they are particularly bloodthirsty or enraged they might charge foolishly into battle. A particularly strong leader could also convince others to do things they won't normally do. A bad leader might think they are using good tactics, only to find out they are leading their troops to their deaths.

Animals are generally not going to attack unless they are hungry, defending territory, or protecting young. Even out of hunger, a wolf probably won't attack an adventuring party(it is obvious suicide) but a pack of hungry wolves might attack a lone party member. Prey animals will probably only fight to defend their young or if cornered. A bear will probably leave adventurers alone, but if it's cubs are threatened it will fight to the death.

Mindless creatures are either unable to attack, will only attack in immediate self defense, or are things like undead that will attack anything they see. This also goes for creatures under mind control, drugs, mental suggestion, or otherwise programmed to do something regardless of circumstance.

So for each encounter, set the intelligence and tactics to the monster and circumstances.

[Eldariel]

Creatures don't have to be "intelligent" to use tactics. I would argue that intelligence can plan for tactics, but wisdom is often as good or better. Certainly an intelligent creature can plan on a larger scale, but an equally wise enemy will often be just as tough-sometimes moreso, sometimes less. Circumstance also plays a role-even the most tactically savvy creature can be surprised or caught off guard, and even the most inept creature can get the drop on somebody.

A wolf has garbage intelligence, but good wisdom. A wolf knows that alone, charging a bison and trying to kill it is suicide. It knows the bison is bigger, tougher, and has horns/hooves and a ton of muscle behind those and the wolf is not going to win that fight. Wolves use pack tactics to isolate and gang up on the weakest bison and that works quite well.Spiders are incredibly good predators, yet as vermin they don't even register as intelligent in the D&D world.

Knowledge (history) is Intelligence-based and covers warfare and tactics. Intelligence certainly plays a factor, particularly in adapting to unexpected circumstances, figuring out new plans and planning few steps ahead. A lower intelligence character might have a battle plan, a higher intelligence one probably has a general plan but is also mindful of a number of unknown variables and how to react to certain outcomes, and the higher intelligence one is probably the one better able to adapt on the fly to circumstances even she didn't plan for.

Thus, a wolfpack will do fine against targets their basic tactics work against but they'll at most be smart enough to escape an enemy they don't know how to fight even if said enemy were within their power to defeat. Meanwhile a military unit would perform tactically just fine against a wolfpack but they could also plan for how to lure a Remorhaz into a trap where it can be defeated after coming to the conclusion that they cannot fight it straight-up.

[Ethernil]

I was thinking along the lines of having the first boss encounter at lvl 3 be an Orc fighter built for tripping with 2 archer goons to show them how tripping can work but if they blindly charge him it could be overkill.
Also late around lvl 6-8 the adventure will take them to a monastery and I have designed a combat with grappling monks, that doesn't sound too hard but they ll see more than: he walks up to you and starts swinging.
And there will be a recurring trickster roguish opponent that at first plays pranks and steals from the group only to be revealed to be a tiefling arch villain later.

*I have read Tucker's cobolds, that's not what I want, just to spice up things a bit.

[Albions_Angel]

Archers and tripping do not go well together. Being prone grants you +4 AC against archers.

Replace the archers with a couple of club wielding beat sticks. Tripper takes them down, goons deal subdual damage with high frequency (+4 to hit).

If you want fun archer mechanics, there is a ranger ACF (I think, or its a feat) that means your arrows snag in clothing and cause the opponent to be flanked, even if no one is around them. Surprisingly powerful.

[Ethernil]

Archers and tripping do not go well together. Being prone grants you +4 AC against archers.

Replace the archers with a couple of club wielding beat sticks. Tripper takes them down, goons deal subdual damage with high frequency (+4 to hit).

If you want fun archer mechanics, there is a ranger ACF (I think, or its a feat) that means your arrows snag in clothing and cause the opponent to be flanked, even if no one is around them. Surprisingly powerful.

Is there some kind of beast or magical beast that is good at fighting prone enemies? Like something wolflike that the boss can have as a pet-companion?

[ryu]

Is there some kind of beast or magical beast that is good at fighting prone enemies? Like something wolflike that the boss can have as a pet-companion?

Anything with grappling and raking for natural attacks can be fun for low levels. Get them on their back and continuously and reliably hurt them all while stopping them from doing relevant things. Pretty sure actual wolves have that last I checked, but I know for sure SOMETHING quadrapedal and easily trained fits the bill.

[Fizban]

Regarding ability scores: tactics are what you execute mid-combat, while strategy involves much wider concerns. Tactics are reflected by wisdom, not intelligence: intelligence is for strategy. Animals often have great tactical ability, and you will see that most animals in DnD have more wisdom than the average human. An animal is better at an individual fight, but doesn't know how to wage a campaign like a human could. And indeed, the human players who lack tactical ability in combat can still have a perfectly good grasp on the strategy of where and when to pick their battles.

[ryu]

Regarding ability scores: tactics are what you execute mid-combat, while strategy involves much wider concerns. Tactics are reflected by wisdom, not intelligence: intelligence is for strategy. Animals often have great tactical ability, and you will see that most animals in DnD have more wisdom than the average human. An animal is better at an individual fight, but doesn't know how to wage a campaign like a human could. And indeed, the human players who lack tactical ability in combat can still have a perfectly good grasp on the strategy of where and when to pick their battles.

I find the problem with that analogy to be that intelligence can work perfectly fine on a tactical level. It's your ability to plan. How many scenarios did you foresee? How many counters for various enemy actions do you have set up? How well do you understand the synergies of your group? All of these are things that fall under intelligence.

[Fizban]

It's your ability to plan. How many scenarios did you foresee? How many counters for various enemy actions do you have set up? How well do you understand the synergies of your group? All of these are things that fall under intelligence.
And are not tactics, or so I'd like to say. The dictionary definition admittedly doesn't seem to match up, since unless you're actually running a war everything in DnD would fall under tactics. In order to make a meaningful distinction one has to draw the line somewhere, and the standard I've seen/used is to use tactics to refer to the choices made in an individual battle, and strategy for the preparations and choices made between battles.

Sure, intelligence makes you better at tactics. It makes you better at everything, because you can learn about new things. Animals and other low-int creatures only have a small set of tactical abilities, while a human or other higher int creature can study to make up for their innate shortcomings (if they have the presence of mind to, but such common sense falls back to wisdom again-not being wise enough to realize you're a fool). But if you run into a situation you haven't studied for, you're back to fighting on instinct, which is likely worse than an animal's.

[ryu]

And are not tactics, or so I'd like to say. The dictionary definition admittedly doesn't seem to match up, since unless you're actually running a war everything in DnD would fall under tactics. In order to make a meaningful distinction one has to draw the line somewhere, and the standard I've seen/used is to use tactics to refer to the choices made in an individual battle, and strategy for the preparations and choices made between battles.

Sure, intelligence makes you better at tactics. It makes you better at everything, because you can learn about new things. Animals and other low-int creatures only have a small set of tactical abilities, while a human or other higher int creature can study to make up for their innate shortcomings (if they have the presence of mind to, but such common sense falls back to wisdom again-not being wise enough to realize you're a fool). But if you run into a situation you haven't studied for, you're back to fighting on instinct, which is likely worse than an animal's.

The difference between strategy and tactics is quite simple. Strategy is thinking on decisions that could effect multiple battles. This would be stuff like your daily spell loadout, picking spells to learn, what animal companion to take, what magic items to get, using spells with durations listed in hours or longer, and similar. Tactics is thinking on decisions that effect singular battles. These include plans for what to do turn to turn in various situations, responses to enemy action, escape routes, and the like.

D&D has PILES of strategy level decisions in it. It's just that most of them are the purview of spellcasters. This is one of the big reasons spellcasting is so powerful. It has effects on levels of planning classes without it don't even have access to most of the time.