Monster ability scores and tactics

[PhoenixPhyre]

Forking off of the Targeting Players thread, but continuing on this theme--

I've started formulating a more systematic approach to planning for monsters. This is primarily prep-time--play-time tactics takes this prep and tries to apply it, keeping in mind the adage "no plan survives first contact with the enemy". It starts by looking at the monster ability scores. This is a first-pass-look--lots of detail comes from there, but more depends on things like characterization, culture, etc.

Divide the ability scores into a few groups:

STR and DEX tell you how they feel about being direct vs indirect, melee vs ranged.

CON tells you how much they'll be fine with enemies up in their grills.

INT tells you how deep their plans are (contingencies) and how easily they'll adapt once they figure out their plans didn't work. WIS tells you how easily they'll know that their plan isn't working and they need to rethink things, as well as help them target the most effective enemies and deal with failed plans.

CHA is sociality--how well do they work with others and how much are they affected by things hitting others.
-------------
Ranges (in modifier):

-4, -5: Horrible.
-3, -2: Bad
-1, 0, 1: Average
+2, +3: Good
+4, +5: Exceptional
6+: Super

--------------

STR and DEX are kinda dual. Very few monster have high values for both of them; they tend to be average or worse in one and better in the other (except for the few specialized casters who are average at best in both).

Creatures with good or better STR tend to want to be in melee. Their plans tend to be fairly straightforward, involving lots of "charge in" (or maybe "advance carefully, in formation"). Once they get stuck in, they tend to stay there. Ranged weapons will be decided second options, generally shorter range.

Conversely, creatures with good or better DEX and poorer STR tend to want to either be at range or skirmishers (depending on CON). Hit and run, shoot and hide, etc. And they'll often have ranged weapons to back those up.

Good and Exceptional CON creatures will tend to be totally ok with being "on the line". Take, for instance, the orc. Good STR, Average DEX, Good CON. They're melee folks, taking the front line. Conversely, take the goblin. Low-average STR, Good DEX, average CON. They don't want to be on the line. They'll much prefer being at ranged or skirmishers.

INT and WIS inform what kinds of plans they make. Everyone has a plan. It may be a bad plan, it may be nothing more than "charge straight at the nearest living thing and try to mash it" (the zombie's plan), but it's a plan. Average+ INT means you'll tend to have at least one backup plan ready, even if that's run faster than the slower guy so the bear eats them instead. Higher INT tends to react faster and more capably when plans fall through. However, a high INT, low WIS monster isn't going to notice that the plan isn't working (at least as fast as someone with higher WIS). They'll attack the guy who looks weak and squishy, knowing that geeking the caster is usually a good idea. Only to find out it's a DEX paladin way too late. Lower WIS also means the monsters will tend to react poorly to things like deceptions and threats, and when they do break, it'll be more devastating (see Morale, below).

CHA is the social quality--a bunch of low CHA people won't work well together in a team without at least one higher-CHA leader. And even then, they'll tend toward the individualistic. Both for the good and for the bad--a low CHA zombie won't care that another zombie got pulped, while an average CHA goblin might. But the goblins (or kobolds) can work together in ways zombies never can hope to.

Take, for instance, the zombie vs the skeleton. Zombies are Horrible INT, Bad WIS, Bad CHA. They got one and only one plan. If that plan fails, they'll keep trying the plan anyway. And it will take them a long time to figure out that the plan has failed. They'll wail endlessly on a transparent wall of force, not thinking to go around it if that means moving away from the enemy. They won't target effectively--they'll just run for the closest enemy and bash them. They'll rarely try to do things like trip or grapple unless commanded, because they really only understand smash. And with Average STR, Bad DEX, and Good CON, they're prototypical melee brutes (on the weaker end of such things). Get close, hit things. Don't give a darn if anyone else goes down. If they get turned or forced to flee, they'll completely reset and go after whatever's nearest.

Skeletons, on the other hand, have Average STR, Good DEX, Good CON, Bad (but much better than zombies) INT, Average WIS, and Bad CHA (same as zombies, actually). They also have an effective ranged attack. So they'll tend to sit at range where they can, but aren't worried about getting close. They still don't have great plans, and their tactical flexibility isn't super. But they're smart enough to switch tactics--they'll walk around the wall of force, and if one target is harder to hit they can (not speedily but better than zombies) switch to different, better targets. They still don't care much about other skeletons.

All-good stats
For creatures that have pretty good (average+) stats across the board, look at where they're [I]relatively/I] best.

Morale

Creatures that aren't mindless or controlled should generally break and run/surrender/fall apart at some point. What that point is is fairly situational, but things like
* Not-Bad CHA and a leader went down or a number of allies broke
* Average or worse WIS and took lots of damage in one turn
* Not-Bad WIS and realizing their overall objective (they do have those, right?) isn't attainable.

are pretty good triggers. I tend to do a DC 10 or 15 WIS save, with failure meaning they break for at least that turn. Generally taking the Disengage action and trying to back off, taking the Dodge action if they can't get away, trying to surrender, etc.

---------

Does that framework make any sense? As a reminder, this is designed as a first-pass, prep-time planning help. Individual creatures may vary in large amounts--the smart orc (normally Bad INT), the melee-favoring lich (normally Average CON and Good DEX/CON), etc.

[No brains]

If an ogre zombie is under the effect of the Web spell while it has a target within melee reach, what would be the 'dumb' option for me to pick? Would I swing at the enemy at disadvantage, or try to break free of the web?

[da newt]

I tend to agree with the basic premise like the 'monsters know what they are doing' and adding a bit of 'this is what lore says' and going from there. In my head cannon predators feed - for example a pack of wolves is looking for food so they single out the most exposed / weakest of the pack, gang up on them, and scurry off with their prize. Feeding is not worth loosing a couple pack members so they will only attack when they believe they can take someone down with minimal losses. A thinker will try to decide if the risk is worth the reward and act accordingly. A zombie will plod towards the closest life form and gnaw on it. An army will open with a volley of archers and keep doing that until something else seems better and always look for flanking, counter offensives, and pulling back to a better fortified position.

As for monsters vs a party of PCs I always try to figure out what the monster's objective is and when they will realize they are loosing. Battles to the death should not be the default if the parties involved have any sense of self preservation at all. (depending on the situation, plenty of people/monsters suck at making good decisions, but still - almost everyone SHOULD be smart enough to figure out when to run for it)

I try to remove the gamisms and replace them with things that seem realistic to me, and in my way of thinking only a complete moron starts a fight they don't think they'll survive, but if it's a home evasion and you're protecting your babies maybe you sacrifice everything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If an ogre zombie is under the effect of the Web spell while it has a target within melee reach, what would be the 'dumb' option for me to pick? Would I swing at the enemy at disadvantage, or try to break free of the web?

Zombies don't know about advantage/disadvantage. At least IMO. So his plan is "smash". Can I reach the target? If so, hit them. If not, try to get closer. Then hit them.

So it's not about doing the "smart" or "dumb" thing, but about following the only plan the zombie has--smash the nearest living thing.

[LudicSavant]

I think there's a good bit more to it than just ability scores. A dumb predator nonetheless has hunting behaviors forged in the crucible of eons of evolution (or created by the goddess of the hunt or whatever) and may well have superior hunting strategies to what an average, untrained human will come up with. A dumb orc may nonetheless be the product of a culture that fights like all the time and have far more practical experience and enculturation in the matters of war than someone of twice their Int score. Ants aren't exactly charismatic but I'd expect them to have truly stellar teamwork. A creature with low Con might still occasionally be very fine indeed with things being up in their grill if they have incredible defenses from other sources... or just if they are beings with little to no sense of self-preservation. And so forth.

In my view, ability scores are a small part of a larger picture.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there's a good bit more to it than just ability scores. A dumb predator nonetheless has hunting behaviors forged in the crucible of eons of evolution (or created by the goddess of the hunt or whatever) and may well have superior hunting strategies to what an average, untrained human will come up with. A dumb orc may nonetheless be the product of a culture that fights like all the time and have far more practical experience and enculturation in the matters of war than someone of twice their Int score. Ants aren't exactly charismatic but I'd expect them to have truly stellar teamwork. A creature with low Con might still occasionally be very fine indeed with things being up in their grill if they have incredible defenses from other sources... or just if they are beings with little to no sense of self-preservation. And so forth.

In my view, ability scores are a small part of a larger picture.

Absolutely. As I said, this is a first pass, broad strokes thing. With lots of exceptions.

But those animals? Sure they have instinctive hunting patterns. But when something breaks those patterns, they're not going to be able to formulate a new plan on the fly very well. That orc? He's really good at what he does. But his plans are mostly going to revolve around charging in. Ants actually probably have decent charisma. Most animals aren't so bad at that.

Etc.

[Tanarii]

WIS tells you how easily they'll know that their plan isn't working and they need to rethink things, as well as help them target the most effective enemies and deal with failed plans.
Why? That's not what WIS is in 5e.

WIS should be situational awareness vs focusing on only the thing right in front of them.

What you described is ability score agnostic at best, or INT if you need to force it under something. (Deductive reasoning.)

[LudicSavant]

Ants actually probably have decent charisma.

Whyso? They're not good at persuasion, deception, or the like. Stuff like wasps (both of the swarm and giant varieties) have terrible Cha scores (and wasps are often eusocial)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why? That's not what WIS is in 5e.

WIS should be situational awareness vs focusing on only the thing right in front of them.

What you described is ability score agnostic at best, or INT if you need to force it under something. (Deductive reasoning.)

WIS is correlated with knowing intent (Animal Handling, Insight). Ie reading your opponents. It's also perceptive--part of being in tune with the world around you (ie situational awareness) is realizing that what you've been trying isn't working.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Of all this the bit I have the most trouble with is Morale. RAW, low Wis creatures are more likely to flee, but that often doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sure a low Wis (willpower) creature might panic at the first sight of blood, but beyond that a high Wis creature should be better at assessing whether or not it's advantageous to flee, surrender, or bargain. Is there a reasonable chance of escape? What are the odds of victory/ defeat? Is the party likely to accept surrender? What are the ramifications of surrender or flight? All of these are questions a higher Wis creature could be more capable of responding to effectively under pressure, whether that leads to fighting on or fleeing. Low Wis could be quite the opposite and make poor decisions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Of all this the bit I have the most trouble with is Morale. RAW, low Wis creatures are more likely to flee, but that often doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sure a low Wis (willpower) creature might panic at the first sight of blood, but beyond that a high Wis creature should be better at assessing whether or not it's advantageous to flee, surrender, or bargain. Is there a reasonable chance of escape? What are the odds of victory/ defeat? Is the party likely to accept surrender? What are the ramifications of surrender or flight? All of these are questions a higher Wis creature could be more capable of responding to effectively under pressure, whether that leads to fighting on or fleeing. Low Wis could be quite the opposite and make poor decisions.

Any creature still in possession of themselves (ie not actually broken due to morale failure) can decide whether to make a calculated withdrawal, surrender, etc. And high WIS creatures are more likely to realize that whatever they're doing doesn't work; high INT ones are more likely to come up with a good fallback. Low INT, high WIS creatures will know that it's not working right, but will either stick to the plan (because they can't come up with anything else) or will switch to something else almost at random, or do something else like that that's not likely to be effective.

That's different than breaking due to a morale failure. Breaking due to a morale failure should be a bad idea. That creature has lost the plot. They've thrown away their chances of success, and not uncommonly screwed over their side by doing so. Once broken, the creature's entire plan shifts to "how do I get away/survive."

A high WIS character who does suffer a morale failure is more likely to make an effective withdrawal/surrender/whatever, whether that's because they realized that the party doesn't look like it will give mercy (so they'll flee instead of surrendering) or vice versa or picking an effective withdrawal path (ie realizing that shoving the guy who's been stopping others from running away (Sentinel) and then running is probably better than trying to just run carefully, etc).

CHA plays into that because a low CHA character is more willing to say "screw my buddies, I'm out". If they're of evil disposition, possibly even stabbing one in the knee so he can't run as fast (or something similar). High CHA will tend to stick together or try to rally others that seem to be breaking.

Of course there are huge exceptions to this. A dragon is very charismatic, but that's more that they're good at attracting followers. They don't care one whit (in general, for the evil ones) about those followers--they're fodder to be thrown to the ravening adventurers if necessary. Etc.

[Keltest]

I generally figure that everything will target the biggest threat to it, but smarter monsters will have a larger range of perception. An ogre zombie will always hit the melee fighter unless the wizard wanders into melee range and then attacks it for more than the fighter. Even if the wizard previously disintegrated it for a lot, it's out of its range of thought.

[Tanarii]

WIS is correlated with knowing intent (Animal Handling, Insight). Ie reading your opponents.Fair, but


It's also perceptive--part of being in tune with the world around you (ie situational awareness) is realizing that what you've been trying isn't working.Being perceptive and in tune with the world around you don't make you realize that what you've been trying isn't working. Deductive capability does. That is Int.

5e Wisdom lets you notice things. 5e Intelligence let's you put things together and realize something from it.

You're trying to use Wisdom as pre-5e wisdom. Or possibly as wisdom (common usage word).


Of all this the bit I have the most trouble with is Morale. RAW, low Wis creatures are more likely to flee, but that often doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Yeah the 5e DMG Morale system basing it off a Wisdom save is terrible.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Any creature still in possession of themselves (ie not actually broken due to morale failure) can decide whether to make a calculated withdrawal, surrender, etc. And high WIS creatures are more likely to realize that whatever they're doing doesn't work; high INT ones are more likely to come up with a good fallback. Low INT, high WIS creatures will know that it's not working right, but will either stick to the plan (because they can't come up with anything else) or will switch to something else almost at random, or do something else like that that's not likely to be effective.

That's different than breaking due to a morale failure. Breaking due to a morale failure should be a bad idea. That creature has lost the plot. They've thrown away their chances of success, and not uncommonly screwed over their side by doing so. Once broken, the creature's entire plan shifts to "how do I get away/survive."

A high WIS character who does suffer a morale failure is more likely to make an effective withdrawal/surrender/whatever, whether that's because they realized that the party doesn't look like it will give mercy (so they'll flee instead of surrendering) or vice versa or picking an effective withdrawal path (ie realizing that shoving the guy who's been stopping others from running away (Sentinel) and then running is probably better than trying to just run carefully, etc).

CHA plays into that because a low CHA character is more willing to say "screw my buddies, I'm out". If they're of evil disposition, possibly even stabbing one in the knee so he can't run as fast (or something similar). High CHA will tend to stick together or try to rally others that seem to be breaking.

Of course there are huge exceptions to this. A dragon is very charismatic, but that's more that they're good at attracting followers. They don't care one whit (in general, for the evil ones) about those followers--they're fodder to be thrown to the ravening adventurers if necessary. Etc.

The calculated withdraw vs. breaking morale makes sense; that puts it in perspective for me. I'm not sure I agree on the Charisma though. I'd think a high Cha monster might be more likely to bargain an outcome, but otherwise I'm unconvinced it plays into the decision. What you've described seems more related to alignment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The calculated withdraw vs. breaking morale makes sense; that puts it in perspective for me. I'm not sure I agree on the Charisma though. I'd think a high Cha monster might be more likely to bargain an outcome, but otherwise I'm unconvinced it plays into the decision. What you've described seems more related to alignment.

Sure, a high CHA monster may try to negotiate or bargain. But I see CHA for monsters begin also about things like "how well do they work together. How affected are they by what happens to other of their type. Etc." Is it an extension of the standard definition? Sure. But I don't think it's an unwarranted one.

A high CHA non-evil monster who breaks will try (generally, with exceptions) to do so in a way that doesn't screw over his allies. Maybe by trying to negotiate a surrender of the whole group. Or by drawing off the enemies. Because the team is important to them. On the other hand, a low-CHA non-evil monster is generally (IMO) going to think "every monster for himself! Glad it wasn't me that got squished!". An evil high-CHA monster might throw his allies under the bus to try to get better terms. Or actively back-stab one. They're thinking in social terms. An evil low-CHA monster just doesn't care one bit about the "allies". What happens to them doesn't affect the monster much in either direction. Any hit they take is one less for me to take.

The whole point is to extend the mechanical bits of the ability scores to archetypes.

Strong Guys (the archetype) tend to rush in and be direct. Both physically and in planning. "Hit em hard enough, no kill like overkill".

Nimble Guys tend to be indirect and/or ranged. Hit and run, twisty thinkers (at a given intelligence). "Hit em where it hurts, get under their guard."

Tough Guys might not care if you hit them a bunch--they can take it. "I'll be the anvil to your hammer."

Smart Guys have plans within plans. But often (trope-ically speaking) tend to be vulnerable to someone playing into their plans and subverting them, since they have the whole thing mapped out. "I predicted you'd do that, which is why I prepared plan A.4.31!"

Wise Guys (no, not those wise guys) (in the D&D sense) tend to see things as they are. They read their opponents, realizing that their tactic to, say, try to overawe them isn't working because the Bloodthirsty Berserker they're facing is just laughing. Or when they go after the "squishy" and realize that he's not so squishy after all. They see the counter-tactics coming. It's a different form of reasoning--not the logic-based "well, if they're doing X, it must mean that Y" type, but the inductive "he's smiling, people don't normally smile when they're being attacked, so...try something else!" "It's a trap!"

Social Guys tend to think in terms of us, not me. Unless they're the manipulator type, in which case they're using other people as their primary tools. An evil Social Guy makes a great leader...until you notice that they're never the one taking fire and it's always someone else's butt on the line. Good Social Guys tend to give the rousing speeches, trying to keep their side from breaking. "How about you and him fight?"/"But today is not that day!"

Characters (NPC or PC) can be (and usually are) a mix of these archetypes. The point is to move toward an archetypal mindset when thinking about ability scores, not a mechanical one.

[Unoriginal]

I disageee with the concept that Charisma influences how well the individual can cooperate with others.

An high-CHA creature can convince others to do what the creature wants, that does not makes them more adept at coordinating or accepting others' ideas.

On the contrary, beings who can usually get others to do what they want will often not work well if/when they have to follow someone else's lead.


CHA in tactics would influence how much the being think they can influence others, both friends and foes. Someone who is a relatively poor combatant but has a colossal CHA will likely to bluff or scare their enemies even mid-fight, and/or try to inspire, encourage and direct their allies.

[JackPhoenix]

Sure, a high CHA monster may try to negotiate or bargain. But I see CHA for monsters begin also about things like "how well do they work together. How affected are they by what happens to other of their type. Etc." Is it an extension of the standard definition? Sure. But I don't think it's an unwarranted one.

MM Hobgoblins have Cha as their lowest ability score, and they are THE teamwork race.

[GeoffWatson]

This sounds like The Monsters Know What They're Doing
https://www.themonstersknow.com/why-these-tactics/
A website with suggested tactics for many D&D monsters.

[Tanarii]

This sounds like The Monsters Know What They're Doing
https://www.themonstersknow.com/why-these-tactics/
A website with suggested tactics for many D&D monsters.
Unfortunately that blogger doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to 5e rules.

Disagreements about the technical minutia of the precise meaning of wisdom and charisma aside, at least PhoenixPhyre understands the rules. :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

Also worth noting, a DEX-using character, be they focusing on melee or ranged, will generally have *a lot less* tactics available than a STR-using one.

Unless they have specific abilities allowing them to do it, High DEX Unremarkable STR Person wouldn't be able to disarm, trip, push or wrestle an opponent very well, nor would they benefit much from using improvised weapons that aren't similar to actual weapons (ranging from the rock on the ground to the banquet table) or from fighting unarmed, and it is harder for them to affect the environment by moving, pushing or breaking parts of it (or the like), and in general their weapon and armor selection is much narrower than the one of High STR Unremarkable DEX Person.

Now High DEX Unremarkable STR Person can still resist many of those things (as Warduke found out when he tried to disarm the Bard PC in my last campaign), and high DEX can help move around to an extent, but that doesn't change the fact that if you're a DEX-focus PC and a big brute breaks your rapier (as Warduke will try if there is ever a rematch between him and the Bard) and the only weapons around are your backup dagger or the weapons the orc goons you're fighting are holding, you're at a serious loss of damage potential.

All in all I would say High STR Unremarkable DEX Person may be slower to act and more prone to getting hit without a good armor and/or a shield, but they'd be overall trickier (at least potentially so) than the average High DEX Unremarkable STR Person, who will generally have one tactic they're very sharp with and will work hard to avoid what could disrupt said tactic. Even Ogres won't hesitate to make a shelf fall on the PCs if there's one, or wrestle a PC in place while their allies clobber the PC.

[Herbert_W]

I like the basic thrust of what you're trying to do and there are some very good ideas here - but there's also a fair bit that I'd recommend changing.


I think there's a good bit more to it than just ability scores. A dumb predator nonetheless has hunting behaviors forged in the crucible of eons of evolution (or created by the goddess of the hunt or whatever) and may well have superior hunting strategies to what an average, untrained human will come up with. . . .


I think that this critique works better as an addition to OP's framework than as an argument against it.

Unless I missed something, OP never said that a low-INT creature's plans needed to be bad, just that they could be bad. OP's point is that the dumb predator should have few plans, and be slow to realize when a plan isn't working - and you (LudicSavant) are pointing out that the dumb predator's plans might actually be very good ones. You're not contradicting each other. A dumb predator having a very few plans, where the plans are very good (at least for hunting the predator's usual prey), fits with both what OP and you have said.


In my view, ability scores are a small part of a larger picture.

You're right - but they're still a part of the larger picture, and OP acknowledges this:

This is a first-pass-look--lots of detail comes from there, but more depends on things like characterization, culture, etc. . . . As a reminder, this is designed as a first-pass, prep-time planning help. Individual creatures may vary in large amounts

I think that something similar to OP's framework where ability scores are still the first (but not the only!) part of the picture that DMs look at could be very useful. In particular, I find the way that the first two mental ability scores are used (int -> number and depth of plans, wis -> ability to see that a plan isn't working) to be a clear and concise codification of what is IMO a very good way to run monsters, as it creates dimensions on which monsters can be interestingly different from each other out of information that's already in a monster's statblock.


I disageee with the concept that Charisma influences how well the individual can cooperate with others. An high-CHA creature can convince others to do what the creature wants, that does not makes them more adept at coordinating or accepting others' ideas.

Now, this is a criticism that I agree with - but once again, this isn't really an argument against OP's framework as a whole. It's an alteration to part of that framework.

If we were to formalize this, then I'd suggest having the threshold at which an enemy will rout depend on the charisma of their allies - for simplicity, looking only at the single highest charisma out of allies who are still in the fight, i.e. not disabled or routed. By "rout", I mean that an individual will stop fighting as part of a team and will fight instead for their own survival. This usually, but not necessarily, means turning and fleeing.

A normal human in a group of bandits might have a rout table something like this:



Charisma *
Rout when ...


Horrible
... you'd personally prefer not to fight.


Bad
... facing opponents who seem to have any chance of defeating you.


Average
... it looks like your side will loose, e.g. if your opponents appear very formidable or if multiple allies fall or rout.


Good
... facing overwhelming odds or taking many casualties.


Exceptional
... it's clear that your side has no chance of winning.


Super
... all nine hells freeze over.


* Highest charisma among allies who are still in the fight

This gives the PCs two ways to make their opponents rout: they can take the highest-charisma members of that side out of the fight first, or they can demonstrate enough superiority to make their opponents rout in spite of that charisma. Often they'll meet in the middle - knock out a leader, and then demonstrate enough superiority to convince the minions that they're better off fleeing than trying to save their downed leader.

Meanwhile, a zombie would have a rout table like this:



Charisma *
Rout when ...


Horrible
... never.


Bad
... never.


Average
... never.


Good
... never.


Exceptional
... never.


Super
... never.


* Highest charisma among allies who are still in the fight

So, since zombies have poor charisma, they won't be much use in preventing allies from routing - but they also don't need a high-charisma ally to not rout. Routing simply isn't one of their "plans."


Creatures with good or better STR tend to want to be in melee. . . . Conversely, creatures with good or better DEX and poorer STR tend to want to either be at range or skirmishers (depending on CON).

This assumes that creatures are fighting in a manner that's effective given their own abilities, which is . . . usually a good assumption.

To be a bit blunt, in cases where this assumption holds, your (OP's) description could be summarized as "opponents fight in a manner that's effective given their abilities." It only takes a smidge of system mastery to see what that is. Cases where it doesn't hold are diverse enough to be worth handling on a case-by-case basis and not trying to cover with one general framework. In no case is this level of elaboration on the role of physical ability scores helpful in a general framework.

If we do elaborate further, then I think it'd be better to elaborate how INT affects the quality and nature of a creature's plans. I'll suggest the following as a rough draft:


A creature with horrible INT will have few plans (or only one!) that are usually effective against whatever the creature might normally fight. These plans might be very ineffective against PCs. A creature with merely bad INT will have a broader range of plans suitable for a broader range of opponents, which may or may not include opponents like the PCs. A creature with average intelligence could think of anything that a normal person could think of. A creature with good intelligence could think of anything that you could think of . . . including your unfair advantage of setting up the encounter and already know the PCs; exploiting that advantage lets you model the behavior of a creature that may be a bit smarter than you are. For creatures with exceptional INT, you may need to "cheat" and make e.g. spell selections retroactively. For creatures with superior INT, you almost certainly will.

To summarize, what you're doing with . . .


INT is brilliant. I'd recommend expanding on it with some detail on the general nature of those "plans."
WIS is brilliant, too.
CHA is basically a good idea, but I'd change the implementation to make charisma useful for preventing allies from routing rather than affecting a creature's own actions.
STR/DEX/CON is more elaborated than it really needs to be.

[KorvinStarmast]

MM Hobgoblins have Cha as their lowest ability score, and they are THE teamwork race. QFT.

Unfortunately that blogger doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to 5e rules. There is a lot of that going around on the internet. :smalltongue:

Disagreements about the technical minutia of the precise meaning of wisdom and charisma aside, at least PhoenixPhyre understands the rules. :smallamused: Yep, and is also open to discussing the nuances with his players. That's appreciated.

[Psyren]

For the most part I do understand the 5e rules, so I have no problem at least seeing what a blogger has to say about their approach to monster tactics. At the absolute worst I'll get an idea or two.


MM Hobgoblins have Cha as their lowest ability score, and they are THE teamwork race.

Kobolds have below-average Cha too. Cha = Teamwork seems an odd correlation to me. Cha is more about convincing people to do what you want, which can be both helpful or harmful for teamwork depending on whether you know what you're doing.