Do creatures in your games take actions according to their mental stats?

[Morrus]

To the SG-1 cite, I think this can also be taken as saying "We are more technologically advanced than you are. That does not mean we are more intelligent than you are."

Yeah, the ancient Egyptians were the same species as us, and Julius Caesar could out-strategise any of us in his sleep.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Yeah, the ancient Egyptians were the same species as us, and Julius Caesar could out-strategise any of us in his sleep.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of ENWorld's fan base. Somewhere out there is someone who went to West Point or something, and could tell you all sorts of combined arms, special unit, air support whatever tactics that Julius Caesar never conceived of. Give Caesar and that ENWorlder equally armed and trained troops, and I'd bet on the modern guy.

 

[Scorpio616]

They use the tactics their wisdom allows for and they fight to their XP value. Since D&D monsters in 3E and later don't have a morale stat factored in to their XP value, they fight to the last.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, that does seem to be the solution that most people have suggested; I've tried it many times over the years. I've personally always found that solution very unsatisfactory, though. Just auto-nerfing your players' clever ideas? It doesn't make for a fun game, IMO.

I agree about the auto-nerf. That's why I prefer the idea of factoring it in as some sort of interrupt ability, that bring it within the standard rationing of the action economy.

 

[delericho]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of ENWorld's fan base. Somewhere out there is someone who went to West Point or something, and could tell you all sorts of combined arms, special unit, air support whatever tactics that Julius Caesar never conceived of. Give Caesar and that ENWorlder equally armed and trained troops, and I'd bet on the modern guy.

The ENWorlder also has the big advantage that Caesar kept extensive notes, from which a lot of the more modern stuff is derived.

It's the same in many, if not most fields: Newton was a genius, but the theorems that he spent years struggling to develop and prove are now taught in high school - we get to "stand on the shoulders of giants", of which he is one.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Basically, in games you run or play in, do creatures act according to how "they" would act and not necessarily how the DM would act?

I know when I run games, I make creatures with a low intelligence take actions that may not always be the best. Whenever I play undead who lack intelligence, beyond basic functions, I don't use tactics.

Are creatures in your games controlled this way?

Yes, with the clarification that certain creatures of low or completely lacking intelligence may still be able to act with tactics if they are instinctual or if they can be given commands they can follow. For instance, undead may be given simple instructions; giant communal insects will attract the way their smaller counters would.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of ENWorld's fan base. Somewhere out there is someone who went to West Point or something, and could tell you all sorts of combined arms, special unit, air support whatever tactics that Julius Caesar never conceived of. Give Caesar and that ENWorlder equally armed and trained troops, and I'd bet on the modern guy.

The ENWorlder also has the big advantage that Caesar kept extensive notes, from which a lot of the more modern stuff is derived.

It's the same in many, if not most fields: Newton was a genius, but the theorems that he spent years struggling to develop and prove are now taught in high school - we get to "stand on the shoulders of giants", of which he is one.

Or, more succinctly:
[video=youtube;AJXKVOxqkWM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJXKVOxqkWM[/video]