Persiflage
First Post
I'm with Jhaelen: knowledge is key. Even pretty stupid monsters - provided they've got some sort of social structure - can communicate the idea to each other that it's a good idea to have someone stand at the back ready to throw a rock if the guy in the dress starts muttering and waving his arms (for example). I've had players complain that brutes readying an action to disrupt spellcasting is too sophisticated a tactic, but in a world where spellcasters are common, it's not unfair at all.
I've devised fairly close criteria for adjudicating creature actions over the years. I'm not pretending that they're rules-as-written, but as rules-of-thumb, I tend to factor increasing intelligence like this:
Mindless Creatures
In Attack: Do not employ tactics of any sort (unless commanded by an intelligent being or explicitly stated in the monster description). Do not cooperate unless the monster description specifically says so for some reason: no readied actions (unless they're implicit in the attack method, like "drop on their heads when they walk underneath"), no flanking (except by accident), no tactical positioning to maximise overlapping threat ranges.
No assessment of targets unless otherwise specified: they always use whatever is their strongest or most general-purpose ability first on whichever creature is the closest, regardless of apparent threat. If potential targets are equidistant, choose randomly. Will generally attack one target and stick with it unless circumstances prevent it, at which point they'll switch to the next nearest viable foe.
In Defence: Only defend automatically, using whatever defences are "built-in" to counter specific threats. No concept of threatened areas, so will make no attempt to avoid AoO's when attacking targets (unless their obvious attacks are ranged) or when retreating. Are automatically fooled by what they can sense and have no initiative to deduct or infer: if a golem has been commanded to "attack anyone who isn't a troll who enters this room" and the party come in disguised as trolls, it's going to stand there and let them pick locks, eat lunch, sing songs and generally have a ball so long as they appear to be trolls. No fair saying "trolls don't act like that": mindless creatures have no judgement. Similarly, if the party cast some sense-blocking barrier around the golem before entering, it'll stand there like a post until it senses something that isn't a troll. Illusions are very powerful against the mindless, particularly those that have tactile and/or olfactory components to boot. Many Conjurations are similarly useful.
Mindless creatures also have no ability to determine "futility": uncontrolled zombies and skeletons will stand there for a freakin' year whaling on a convincing illusion whilst the party walks past them. I know it seems obvious, but it bears repeating since a lot of DM's forget this: mindless creatures have no mind. They have no intellect, no reasoning ability, no emotions, no judgement or evaluation skills. They are effectively automata, with no more discernment than a kettle. Of course this also means that their morale is - for all intents and purposes - infinite, unless some sense of self-preservation is implicit in the creature description. They'll attempt to go around things that will obviously destroy them (like, say, a wall of fire) but don't have the brains to avoid something that isn't an obvious source of destruction (like a greased area), even if they've already seen their fellows succumb. Yes, they're that dumb: that's what "mindless" means.
Animal Intelligence
In Attack: Jhaelen's "wolf-pack standard" is a good one. Limited use of effective tactics based on the creature's nature: unlike mindless creatures, those with animal intelligence may well use flanking tactics and cooperate to make use of overlapping threat ranges. Little adaptability or flexibility; any tactics they employ are more-or-less instinctual rather than reasoned, so if those fail the creatures will either revert to a free-for-all approach or flee. "Knowledge" of opponents very limited until they've directly experienced something: no fair the wolves targetting the wizard because he's the biggest threat, although if they do it because he's away from the "herd", fair enough. Examples of animal-level "observation-only knowledge" might include "hamstringing creatures will work better on creatures not covered in metal than on those who are", or "really tall creatures or those with long weapons can hit us from further away". Little imagination, no significant inductive or deductive capabilities: there's no reason to connect the wizard or priest's muttering and arm-waving with any resulting effects unless the connection is blindingly obvious. Little or no concept of complex tool-use: something long and pointed in a PC's hands is a potential club, but won't be treated any differently if it's actually a wand, longbow or ray-gun until they've seen it used, and possibly not even then.
Spell-like, supernatural or extraordinary abilities will generally be deployed to good effect with regard to immediate conditions, but with no insight or future planning (I deploy my breath weapon to get in the greatest number of creatures right now, despite the fact that next round I might be able to get more creatures in). No consideration given to resource conservation: like mindless creatures, animal-intelligence monsters tend to use their most potent abilities first to catch the nearest opponent (or greatest number, as appropriate) without reserving limited-use abilities for escape. Also like mindless creatures, animal-intelligence critters don't use readied actions (unless they're implicit in their basic tactics, like "wait for the alpha wolf to grab the biggest one before charging", or in their attack methods "wait until they walk underneath me and drop on their heads"). About the most sophisticated ploy used is of the "ambush" variety.
In Defence: Defend instinctively against attacks, but no real foresight. Individuals will tend to flee when badly hurt or stymied but with no coordination of withdrawal. Defeat of the "pack-leader" may well cause the others to rout: but they'll almost certainly try to turn tail and use the Run action rather than use the Withdraw action. Very likely to be initially fooled by illusions - the wolf pack might well leap out of cover to attack an illusory party if it sounds and smells right - but unlike mindless creatures, they have the capability to realise sooner-or-later if their actions are futile, even if they're not smart enough to realise they've been "fooled".
Animal-intelligence creatures are smart enough to avoid AoO's from obvious threats where the option's available. Morale is very much depending on savagery; some critters might fight on in a blood frenzy even when their fellows are being killed by things they can't see or understand, but most "natural" animals (including many magical beasts that are obviously intended to act like natural animals) will turn and run if they're taking a pasting.
Unlike mindless creatures, animal-intelligence monsters can react to non-obvious threats if they've seen them in action: the first few might run into the grease, but the others will learn to associate the funny-looking gunk with what's hindering their comrades, and either go around or jump over if possible. No fair the DM saying something like "they go around because the grease looks/smells funny" before they've seen what it does: we've all seen dogs and cats walk straight through wet cement
Low Intelligence
"Low"-intelligence creatures - somewhere between "animals" and "really dumb humans" are probably the hardest to call. For our purposes, it's sometimes useful to divide such creatures into "social" and "solitary": whether or not they have a culture and oral tradition of some sort can make all the difference as to how they act...
In Attack: Low-Int monsters employ basic strategies as well as tactical positioning and best use of resources. Such strategies might include "hardest warrior rush up and engage in melee whilst others hang back to throw rocks if they see something that looks like spellcasting". Short-term planning is in ("If Ug and Gug get deaded, we run off, go get more club-bashers"), long-term planning is out ("We take weak-looking one as hostage, demand surrender/gold/food, set guards over hostage, divide ransom between us; if they no want pay, we sell captive to Drow for help"). If low-Int creatures take a "hostage", they're just saving them to eat later or because it's easier to get a creature to walk than it is to carry them to the pot.
Low-Int creatures may well make use of traps and/or environmental features, and can plan a battle based on their immunities (such as fire-immune creatures having an escape route that involves paddling through molten lava) or extraordinary/supernatural movement capabilities. Limited resource-planning: a last-ditch ability of some sort might be held in reserve until it becomes absolutely clear which way the fight is going.
Cultural vs. Non-cultural creatures:
A Wyvern is a low-Int beast. So is an Ogre. In my campaigns, Wyverns are not organised creatures and have no real oral tradition, so they can be expected to know less about opponents in general than Ogres do. A Wyvern's intelligence allows it to make flexible on-the-spot decisions about the best tactics to employ and to understand threats when it has seen them, but there's no real reason why a Wyvern should recognise a Wizard and adapt accordingly - at least not until it has been on the receiving end of a fireball or somesuch. Wyverns also - as flying creatures - have a huge range and as such don't need to socialise in order to pass on essential survival information: if a threat's too hot to handle, they just fly a hundred miles away and tackle something else. There's no mileage in sharing what they learn: large flying predators need a huge range, and they don't want other Wyverns around except occasionally to mate with.
Whereas Ogres, by contrast, live in semi-organised gangs which compete for resources with other creatures in a limited area and there will certainly be some sort of knowledge-transfer, however basic, between members of a community. That means that if any Ogre has fought a Wizard and lived to tell the tale, all the local Ogres will be spellcaster-savvy and they should employ their tactics accordingly.
I realise, of course, that this is campaign-specific. You might well have Wyverns as highly social creatures who get together weekly to exchange tips on knight-fighting or the best way to peel a Cleric: the point here is that you should think about how creatures in your game world live in order to give you a reference point for how much of the all-important Knowledge of their opponents they have. Similarly, a creature's social tendencies will dictate the degree of cooperation they display in engineering a party's demise: my Wyverns are only likely to cooperate in order to "all attack at the same time to give each individual a better chance of getting away with a good meal"; they're inherently solitary-tending and selfish. My Ogres have to cooperate to survive, and as such are likely to have a much more sophisticated system of coordination and more elaborate traps and abuscades (albeit that the reasons for their cooperation might boil down - at the individual level - to "because Grash will bash him head if him don't").
In Defence: Low-Int creatures are aware of threatened areas and will attempt to move through or around them to avoid attacks of opportunity. They creatures have better threat-recognition than animal-Int types, and have a quality that more stupid creatures don't: suspicion. Unless their description says otherwise, they're unlikely to be so single-minded as to ignore something weird if that something could conceivably pose them a threat.
They might not be able to identify non-obvious threats, but also might well avoid them on general principles (e.g. not walking through the grease on the grounds that they didn't put it there and it might be something nasty). They may or may not know a wand when they see it, but they're certainly going to be wary of it, and would reasonably be expected to recognise anything that looks like a missile weapon. Similarly, if something adverse happens to one of their number as a result of the party's actions, they should immediately put two-and-two together unless pains have been taken to obscure the link between cause and effect: they're not Einsteins, but they can make simple inductive and deductive leaps.
Of course, this is both a strength and a weakness For instance, if a zombie attacks someone with a fire shield and bursts into flame, putting the illusion of a fire shield around the other party members won't help protect them agains the other zombies. Mindless creatures are too dumb to care about the fire-shield, whereas Low-Int creatures might well think twice before continuing to melee if they've seen bad effects happen to one of them when attacking a squishy human surrounded by flames. Similarly, you can't bluff or bamboozle something with no brain: "You saw what happened to your companion: well I, too, have mighty arcane powers!" is literally no threat at all to the mindless, or most animal-Int creatures, but if you speak their language you just might get somewhere employing similar tactics with low-Int monsters.
Low-Int monsters can make strategic withdrawals as opposed to turning tail and fleeing, and in the more altruistic species, might well cooperate in this regard to: comrades staying in place to close a door, provide covering fire or what-have-you in order to let the wounded escape.
***
Anyway, I've written rather a lot of words here. If anyone's interested, I can follow up with more, but I rather think I've rambled on longer already than anyone's really going to want to read
I've devised fairly close criteria for adjudicating creature actions over the years. I'm not pretending that they're rules-as-written, but as rules-of-thumb, I tend to factor increasing intelligence like this:
Mindless Creatures
In Attack: Do not employ tactics of any sort (unless commanded by an intelligent being or explicitly stated in the monster description). Do not cooperate unless the monster description specifically says so for some reason: no readied actions (unless they're implicit in the attack method, like "drop on their heads when they walk underneath"), no flanking (except by accident), no tactical positioning to maximise overlapping threat ranges.
No assessment of targets unless otherwise specified: they always use whatever is their strongest or most general-purpose ability first on whichever creature is the closest, regardless of apparent threat. If potential targets are equidistant, choose randomly. Will generally attack one target and stick with it unless circumstances prevent it, at which point they'll switch to the next nearest viable foe.
In Defence: Only defend automatically, using whatever defences are "built-in" to counter specific threats. No concept of threatened areas, so will make no attempt to avoid AoO's when attacking targets (unless their obvious attacks are ranged) or when retreating. Are automatically fooled by what they can sense and have no initiative to deduct or infer: if a golem has been commanded to "attack anyone who isn't a troll who enters this room" and the party come in disguised as trolls, it's going to stand there and let them pick locks, eat lunch, sing songs and generally have a ball so long as they appear to be trolls. No fair saying "trolls don't act like that": mindless creatures have no judgement. Similarly, if the party cast some sense-blocking barrier around the golem before entering, it'll stand there like a post until it senses something that isn't a troll. Illusions are very powerful against the mindless, particularly those that have tactile and/or olfactory components to boot. Many Conjurations are similarly useful.
Mindless creatures also have no ability to determine "futility": uncontrolled zombies and skeletons will stand there for a freakin' year whaling on a convincing illusion whilst the party walks past them. I know it seems obvious, but it bears repeating since a lot of DM's forget this: mindless creatures have no mind. They have no intellect, no reasoning ability, no emotions, no judgement or evaluation skills. They are effectively automata, with no more discernment than a kettle. Of course this also means that their morale is - for all intents and purposes - infinite, unless some sense of self-preservation is implicit in the creature description. They'll attempt to go around things that will obviously destroy them (like, say, a wall of fire) but don't have the brains to avoid something that isn't an obvious source of destruction (like a greased area), even if they've already seen their fellows succumb. Yes, they're that dumb: that's what "mindless" means.
Animal Intelligence
In Attack: Jhaelen's "wolf-pack standard" is a good one. Limited use of effective tactics based on the creature's nature: unlike mindless creatures, those with animal intelligence may well use flanking tactics and cooperate to make use of overlapping threat ranges. Little adaptability or flexibility; any tactics they employ are more-or-less instinctual rather than reasoned, so if those fail the creatures will either revert to a free-for-all approach or flee. "Knowledge" of opponents very limited until they've directly experienced something: no fair the wolves targetting the wizard because he's the biggest threat, although if they do it because he's away from the "herd", fair enough. Examples of animal-level "observation-only knowledge" might include "hamstringing creatures will work better on creatures not covered in metal than on those who are", or "really tall creatures or those with long weapons can hit us from further away". Little imagination, no significant inductive or deductive capabilities: there's no reason to connect the wizard or priest's muttering and arm-waving with any resulting effects unless the connection is blindingly obvious. Little or no concept of complex tool-use: something long and pointed in a PC's hands is a potential club, but won't be treated any differently if it's actually a wand, longbow or ray-gun until they've seen it used, and possibly not even then.
Spell-like, supernatural or extraordinary abilities will generally be deployed to good effect with regard to immediate conditions, but with no insight or future planning (I deploy my breath weapon to get in the greatest number of creatures right now, despite the fact that next round I might be able to get more creatures in). No consideration given to resource conservation: like mindless creatures, animal-intelligence monsters tend to use their most potent abilities first to catch the nearest opponent (or greatest number, as appropriate) without reserving limited-use abilities for escape. Also like mindless creatures, animal-intelligence critters don't use readied actions (unless they're implicit in their basic tactics, like "wait for the alpha wolf to grab the biggest one before charging", or in their attack methods "wait until they walk underneath me and drop on their heads"). About the most sophisticated ploy used is of the "ambush" variety.
In Defence: Defend instinctively against attacks, but no real foresight. Individuals will tend to flee when badly hurt or stymied but with no coordination of withdrawal. Defeat of the "pack-leader" may well cause the others to rout: but they'll almost certainly try to turn tail and use the Run action rather than use the Withdraw action. Very likely to be initially fooled by illusions - the wolf pack might well leap out of cover to attack an illusory party if it sounds and smells right - but unlike mindless creatures, they have the capability to realise sooner-or-later if their actions are futile, even if they're not smart enough to realise they've been "fooled".
Animal-intelligence creatures are smart enough to avoid AoO's from obvious threats where the option's available. Morale is very much depending on savagery; some critters might fight on in a blood frenzy even when their fellows are being killed by things they can't see or understand, but most "natural" animals (including many magical beasts that are obviously intended to act like natural animals) will turn and run if they're taking a pasting.
Unlike mindless creatures, animal-intelligence monsters can react to non-obvious threats if they've seen them in action: the first few might run into the grease, but the others will learn to associate the funny-looking gunk with what's hindering their comrades, and either go around or jump over if possible. No fair the DM saying something like "they go around because the grease looks/smells funny" before they've seen what it does: we've all seen dogs and cats walk straight through wet cement
Low Intelligence
"Low"-intelligence creatures - somewhere between "animals" and "really dumb humans" are probably the hardest to call. For our purposes, it's sometimes useful to divide such creatures into "social" and "solitary": whether or not they have a culture and oral tradition of some sort can make all the difference as to how they act...
In Attack: Low-Int monsters employ basic strategies as well as tactical positioning and best use of resources. Such strategies might include "hardest warrior rush up and engage in melee whilst others hang back to throw rocks if they see something that looks like spellcasting". Short-term planning is in ("If Ug and Gug get deaded, we run off, go get more club-bashers"), long-term planning is out ("We take weak-looking one as hostage, demand surrender/gold/food, set guards over hostage, divide ransom between us; if they no want pay, we sell captive to Drow for help"). If low-Int creatures take a "hostage", they're just saving them to eat later or because it's easier to get a creature to walk than it is to carry them to the pot.
Low-Int creatures may well make use of traps and/or environmental features, and can plan a battle based on their immunities (such as fire-immune creatures having an escape route that involves paddling through molten lava) or extraordinary/supernatural movement capabilities. Limited resource-planning: a last-ditch ability of some sort might be held in reserve until it becomes absolutely clear which way the fight is going.
Cultural vs. Non-cultural creatures:
A Wyvern is a low-Int beast. So is an Ogre. In my campaigns, Wyverns are not organised creatures and have no real oral tradition, so they can be expected to know less about opponents in general than Ogres do. A Wyvern's intelligence allows it to make flexible on-the-spot decisions about the best tactics to employ and to understand threats when it has seen them, but there's no real reason why a Wyvern should recognise a Wizard and adapt accordingly - at least not until it has been on the receiving end of a fireball or somesuch. Wyverns also - as flying creatures - have a huge range and as such don't need to socialise in order to pass on essential survival information: if a threat's too hot to handle, they just fly a hundred miles away and tackle something else. There's no mileage in sharing what they learn: large flying predators need a huge range, and they don't want other Wyverns around except occasionally to mate with.
Whereas Ogres, by contrast, live in semi-organised gangs which compete for resources with other creatures in a limited area and there will certainly be some sort of knowledge-transfer, however basic, between members of a community. That means that if any Ogre has fought a Wizard and lived to tell the tale, all the local Ogres will be spellcaster-savvy and they should employ their tactics accordingly.
I realise, of course, that this is campaign-specific. You might well have Wyverns as highly social creatures who get together weekly to exchange tips on knight-fighting or the best way to peel a Cleric: the point here is that you should think about how creatures in your game world live in order to give you a reference point for how much of the all-important Knowledge of their opponents they have. Similarly, a creature's social tendencies will dictate the degree of cooperation they display in engineering a party's demise: my Wyverns are only likely to cooperate in order to "all attack at the same time to give each individual a better chance of getting away with a good meal"; they're inherently solitary-tending and selfish. My Ogres have to cooperate to survive, and as such are likely to have a much more sophisticated system of coordination and more elaborate traps and abuscades (albeit that the reasons for their cooperation might boil down - at the individual level - to "because Grash will bash him head if him don't").
In Defence: Low-Int creatures are aware of threatened areas and will attempt to move through or around them to avoid attacks of opportunity. They creatures have better threat-recognition than animal-Int types, and have a quality that more stupid creatures don't: suspicion. Unless their description says otherwise, they're unlikely to be so single-minded as to ignore something weird if that something could conceivably pose them a threat.
They might not be able to identify non-obvious threats, but also might well avoid them on general principles (e.g. not walking through the grease on the grounds that they didn't put it there and it might be something nasty). They may or may not know a wand when they see it, but they're certainly going to be wary of it, and would reasonably be expected to recognise anything that looks like a missile weapon. Similarly, if something adverse happens to one of their number as a result of the party's actions, they should immediately put two-and-two together unless pains have been taken to obscure the link between cause and effect: they're not Einsteins, but they can make simple inductive and deductive leaps.
Of course, this is both a strength and a weakness For instance, if a zombie attacks someone with a fire shield and bursts into flame, putting the illusion of a fire shield around the other party members won't help protect them agains the other zombies. Mindless creatures are too dumb to care about the fire-shield, whereas Low-Int creatures might well think twice before continuing to melee if they've seen bad effects happen to one of them when attacking a squishy human surrounded by flames. Similarly, you can't bluff or bamboozle something with no brain: "You saw what happened to your companion: well I, too, have mighty arcane powers!" is literally no threat at all to the mindless, or most animal-Int creatures, but if you speak their language you just might get somewhere employing similar tactics with low-Int monsters.
Low-Int monsters can make strategic withdrawals as opposed to turning tail and fleeing, and in the more altruistic species, might well cooperate in this regard to: comrades staying in place to close a door, provide covering fire or what-have-you in order to let the wounded escape.
***
Anyway, I've written rather a lot of words here. If anyone's interested, I can follow up with more, but I rather think I've rambled on longer already than anyone's really going to want to read
