Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drunkmoogle" data-source="post: 1486621" data-attributes="member: 18336">Take note of the last paragraph of my post. The Pack Hunter clause applies to a crapload of animals; again I was only using them as an example. I play things by ear, but it's nice to have something to fall back on when planning combat encounters and seeing how it should play out.Yeah, Smart (er) Animal was a bad idea, but I couln't think of something of the top of my head that has an INT of that range other than an advanced animals (extra hit dice, third party templates, dumb familiars).You don't have to be smart to be tactically effective. That's what STR, DEX, and CON is for  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> . But a low INT fighter typically isn't a planner and stratigist; he's a soldier. He knows his combat tricks here and there, vis a vis learning, but ultimately doesn't come close to the ranks of... ummm... Confucious?I hate talking myself into a corner  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" />. But you get the point, right?</blockquote>