Tyler Do'Urden
Soap Maker
All experienced DM's have run into this problem before- how does intelligence (and, to some extent, wisdom and alignment) effect the tactics that an NPC uses in combat? In general, I use the following assumptions:
Int -: Typically undead and constructs, they fight until they're burger, bone shards, and scrap metal, with no real tactics other than "slay the intruder", unless commanded otherwise by a controller. Fairly straight forward.
Int 1-8: About the same, only such creatures are usually very instinctive (animals, beasts, dumb humanoids and giants). If sufficiently hurt or overwhelmed (or intimidated), such creatures will often flee unless being driven by a more powerful creature or NPC. They attack in a straightforward manner with little thought for smart tactics other than those which come instinctually (for example, a great cat or dire wolf would likely pounce from hiding rather than attack in the open). I also play up the fact that such creatures are often very intimidated by fire and magic (unless, again, driven by the threat of some greater power- this would apply more to creatures on the upper half of this scale, the less intelligent humanoids).
Int 9-13: Typical human intelligence. Probably understands basic tactics- how to deal with an armored opponent, when and how to use feats like dodge and power attack. Most follow orders well. This is the "default" for a human or humanoid warrior.
Int 14-19: Above average/Genius Intelligence. Wizards, smart warriors, younger dragons, many outsiders, aberrations, and giants fall into this category. They are generally not caught unprepared for battle, are likely to have a contingency plan in case they are overwhelmed, and seldom fight without backup unless they are entities known for extreme power (and even then, a few solid mooks can't hurt). They are generally very observant, and know ways of exploiting percieved weaknesses in enemies. Unlike the baseline 9-13 Int creatures, they know their way around magic, and typically know how to neutralize a spellcaster.
Int 20+: Godlike intelligence. Generally difficult to effectively portray, beyond the level of the creatures of 14-19 Int. How I differentiate them is that I portray them as if they already knew everything on their opponent's character sheets- their AC, spells readied, magic items, etc. Given that I am incapable of thinking at such advanced levels as a creature of godlike intelligence, it seems like they should have access to tactical data and an understanding I wouldn't- hence, I simulate this by giving them what I think of as "battle omniscience". When a PC goes up against such a creature, they're basically fighting an enemy who knows them better than they know themselves.
Now, most of my players think that this makes sense. However, one complained that even creatures with such high mental attributes should have to attain such knowledge in the usual manner. I argued that given everything that a DM has to juggle in a play session, this is the simplest way of simulating the "vast, godlike" intelligence of greater fiends, high level wizards and liches, greater dragons, and the like. The player insists that this is cheating, and taking unfair advantage. This argument isn't particularly timely, given that said player has moved away, but it was something I was thinking about recently...
any comments, or ways you could think of of refining my system?
Int -: Typically undead and constructs, they fight until they're burger, bone shards, and scrap metal, with no real tactics other than "slay the intruder", unless commanded otherwise by a controller. Fairly straight forward.
Int 1-8: About the same, only such creatures are usually very instinctive (animals, beasts, dumb humanoids and giants). If sufficiently hurt or overwhelmed (or intimidated), such creatures will often flee unless being driven by a more powerful creature or NPC. They attack in a straightforward manner with little thought for smart tactics other than those which come instinctually (for example, a great cat or dire wolf would likely pounce from hiding rather than attack in the open). I also play up the fact that such creatures are often very intimidated by fire and magic (unless, again, driven by the threat of some greater power- this would apply more to creatures on the upper half of this scale, the less intelligent humanoids).
Int 9-13: Typical human intelligence. Probably understands basic tactics- how to deal with an armored opponent, when and how to use feats like dodge and power attack. Most follow orders well. This is the "default" for a human or humanoid warrior.
Int 14-19: Above average/Genius Intelligence. Wizards, smart warriors, younger dragons, many outsiders, aberrations, and giants fall into this category. They are generally not caught unprepared for battle, are likely to have a contingency plan in case they are overwhelmed, and seldom fight without backup unless they are entities known for extreme power (and even then, a few solid mooks can't hurt). They are generally very observant, and know ways of exploiting percieved weaknesses in enemies. Unlike the baseline 9-13 Int creatures, they know their way around magic, and typically know how to neutralize a spellcaster.
Int 20+: Godlike intelligence. Generally difficult to effectively portray, beyond the level of the creatures of 14-19 Int. How I differentiate them is that I portray them as if they already knew everything on their opponent's character sheets- their AC, spells readied, magic items, etc. Given that I am incapable of thinking at such advanced levels as a creature of godlike intelligence, it seems like they should have access to tactical data and an understanding I wouldn't- hence, I simulate this by giving them what I think of as "battle omniscience". When a PC goes up against such a creature, they're basically fighting an enemy who knows them better than they know themselves.
Now, most of my players think that this makes sense. However, one complained that even creatures with such high mental attributes should have to attain such knowledge in the usual manner. I argued that given everything that a DM has to juggle in a play session, this is the simplest way of simulating the "vast, godlike" intelligence of greater fiends, high level wizards and liches, greater dragons, and the like. The player insists that this is cheating, and taking unfair advantage. This argument isn't particularly timely, given that said player has moved away, but it was something I was thinking about recently...
any comments, or ways you could think of of refining my system?
