Rating INT?

[Primitive Screwhead]

I have a question..and since I do not want to color the response by my opinion, here goes:


What INT score is the minumum for tactical use of racial traits and short term tactics?
{short term meaning current encounter..flanking, manuever, etc..}


If you could flesh out your take of the following INT levels regarding the above:
3 -

6 -

9 -


Thanks for your input!
{mine will come later... }

 

[hafrogman]

Interesting question. . . because I see a 2 intelligence wolf pack being capable of flanking and other tactics.

But a 3 intelligence person is barely functional . . .

So I'd say it depends more on training/experience, i.e. a 3 intelligence commoner would probably just run away, but a 3 intelligence fighter could probably have been trained to know some basic tactics.

I'd say by 6 intelligence everyone understands "you hold his arms, and I'll punch him"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The average trained soldier would use them. (INT 10.) In the case of animals or monsters that hunt in a pack (like wolves), I'd say the average intelligence member of their race (which varies depending on the creature) would do it.

An above-average untrained combatant would use them. (INT 12.)

 

[ThirdWizard]

I would say basic tactics have nothing to do with Intelligence (or very little). It has more to do with culture and instinct. A high intelligence merchant would be out-smarted in battle by a dumb orc. Why? Because the orc has been fighting and been around combat his whole life. He lives and breathes it, and despite his intelligence he knows how to fight successfully.

Intelligence and Wisdom would be deterimining factors, I think, in thinking outside the box or in coming up with new strategies based on unexpected scenarios or scenarios that vary wildly from one's former experiences. Our really smart merchant might fare better than the orc warrior when on the Astral Plane, for example, tactics-wise.

 

[Stalker0]

I think int isn't just planning its adaptation.

Wolves might hunt as a pack and show coordinated tactics. But these tactics are pretty much the exact same thing, time and time again. Give them something different, and they get confused, they get scared.

A 10 int can coordinate and plan just fine. Lots of people can plan. THe difference between a good plan and a great plan is accounting for things that don't go according to plan.

For example, if you have a 10 int guy making a plan you as the dm might say, alright this thing didn't go according to plan, what do you do now?

If its an 18 int guy you might say, "alright this didn't go according to plan, but you switched over to plan B12 and circumvented it."

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I would say basic tactics have nothing to do with Intelligence (or very little). It has more to do with culture and instinct. A high intelligence merchant would be out-smarted in battle by a dumb orc. Why? Because the orc has been fighting and been around combat his whole life. He lives and breathes it, and despite his intelligence he knows how to fight successfully.

Intelligence and Wisdom would be deterimining factors, I think, in thinking outside the box or in coming up with new strategies based on unexpected scenarios or scenarios that vary wildly from one's former experiences. Our really smart merchant might fare better than the orc warrior when on the Astral Plane, for example, tactics-wise.

I agree with this statement 237%.

Lion prides and wolf packs hunt using tactics that can be quite sophisticated.

I tend to think of a lower intelligence as limiting the breadth of one's abilities, rather than the possibility of mastering any one ability.

And, IMO, a 9 Int is mostly indistinguishable from average int. A bit of fuzziness on abstract concepts, a less acute memory, but that's about it.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Nice answers all, but not quite in the direction I was thinking.
Altho Lord Pendragon's comment on limiting the breadth of abiliyt vs mastering an ability hits the proverbial nail on the head.

To push the discussion more in that direction, allow me to point of the two threads that led to the question.

Thread 1: Orc vs Commoner
Thread 2: Standing and Fighting

The first has quotes like:

Sounds like your Orcs got plenty of Int... with your way of doing things... i could make sure 2 Orcs would be enought to raid the Town... Don't Overplay them...

Orc = INT of 8
While the second has quotes like:

Ordinary wolves, at least, are familiar and not dangerous* and don't make a good cue not to fight. They're also not smart, a trait which applied to ordinary dire wolves, making them easier to beat.

Wolf INT 2
Dire Wolf.. INT 2

{Not picking on these posters.. just happened to find thier quotes first }

This has lead me to wonder how Other Players{trademark pending} treat the various abillity scores when it comes to tactical choice making.

{my soapbox still being withheld }

 

[radferth]

Leon Lett was a great football player when he wasn't on drug suspension.

 

[NexH]

I don't think there is much difference between INT 3 and 9 for short term tactics, I'd say that there is great improvement in strategical thinking and complicated cooperative maneuvers for the later, but not in simple things.

IMO the capability to device short term tactics on the fly seems to be more related to Wisdom and combat experience (generally related to HD).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Nice answers all, but not quite in the direction I was thinking.
Altho Lord Pendragon's comment on limiting the breadth of abiliyt vs mastering an ability hits the proverbial nail on the head.

To push the discussion more in that direction, allow me to point of the two threads that led to the question.

{my soapbox still being withheld }

Instead of playing "guess what's in my pocket," why not just make your post instead of waiting for us to stumble into the discussion you want to have in the first place?