So at what intelligence am I allowed to use tactics?

[Liminal Syzygy]

Good point Fusangite on the low INT scores of wolves. I was going to say the same thing. But I don't think this means you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps there needs to be a WIS component to this as well.

 

[RFisher]

Above all a player must think. The game is designed to challenge the minds and imaginations of the players. Those who tackle problems and use their abilities, wits, and new ideas will succeed more often than fail. The challenge of thinking is a great deal of the fun of the game.

Gygax, Gary. B2: The Keep on the Borderlands. p. 25.

I quote that not because EGG is the last word on roleplaying games, but because I happen to agree with him in this case. (Although, I certainly take EGG's opinion seriously even when I disagree with him.)

It may be metagaming, but I want the game to be played by the players, & I want to play them game when I'm not behind the screen. I don't want it to be so simulation-oriented that even tactics is decided by the numbers instead of the players. I don't want it to be so drama-oriented that the players are making decisions so indirectly. I want it to be more game.

Now, that's not to say that I don't want the simulation & drama aspects to play any part. There are certainly times when I make a sub-optimal choice for a character of mine because I think that's what the character would do. I just want the game aspect to be the strongest element.

&, none of this is to say any one else's way of playing is wrong. Just that this is what my preference is.

 

[devilish]

I agree that player characters are generally off-limits -- much like the
ruling that they NPC's can't affect them with Cha skills like PCs affect
them.

But it does matter for the monsters/NPCs -- we got into a discussion
once when the players remarked that "Boy, those are smart goblins"
when the goblins moved to flank them. I figured that this was a rudimentary
combat maneuver; it wasn't like they started charging and tripping
the person most wizard-like, then dodging, moving out of range with a
5' shuffle every chance they got. They just ganged up -- pretty basic
tactics.

When would a goblin start using tactics --- with more levels? what if
I rolled them and I ended up with a 16Int/16Wis (I don't have them in
front of me, but assume a -2/-2 and rolled 18s), would that goblin use
tactics?

 

[VirgilCaine]

I have seen a 100 times on this board, basically some DM's and Players complain that intelligent scores dictate battle tacts.

So as a DM what is the list of stuff I can do for a given Int score. What is the hard and fast number that I am allowed to move around a threatened square. How about spring attack?

Well, just about anything with 6 Int will know to kill the guy without armor first, IMO.
A little more intelligence will let the creature tell the difference between fighters and clerics--e.g. less impressive weapons, holy symbol, etc.


Devilish: Well, duh.
Whatever his class is, yeah he'd use appropriate tactics.
And he would make appropriate preparations, also. Like having scrolls of combat spells if he is a cleric/druid or adept, and extra scrolls if he's an arcane caster. Or caltrops and alchemical items if he isn't a caster, etc.

 

[Insight]

When deciding on what tactics to use for an opponent, there are many factors to take into consideration. First and foremost, what are the creature's motives in the encounter? If it's merely survival, that will dictate what you do with the creature. If it has friends and allies it can rely upon for aid, that also changes your tactics. If it has a different motivation, such as to prevent the characters from accessing a site or an item, that will also change your tactics.

But regardless of the creature's INT or WIS scores (both of which dictate what we would call sentience), a creature with any degree of intellect has motivation, so use that as a base. Then, apply INT and/or WIS scores to the equation. Even creatures with a low INT score but decent WIS score can use some tactics, such as making sure it doesn't get flanked (or getting out of a flank), or using its special attacks to best effect.

Probably the best way to gauge tactics for creatures is to decide who they attack, and who they will stay away from. A 'dumb' creature should attack randomly, while a cunning or smart creature will make more informed decisions about its actions in combat, such as attacking the preceived 'weaker' target so as to reduce its number of opponents. By the same token, a creature who is essentially clueless about how things work (ie, a low Wis score) should not intentionally take advantage of situational modifiers in combat - in other words, it might not take that 5' step to gain a flank with its ally against a foe, or might make a move without regard to possible opportunity attacks. This is not to say that the creatures loses these benefits where applicable - they just don't know well enough to make them happen on purpose.

If you need a rule of thumb for this situation, I would say any creature with a 5 or less INT score should roll randomly to decide who it attacks, and any creature with a WIS of 5 or less should not use situational modifiers (such as flanking bonuses, higher ground, opportunity attacks, etc) to decide its tactics.

 

[fusangite]

As a GM, when I play monsters, my big consideration, far more than intelligence is experience. What kinds of creatures are these monsters used to fighting? Whether you are a genius or a moron, if you have never fought a particular sort of creature, you are not going to capitalize very effectively on weaknesses you are not aware of. By the same token, stupid or brilliant, if you are used to attacking a particular sort of creature, you will be pretty good at it, especially if you live in a community of beings who are also so experienced and can compare notes.

For me this was hammered home by the countless Dr. Who episodes I watched as a kid. Whenever the Daleks showed up, the Doctor would inevitably soon be shouting to his new friends, "Aim for the eye piece!"

Thus, if the characters are facing a pride of lions or a pack of wolves, more than these creatures' mental attributes, my first question will be: how often have these creatures interacted with humans? For some prides of lions, these may be the first humans they have ever seen; for others, it will be a weekly occurrence. Thus, creatures of the same species and intelligence might have widely disparate responses depending on what sorts of humans they have encountered in the past and how often.

And I don't see clever creatures any differently. If a Yuan-Ti is only experienced with enslaved human commoners, his tactics with a party of characters might be hubristic and ill-advised. If, on the other hand, his kingdom is at constant war with the humans, he might have highly nuanced clever tactics that respond to anticipated magic use and battle tactics.

For those of us who grew up at the smartest or most athletic kids in our elementary school classes, only to fall behind in the adult world, the overwhelming value of experience over all latent abilities is an excellent guide to playing NPCs and monsters realistically.

 

[Voodoo]

To a large extent I ignore the stats of monsters tactics and just go with what feels right.

I see goblins as fairly sneaky selfish underdogs who would exploit flanking though might not protect the shaman at the back as well as they could.

Human guards might form a line, although not the most effective offensive formation it protects whoever they are trying to guard.

Wolves would try to pick off one of the small sized characters who are slightly seperated form the party, like the atypical halfling rogue.

Spellcasters with very high Int or Wis stats i sometimes spontaniously change there spells if they've had a chance to plan as I cannot plan as well as they could. And so on.

 

[Trainz]

For an Int 10 or more fighter, you would allow the player to use whatever tactics he comes up with. If he has 9 or lower Int, you could ask him for a DC 10 Int check occasionally whenever you feel his character might not have come up with the proposed tactic.

It is a non-issue IMC, because my players often make sure their fighters have at least 13 Int (Combat Expertise prereq).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I see the issue of tactics as being one of training far more than intelligence. One of the posters ar RPGNet (I think his handle was Random Goblin or something like that) gave us a quick tutorial on how to apply modern small unit tactics to RPGs. They were frighteningly efficient and would probably give fits to an PC party that didn't know how to deal with them. The important part of this is while I'm sure that the intelligence of our soldiers matches the full span of normal humanity (really dumb to brilliant), they _all_ know these tactics.

Fighter level really represents individual fighting ability, which doesn't apply to tactics. So since D&D lack any good referents for the ability to fight as part of a group (such as a cooperative fighting skill) I would rule that any group that would have a reason to develop tactics over time (hobgoblins, kobolds, and drow come to mind) would use whatever tactics the DM could come up with. Chaotic creature or those that according to ther spcies description would not cooperate well would not.

--Mishihari Lord (fan of parenthetical expressions)

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

First things first: nobody has any choice about using tactics. The only question is whether they will use bad tactics, passable tactics, or good tactics.

Second things second. As Mishihari Lord points out, modern soldiers probably cover the whole gamut of intelligence but they all know how to use modern military tactics because that's what they are trained to do. Likewise, I don't think anyone is going to be campaigning for professional boxers (in general) to be offered the opportunity to join Mensa (and some of them, like Mike Tyson have displayed an appalling lack of wisdom in their out of the ring behavior). Even so, I would bet that they have a much better grasp of personal combat tactics and how to make them work in practice than most of us here. I'm not saying that boxers are necessarily dumb, but they don't tend to be remarkable for their intelligence.

So, the upshot of this is that I don't think there's any necessary corellation between intelligence and tactical ability. People study tactics. They are trained by people who know tactics. And, in general, that's enough. What intelligence (and wisdom) is probably useful for is coming up with new tactics and new applications of tactics in situations for which a character has not been trained. And for figuring out what tactics to train your soldiers in in the first place.