Tactical Quotient (TQ) for monsters

[Flipguarder]

4 wizards

so say we're playing 3.5 for the sake of full info. I throw 4 wizards at my group who are around the same level they are, 8 (say pcs are level 9). If I play my wizards to their best ability I would probalby have them cast web attempting to stack them so pcs would have even worse time getting out, then id have them cast fly, greater invisibility, then all cast summon monster 4. Id then have them dispel their webs on their turn and cast enervation on one character each. I feel like, this tactic. Or many tactics used by 4 wizards, would completely destroy a party. At the very least a battle between 4 wizards of similar level would be frustrating.

 

[DM_Blake]

There is a rumor about somebody during French Revolution riots leaning out of the window and shouting "I pray our friends will win". Somebody from the road asked "And who are our friends?". Answer was "On that we will decide afterwards".

So, short answer is - our friends won it. Long answer is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Emridy_Meadows

This is similar to the movie "The Kingdom" when the FBI agent and the Saudi Colonel are about to kick the door down and shoot the bad guys. The agent asks the colonel which side Allah is on (referring to the Saudi government side, or the Saudi terrorist side), and the colonel replies "We're about to find out."

Maybe the script writers heard the same French Revolution rumors.

 

[DM_Blake]

Well, no need to pile on the "wolves use smart tactics" bandwagon. So...

I assume that a monster has whatever instincts are required to use its abilities in a generally sound fashion. If something has a breath weapon, for example, it will try to blast a group of opponents in preference to a single target; even with animal intelligence, that should be an instinctive behavior. If it gets bonuses for a bunch of it piling on the same target, then it will pile on. Beyond that, I use the following broad strategies for monsters:

Mindless. Pick the nearest target, charge it, and maul it until either it's dead or you are. If multiple nearest targets, choose at random, or whichever looks tastiest. This level of tactics I usually reserve for zombies, giant insects, and so on.

Retaliatory. Pick whichever target is dishing out the most damage. This is what I often use for monsters that are not terribly bright and are either fighting solo or don't coordinate well. An ogre is likely to use this strategy--bash the one who's hurting you.

Wolfpack. Haven't actually used this much, but I plan to do more of it in 4E. As a group, pick whichever target looks weakest and take it down, while avoiding its stronger allies. Good for reasonably smart pack hunters, like wolves and gnolls.

Soldier. This monster understands the principles of D&D combat--concentrate firepower, kill spellcasters first, guard your own casters, don't go toe-to-toe with the raging barbarian, avoid letting sneaky-looking people flank you. At the same time, it isn't a tactical genius and doesn't come up with really clever plans. Appropriate for intelligent fighters experienced in organized warfare, like hobgoblins.

Boss Monster. This is where I pull out all the stops and play the monster as if I were running a PC, using every nasty tactic I can think of. Appropriate for intelligent boss monsters and other extra-smart foes.

I wonder if the 4E DMG will have some suggestions on this?

You forgot:

Genius Monster. This is where the monster has traps laid, or ambushes, or minions ready to pounce. It knows which adventurer is the most threatening, the easiest to kill, or the most susceptible to its special attacks, e.g. Hold (will attack) the dumb barbarian, disintegrate (Fort attack) the wizard. This is the monster who is a tactical Sun Tzu who marshals his forces and his resources on the battlefield in such a way to maximize his chances of winning and negate or minimize the resources of his enemies (the PCs). Appropriate for really smart monsters even if they aren't specifically boss monsters, such as a necromancer, vampire, dragon, mind flayer, etc., maybe working as a general or an independent agent of a boss monster.

 

[Dausuul]

You forgot:

Genius Monster. This is where the monster has traps laid, or ambushes, or minions ready to pounce. It knows which adventurer is the most threatening, the easiest to kill, or the most susceptible to its special attacks, e.g. Hold (will attack) the dumb barbarian, disintegrate (Fort attack) the wizard. This is the monster who is a tactical Sun Tzu who marshals his forces and his resources on the battlefield in such a way to maximize his chances of winning and negate or minimize the resources of his enemies (the PCs). Appropriate for really smart monsters even if they aren't specifically boss monsters, such as a necromancer, vampire, dragon, mind flayer, etc., maybe working as a general or an independent agent of a boss monster.

That's the "boss monster" strategy, which you'll note applies to "other extra-smart foes" as well. Unless you're suggesting I should give the monster knowledge it wouldn't logically have, in order to simulate superior intelligence. That's an option, but one I'm reluctant to use, because it risks breaking player suspension of disbelief if they realize the monster knows stuff it has no business knowing.

 

[Simm]

When planing monster combat strategies I usually bring is a factor that hasn't bee mentioned here: Alignment. Lawful creatures will tend to operate in a more coordinated fashion than chaotics, but will often die where they stand rather than retreat unless ordered to. Good creatures are less likely to flee or betray allies and will tend to fight fairly but will forget tactics in some situations such as when an ally is in danger.