Tactical Quotient (TQ) for monsters

[Wormwood]

In a tactical game like D&D, I play the monsters according to *my* intelligence.

 

[Ingolf]

I really think this is one of those areas that doesn't have a pat answer. It depends on your knowledge, as a DM, of your players and what they expect and can handle.

My group, honestly, is a little short in the tactical savvy department. Very good roleplayers, all of them, but generally not great at rules and tactics. My goal has always been to provide as fun and challenging an encounter as I can, so I try to adjust my NPCs tactics accordingly. Many of the monsters we've seen so far in 4e have abilities that not only reinforce their "flavor" but also suggest certain tactics, I look forward to seeing how well my group responds (they are very much stuck in the "charge-attack-5' step-full attack-charge-attack" rut that 3e engenders.)

Every once in a while my players surprise me and end up having an easier time of it than I thought they would, but it goes the other way too - I almost wiped them out with a werewolf encounter (in a superhero game no less) because none of them thought to pick up a silver weapon . . .

 

[vagabundo]

In a tactical game like D&D, I play the monsters according to *my* intelligence.

I dumb them down quite a bit, my players have enough trouble without me killing off a load of them every session.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I dumb them down quite a bit, my players have enough trouble without me killing off a load of them every session.

Remember, killing your players is bad for the reputation of D&D. At least try to cover it up as something non-RPG related!

 

[shilsen]

In a tactical game like D&D, I play the monsters according to *my* intelligence.

Yikes! I never play monsters according to my own intelligence. I run a game for a bunch of very buff PCs, who usually have only one or two encounters a day, invariably against much weaker (by EL/CR) opposition, and we average one PC going to -10 or below every two sessions. If I played the monsters as well as I can, we'd have a TPK every 3-4 sessions.

Yes, D&D is a tactical game, but for me it's a tactical roleplaying game, so I play as tactically as befits the role that I'm playing. That's true when I'm running a PC and that's true when I'm DMing. I do think, however, that my players are invariably playing as tactically as they can.

 

[Patlin]

With dumb monsters, I intentionally make some mistakes. A p.o.'d ogre is more likely to accept attacks of opportunity to get to a target that irritated him than an equally irritated mind flayer, for example.

 

[hong]

Yikes! I never play monsters according to my own intelligence. I run a game for a bunch of very buff PCs, who usually have only one or two encounters a day, invariably against much weaker (by EL/CR) opposition, and we average one PC going to -10 or below every two sessions. If I played the monsters as well as I can, we'd have a TPK every 3-4 sessions.

Nah. You'd just force your players to start thinking tactically, as opposed to charging in with a gonzo attitude. You'd still end up with one death (or the equivalent) every couple of sessions, but play would be a lot slower as people carefully weigh up the options and pick the optimal choice. Same end result, but more boring, and with the risk of turning the atmosphere into player-vs-DM.

 

[Wormwood]

Yikes! I never play monsters according to my own intelligence.

The reason I'm able to do it is because I'm a terrible tactician.

I pull out all the stops just to keep up with those jerks across the screen!

 

[Andur]

I'm play them well enough to give the party a "memorable" encounter as ofen as possible. I want them to fear the BBEG, but I don't want them ever thinking "bah, just a bunch of XXXX, this is a breeze"... And they don't.

 

[Dausuul]

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?