Role-playing the monsters was always one of my favorite parts of the game.
So, I think a case-by-case basis with different monsters (and different groups of the same monsters) having different approaches to fighting, as described by Ubber, appeals to me, and it's what I've always done.
So far, my only real contact with 4th Edition in action has been through the Castle Ravenloft board game, but the monsters in that game have built-in artificial intelligence, with different monsters having different tactics, and that has been one of my favorite parts of the boardgames.
As far as the effects in play on monsters, I would assume monsters are aware of the effects at least on some level, but some monsters may adjust to the effects in different ways: poisoned monsters with little incentive to keep fighting might run away, intelligent monsters with a penalty to their armor class might take cover and switch to ranged attacks, enraged berserkers might ignore penalties and fight to the death, and so on.
As someone earlier mentioned as well, I've been known to "dumb down" monster tactics if the PCs are exhausted from a tough fight in a previous encounter, or play monster intelligence to the hilt if the PCs have been getting a relatively free pass until that fight. For example, one band of Goblins might be dumbed down to be a mob of fight-to-the-death berserkers, while another might have a designated leader and work together as a team to take advantage of terrain and so on, depending on whatever seems the most fun and appropriate.
Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
"Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
"Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
1- I don't really have a plan, I'm just going to attack and hope it works...alternatively: "BRAIIIIIINSSSSSSS!" Zombies being the classical 'intelligentless' creature that doesn't have a plan other than attack the other guy, and who doesn't care if they die.
2- Basic, I know that I want an advantage over my opponent, and I know that I should run away if I lose it. Goblins, animals, and most 'stupid' creatures.
3- I can formulate a battle plan and implement it. I am aware of what my opponents are up to, and I can counteract most of their attacks (or at least attempt to). These are really sly and 'smart' creatures. Illithids and drow come to mind.
4- BBEG. Pretty much, I don't fight you unless I need to, and I will only do it when I have every upper hand, if I don't have every upper hand, I will try to get away. I will use everything I have, and I will have everything I need.
The only really exception is when you have someone or something that is fanatical about something, whether its a line of dwarven soldiers protecting their families who are fleeing the goblin horde, or the crazy demon cultist who believes that Vecna will give him immortality for his services, an idea (or a spell) that controls a creatures mind and makes them do something larger than themselves is the only time that the flee mechanism doesn't trigger for 2-4.
Ok, but I don't see why "I am aware of what my opponents are up to, and I can counteract most of their attacks (or at least attempt to)" can't apply to every creature.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Ok, but I don't see why "I am aware of what my opponents are up to, and I can counteract most of their attacks (or at least attempt to)" can't apply to every creature.
I was being pretty general, but that's what most intelligent, none-super geniuses will have as a frame work. For instance if you take a gnoll, not the smartest fighter, but cunning, he will know that when that wizard starts wiggling his fingers and shouting in some ancient, bizarre language, he needs to disrupt/kill/silence/ mess with that wizard. If a fighter takes a swing at him, he knows he has to parry, and when he gets stabbed in the back by a rogue, he knows to try and get away from her before the fighter and the rogue double-team him.... This is the same for a drow, although a drow is a bit more advanced, she knows that if she shoots hers hand crossbow with sleeping darts at the wizard, knocking him out, and casts darkness on the fighter, she can deal with the rogue and then with the fighter, then slit the wizard's neck...or something like that.
Obviously, most creatures that don't have much of a tactical mind aren't in this category, a gelatinous cube for instance isn't able to do any of that, it attacks, ad if is about to die might back off...maybe not though.
I meant more or less that most intelligent beings are able to thing up a strategy and use it, then if the going gets tough to either get goin, or to make up an improvised plan to get them out of the mess they're in. Creatures at 1 or 2 might not be able to do that.
I'm not even sure if that made any sense or not...but there you go :P
Obviously, most creatures that don't have much of a tactical mind aren't in this category, a gelatinous cube for instance isn't able to do any of that, it attacks, ad if is about to die might back off...maybe not though.
That's not obvious to me. There's instinct, for instance. That gnoll who knows when to parry doesn't think about it, he just does it. Unlike a gelatinous cube, the gnoll was trained, but a gelatinous cube that's been around might have its own survival tactics even if it couldn't explain them
I meant more or less that most intelligent beings are able to thing up a strategy and use it, then if the going gets tough to either get goin, or to make up an improvised plan to get them out of the mess they're in. Creatures at 1 or 2 might not be able to do that.
Maybe not, but I don't think that strategy and improvisation are all there is to it.
Monsters are supposed to be challenging as they are. Dumbing them down doesn't make sense to them. You can still roleplay them as stupid or mindless, but roleplaying them as bad at fighting seems strange to me.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Obviously, most creatures that don't have much of a tactical mind aren't in this category, a gelatinous cube for instance isn't able to do any of that, it attacks, ad if is about to die might back off...maybe not though.
That's not obvious to me. There's instinct, for instance. That gnoll who knows when to parry doesn't think about it, he just does it. Unlike a gelatinous cube, the gnoll was trained, but a gelatinous cube that's been around might have its own survival tactics even if it couldn't explain them
I meant more or less that most intelligent beings are able to thing up a strategy and use it, then if the going gets tough to either get goin, or to make up an improvised plan to get them out of the mess they're in. Creatures at 1 or 2 might not be able to do that.
Maybe not, but I don't think that strategy and improvisation are all there is to it.
Monsters are supposed to be challenging as they are. Dumbing them down doesn't make sense to them. You can still roleplay them as stupid or mindless, but roleplaying them as bad at fighting seems strange to me.
Individual monsters are supossed to vary in challenge, even within the same level and role. And they do, but having different tactical paradigms for different types of enemies also adds more tactical complexity to the game. Just because the drow is smart enough to see a mouse trap when he sees one, doesn't mean the dire wolf is.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
And they do, but having different tactical paradigms for different types of enemies also adds more tactical complexity to the game.
The discussion here seems to be about how to play enemies "dumb." I don't see how playing enemies dumb adds more tactical complexity. I think people like to do it because they find it plausible, but I think there are more plausible interpretations.
Just because the drow is smart enough to see a mouse trap when he sees one, doesn't mean the dire wolf is.
I assume you mean "know a mouse trap when he sees one." I think I see your point. One might imagine that it's easier to trap a wolf than trap a drow. Again, I think it's not that hard to imagine a plausible situation in which it is the other way around, or that their chances are equal. A wolf might have been trapped before, might pick up on telltales that a drow would miss, might not be interested in the bait, or what have you. If you interpret the rules to mean that by hitting the Perception DC you recognize a trap as a trap, and given that beasts often have very good Wisdom scores, a wolf would tend to be better than a drow at detecting a trap not specifically designed to entrap either species. He might not know exactly what it was what to do with it (given that he'd have a pretty poor Thievery skill), but he would know not to mess with it.
There are no DCs for acting tactically in combat, nor should there be, so Intelligence and Wisdom modifiers shouldn't matter. Play your monsters and your characters to the best of your ability, if you want, and supply one of any number of plausible reasons for their decisions.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
I'm not trying to advocate playing monsters dumb, in fact, many of my PCs will admit, with a bit of chagrin, that they have a hard enough time killing their enemies, with them running away, sounding alarms, and leading them into traps, I was merely trying to make a (very, extremely) simplified list of the largest groupings of intelligence level.....it's hard to explain what I mean. You are totally right in what you're saying.
I'm simply pointing out, that you wouldn't have that same wolf plant a complicated swinging log trap, nor would you have that drow (unless under extreme circumstances) stare at the PCs and growl at them, snarling before charging them.
OK... this all seems very flexible, and I guess it is my job as the DM to determine the monsters course of action. I just have a hard time deciding when to break away from a mark or other tactical decision. I get chillhelms suggestions but not every monster has this desciption type.
A generalization:
Soldiers: attempt to mark and keep the PCs away from weaker allies. Skirmishers: Stay mobile, attempt to break the front line, flank enemies. Brute: ???? Artillery: Stay out of melee and stay mobile to hammer PCs with damaging ranged attacks.
Correct me if I am wrong. I hope this might help with monster tactics.
I would also include: Don't allow players to goad you into treating monsters unfavorably just to, 'trigger a mark; gain extra damage; etc.'
Some battles might be purposely planned to give the players a chance to completely dominate the opponents with their PCs' best abilities, but certainly not all combats should roll that way.
And they do, but having different tactical paradigms for different types of enemies also adds more tactical complexity to the game.
The discussion here seems to be about how to play enemies "dumb." I don't see how playing enemies dumb adds more tactical complexity. I think people like to do it because they find it plausible, but I think there are more plausible interpretations.
Just because the drow is smart enough to see a mouse trap when he sees one, doesn't mean the dire wolf is.
I assume you mean "know a mouse trap when he sees one." I think I see your point. One might imagine that it's easier to trap a wolf than trap a drow. Again, I think it's not that hard to imagine a plausible situation in which it is the other way around, or that their chances are equal. A wolf might have been trapped before, might pick up on telltales that a drow would miss, might not be interested in the bait, or what have you. If you interpret the rules to mean that by hitting the Perception DC you recognize a trap as a trap, and given that beasts often have very good Wisdom scores, a wolf would tend to be better than a drow at detecting a trap not specifically designed to entrap either species. He might not know exactly what it was what to do with it (given that he'd have a pretty poor Thievery skill), but he would know not to mess with it.
There are no DCs for acting tactically in combat, nor should there be, so Intelligence and Wisdom modifiers shouldn't matter. Play your monsters and your characters to the best of your ability, if you want, and supply one of any number of plausible reasons for their decisions.
The primary key is to do what is fun for your group. If that means some monsters are dumb while others are smart, then that's the case. If that means all monsters using solid tactics, even to the point of them metagaming, then go for it.
Personally, my enemies vary in tactical acuity. Particularly when it comes to whether or not a monster reacts emotionally to something. In my opinion, intelligent creatures in high stress situations are likely to react emotionally to many stimuli. Even things like dragons. You poke at a dragon's pride, and it's natural arrogance and pridefullness will come into play. It won't necessarily go after the person who is the greatest threat, or the most beneficial target.
Also, I always assume that the default enemy behavior in response to a player's mark is to pay attention to it. Sometimes they won't, and they'll get hurt, but I don't actually decide that based on the damage output of the mark punishment. Damage output is a nebulous thing, when translated to in game reckoning.
Also, I should have clarified. Mouse trap refers to a tactic, wherein one person in a formation darts forward to make a quick attack, then back again. Ideally, at least one person in the enemy formation generally chases the bait, and then get's pinched by two or more allies of the bait. A wolf will probably go for the guy that just jump forward to attack. A drow has solid tactical knowledge, and may not.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
OK... this all seems very flexible, and I guess it is my job as the DM to determine the monsters course of action. I just have a hard time deciding when to break away from a mark or other tactical decision. I get chillhelms suggestions but not every monster has this desciption type.
A generalization:
Soldiers: attempt to mark and keep the PCs away from weaker allies. Skirmishers: Stay mobile, attempt to break the front line, flank enemies. Brute: ???? Artillery: Stay out of melee and stay mobile to hammer PCs with damaging ranged attacks.
Correct me if I am wrong. I hope this might help with monster tactics.
I would also include: Don't allow players to goad you into treating monsters unfavorably just to, 'trigger a mark; gain extra damage; etc.'
Some battles might be purposely planned to give the players a chance to completely dominate the opponents with their PCs' best abilities, but certainly not all combats should roll that way.
I don't believe in arbitrarily denying players the benefit of their features. If you can't challenge them without doing so, you're not building encounters well.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
