Creature Intelligence and Combat Tactics Question

[Baron28]

I don't think there is a hard/fast answer to this question, so I'm just looking for opinions from other DMs in the community. I employ the flanking variant in my games that grant players or creatures advantage on attack rolls when flanking a target. My question is how intelligent does a creature or player need to be to use this flanking tactic? The DMG pg. 251 only specifies that a creature must see an enemy and cannot be incapacitated to flank.

Thoughts?

[JohnD]

Animal or better.

[LordEntrails]

Not sure if you mean "Intelligence" as in the ability score or as in a more intangible measure.

Anyway, I try to think like the creature. Or at least how I think the creature thinks. For instance, wolves are pack animals, and very cunning when it comes to conflict. So, they would normally (for me) using flanking and other 'intelligent' tactics.

Now, orcs... to me they aren't so cunning, maybe they would flank, but more like they would just swarm if they were able to and as a result they might get flanking advantage.

The other part I consider in regards to creature tactics is if I need the combat to be easier or harder. If harder, then the creatures use better tactics, if it is ending up being too hard, then the creatures make dumb mistakes (like not flanking).

[Baron28]

Not sure if you mean "Intelligence" as in the ability score or as in a more intangible measure.

Anyway, I try to think like the creature. Or at least how I think the creature thinks. For instance, wolves are pack animals, and very cunning when it comes to conflict. So, they would normally (for me) using flanking and other 'intelligent' tactics.

Now, orcs... to me they aren't so cunning, maybe they would flank, but more like they would just swarm if they were able to and as a result they might get flanking advantage.

The other part I consider in regards to creature tactics is if I need the combat to be easier or harder. If harder, then the creatures use better tactics, if it is ending up being too hard, then the creatures make dumb mistakes (like not flanking).

Thanks John D for the short/simple answer. I like those. :) So INT > 5, the creature is smart enough to flank.

Lord, You make very interesting points. I meant Intelligence in terms of the ability score. If the creature, such as wolves or kobolds have pack tactics, then I agree they would use cunning tactics to gain advantage in combat.

Typically, I have run all creatures, with exception of a few (Giant Fire Beatles and Stirges come to mind), with the capability to flank to gain advantage to make the encounter harder. A fair criticism of me as a DM is that I tend to run my creatures with a bit more savvy then maybe they should. A solution to this would be to "dumb down" the creatures but add more of them to the encounter for balancing purposes.

Thanks for the feedback!

[Griogre]

I do, in general, make smarter or more experienced (older) monsters fight better. In a world with few heroes, most adult monsters have been successful - *until* they encountered the party or they would already be dead is my starting point. So most of my monsters initially underestimate the party and die from it. Intelligence comes in to play if there are survivors from prior encounters (or the monsters at least know the group is responsible for past carnage), or the group gets a rep, or if the creature has fought something like heroes before.

However as the wolf and other pack creatures show its not just intelligence that makes creatures fight well together. I also look at alignment and usually have lawful creatures be more organized and fight better together. The classic case being a group of devils vs. the party contrasted with a group of demons vs. the party. Even if the monsters have exactly the same intelligence it would make more sense for the devils to fight better as a unit than the demons. The demons might not fight stupid but they would fight more opportunistically, vs. the devils who would have a battle plan they were all in on *before* the fight even started.

[Baron28]

I do, in general, make smarter or more experienced (older) monsters fight better. In a world with few heroes, most adult monsters have been successful - *until* they encountered the party or they would already be dead is my starting point. So most of my monsters initially underestimate the party and die from it. Intelligence comes in to play if there are survivors from prior encounters (or the monsters at least know the group is responsible for past carnage), or the group gets a rep, or if the creature has fought something like heroes before.

However as the wolf and other pack creatures show its not just intelligence that makes creatures fight well together. I also look at alignment and usually have lawful creatures be more organized and fight better together. The classic case being a group of devils vs. the party contrasted with a group of demons vs. the party. Even if the monsters have exactly the same intelligence it would make more sense for the devils to fight better as a unit than the demons. The demons might not fight stupid but they would fight more opportunistically, vs. the devils who would have a battle plan they were all in on *before* the fight even started.

Thanks Griogre, this gives me even more variables and factors to think about as well. All good stuff guys!

[damned]

Smarter opponents will also target spell casters or isolate players that stray too far from the others...
Some will hang back hidden until a weakness or opportunity is uncovered - eg the tanks rush to the front and then the attackers pounce on the spell casters at the rear!

[epithet]

I think the flanking effect comes into play as a function of the flanked target being unable to adequately defend against attacks from two opposite directions, not necessarily from those attacks being coordinated by the attackers. As such, anything that "threatens" the target with an attack vs. its armor class can in theory distract it enough to give advantage to a flanking attack, even if it is a mindless construct.

[JohnD]

I would think that in numbers, flanking attacks might happen naturally regardless of creature intelligence and ability to coordinate attacks.

[Xorn]

Out of curiosity, do you find that the flanking variant rules trivialize getting advantage or diminishes creatures with Pack Tactics traits? When I first read the variant I was excited about trying it, then felt that unless you make it OAs more common (leaving a threatened square, instead of just leaving reach) it was just too easy to flank, and hard to prevent it. How does it shake down in actual play?

[Baron28]

Out of curiosity, do you find that the flanking variant rules trivialize getting advantage or diminishes creatures with Pack Tactics traits? When I first read the variant I was excited about trying it, then felt that unless you make it OAs more common (leaving a threatened square, instead of just leaving reach) it was just too easy to flank, and hard to prevent it. How does it shake down in actual play?

My players are constantly looking for any edge in combat and thus will flank because attacking at advantage is huge. I have a tendency to run my monsters at times with a bit more savvy then perhaps they should just to be on somewhat equal footing when battling the players. Kinda "monkey see monkey do". The only thing it might nerf is faerie fire if you can flank. It doesn't nerf pack tactics because if you can't flank, you still fall back on the pack tactics.