Combat Strategems by Intelligence

Combat Stragegems by Intelligence is a list of combat design parameters that determine which weapons, formations, coordinated actions, fortifications, siege engines and forms of magical support a group of combatants can employ. These parameters establish the sophistication of the group's preparations and fighting methods, giving the dungeon master a repertoire appropriate to the minds directing the fight. This page discusses only battle tactics involving employed weapons, excluding tactics that relate to a creature's natural bodily weapons.

It is presumed that tactical methods and the availability of weapons are limited by a creature's intelligence. Making a weapon requires an understanding of its construction, while employing it effectively requires an understanding of its use. Coordinating groups with different weapons demands an understanding of how their actions support one another. More demanding stratagems require combatants to anticipate an enemy's response and organise their own actions accordingly. Intelligence also limits the construction of defences, devices and vehicles, each of which makes further strategies and tactics possible. Higher intelligence creatures possessed of skill in Instruction can enable creatures of less intelligence to use a better weapon, as will be explained; but it would still require sufficient knowledge, skill and ability to make that weapon at all.

It often happens in play that a DM's ability to conceive of a weapon's use is treated as sufficient reason to place it in a creature's hands. Goblins, designated as having an intelligence of 5 to 7 in the original Monster Manual, may consequently be equipped and organised according to the DM's understanding, without regard for their own. The intelligence assigned to the creature then ceases to impose any meaningful limit upon its military capabilities. The structure below establishes those limits, requiring the choice of weapons and stratagems to reflect the intelligence of the creatures employing them. This further requires the DM to understand intelligence itself and portray the capabilities associated with each score, from the limited understanding of a creature with an intelligence of 5 to the exceptional understanding of one with an intelligence of 18. These differences must govern how capably creatures prepare for and conduct combat, with creatures below intelligence 5 unable to use weapons at all.

Interpreting Intelligence Scores

The intelligence scores already assigned to creatures and required for character classes provide the starting point for this structure. These numbers establish differences in mental ability, but leave much of their practical meaning for combat unexplained. Calling a creature's intelligence “low” or “average” gives the DM little guidance about which weapons it can make, which preparations it can undertake or which actions it can coordinate with others. The purpose here is to interpret those existing scores as concrete capabilities that can be applied consistently in play.

The numbers must therefore be examined alongside the abilities attributed to those who possess them. If a creature with a given intelligence habitually employs a particular weapon, that association provides evidence for placing the weapon within its capabilities. If a character class requires a minimum intelligence, that requirement supplies another point of reference for the understanding needed to practise its abilities. Neither tells us everything by itself. Together, however, such associations allow us to establish limits and compare the demands of one capability with another.

A group whose members throw a weapon before advancing into hand-to-hand combat follows a common sequence. A group that maintains separate missile troops and melee fighters must understand different continuing responsibilities and how those responsibilities support one another. The second arrangement demands more than the first, even where both groups possess the same weapons. Intelligence must account for the organisation of their employment as well as their individual use.

Construction introduces further distinctions. Knowing how to use a bow does not establish the ability to make one. Recognising the advantage of an elevated firing position does not establish the ability to construct a platform that will safely support archers. Each capability must be considered according to the knowledge and understanding it requires. Weapons, coordinated actions, defences, devices and vehicles therefore need their own places within the structure, rather than becoming available together under a broad designation such as “intelligent combat.”

The resulting thresholds are rulings derived from the existing game, with the supporting inclusion of sage abilities, rather than a claim that the original intelligence descriptions already contain this complete system. Where those descriptions provide a clear point of reference, it will inform the placement of a capability. Where they leave a gap, a placement must be inferred by comparing its demands with those of capabilities already established. Those inferences must remain consistent across the table: a more demanding method cannot reasonably become available before the simpler understanding upon which it depends.