So … the intelligent tag for monsters. I don’t think it’s always applied consistently in the book.
At first I took it to mean any creature that was intelligent enough to pick up skills. But it seems to mean more than that; it’s defined as “It’s smart enough that some individuals pick up other skills. The GM can adapt the monster by adding tags to reflect specific training, like a mage or warrior.”
So its about differentiation too. It’s applied to creatures that might be differentiated from one instance to the next by their skill set. Nearly all of the Ravenous Hordes have the tag, for instance. Also, some solitary creatures have them, e.g. Medusa, Angel, but we might take this to mean the monster is one of many but only appears one at a time, so the tag still makes sense.
But … Dragon whelps are intelligent while your typical dragon (or even the Apocalypse Dragon) is not. And Chokers, Banshees, Devourers, etc. are intelligent? An Ettin isn’t. A hedge wizard is not, but a bandit is?
I’m confused. I feel like a lot of times the tag is unnecessary. I think you should only apply the tag if it’s not obvious or to indicate that the creature is a whole species and there is skill-oriented or major personality differentiation among them.
Thoughts?
Quick add: here’s a place where the creators were smart about the tag’s application, a Formian Drone is NOT intelligent, whereas all the other higher up formians are. Makes total sense there. Your average worker ant would have no differentiation from another worker ant.
Nothing to add, just waiting for responses.
+Ray Otus I think the formian case actually makes sense – the higher castes are the ones making decisions for the drones, so the drones themselves are not intelligent. But I agree with you for some of the other cases, like dragons.
Edit: Misread your comment as you pointed out. Never mind! 🙂
Noah Tucker that was my point re: the formians. It’s a good use.
Also, if you want to see for yourself, go here and do a Ctrl+F for “intelligent.” http://www.jellysaw.com/rpg/dw/monsters/monsters.html
I think if anything it’s a pointer to remind the GM that cleverness and surprising tricks are in the monster’s toolbox as something that they should be relying on.
For a dragon whelp, they’re intelligent because they rely on guile to make up for their physical weakness, whereas a fully grown dragon doesn’t rely on its wits very often because it’s an armored tornado of fire and teeth.
Yeah, I think the tags are meant to be suggestions for the GM not really concrete listings of every aspect of a monster.
James Etheridge – “to remind the GM that cleverness and surprising tricks are in the monster’s toolbox” – I think of that as the devious tag.
Joseph F. Russo – of course. That’s true. But it’s akin to saying tags don’t really matter. I think they do and that while we shouldn’t nail them down too concretely, we also should have some general collective sense of what they mean. Of course that describes language in general. What you think of as “spicy” for instance, may differ from what I think of as spicy, and yet both of our definitions are within a sort of bounded range. No one thinks unseasoned mash potatoes are spicy. 🙂
I like to think a dragon whelp being intelligent is like a young dog being able to pick up on you teaching it things. That’s when all its learning is happening so it could pick up on other skills. It doesn’t explain all of the inconsistencies, but I think that’s just what they are, inconsistencies. Like the proof reader wasn’t familiar with all the monsters, so if it didn’t have the tag they didn’t know any better. And as for Chokers, banshee and devourers, I believe those would make sense as being intelligent. I could argue that ettins are, but compared to a person they are pretty dumb. The hedge wizard is the most blatant one. Anything with wizard in the name should be intelligent, that’s just common sense lol
Ok, so to me the Intelligent tag is this:
The creature is a thinking one capable of reasoning things out. Has some skills apropriate to their background and will adapt their tactics. They can be reasoned with, tricked, or otherwise manipulated on a thinking level. They are smart and should be treated as such. Often they use tools or their smarts to overcome obstacles and come up with some suprising tactics.
A creature that is Intelligent but doesn’t have the tag: This creature does have smarts but does not feel that they need to use it. In the case of a Dragon, they are arrogant and though they may learn, they have very little reason to learn, having their power speak for them. They may use the same tactics over and over and can be predictable, if one knows them. A creature that is Intelligent but doesn’t have the tag does not benefit from interaction with the characters, they don’t “learn” and adapt much. Either they don’t feel the need, or their instincts override any learning and take precedence.
The difference is slight in some cases.
Agree with all the above.
To add, i like to use the intelligent tag as an indicator that this creature is more likely to become a major threat with plans and schemes that make up fronts, more often than those that do not have the intelligent tag. If the party doesnt take care of the creature, it would most likely come back to haunt them.
Robert Doe
In other words, the Intelligent tag indicates the capacity for long-range scheming?
Precisely