| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What specifically does "mindless" entail in Pathfinder? What does it mean? It doesn't appear to be a defined term. I can find no mention of it in the PRD's Universal Monster Rules, and everywhere else it comes up, it is mentioned passively, and with many inconsistent sub-properties.
However, most constructs are mindless and gain no skill points or feats.
So mindless constructs do not gain skills or feats. This isn't necessarily a property of "mindless" itself, so much as it is a property of "mindless constructs."
The immunity to mind-affecting effects is listed separately and thus may not necessarily stem from the mindless property itself (in fact, I'm certain that it does not as even intelligent construct creatures retain this immunity).
Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)
So, unlike mindless constructs, mindless oozes are immune to all of the above. Again, it's not at all clear as to whether this is a property of "mindless" or something found only on "mindless oozes."
Some plant creatures, however, are mindless and gain no skill points or feats.
So certain mindless plants share the same trait as mindless constructs, but not necessarily the same trait as mindless oozes. Like constructs, the immunity to mind-affecting effects is listed separately and thus may not necessarily stem from the mindless property itself.
Many undead, however, are mindless and gain no skill points or feats.
See construct and plant type comments above.
So we know the mindless property (if one can even call it that as it isn't really a defined term) keeps a creature from having skills and feats sometimes, grants immunity to mind-affecting effects sometimes, and does both other times. Such rules inconsistencies are unfortunate, especially since developers could have save more page space by simply adding a "mindless" racial property in the Universal Monster Rules glossary. In any case, I didn't make this thread to criticize. What I really want to know is this:
HOW DOES THE MINDLESS PROPERTY EFFECT A CREATURE'S BEHAVIOR?
We recently had an encounter in one of our games where our divine dream team fought a host of mindless skeletons. For the first half of the battle, we were cautiously moving about trying not to provoke attacks of opportunities and such (for we were heavily outnumbered). Somewhere in the middle of the confrontation, however, one of the players verbalized aloud that they were taking a 5-foot step so as to not provoke from the mindless undead. The GM responded with "They're mindless, they aren't going to make attacks of opportunity." There was a minor quibble as to whether or not this was really true, but the game moved on once the GM clarified that he was ruling as such for his game.
Though I don't personally think it is RAW, his ruling is somewhat justified by the notion that mindless beings don't know to take advantage of openings, after all, they are mindless. Once he declared it was his ruling, and not an interpretation, myself and others had no trouble going along with it.
However, the situation has made me think about what else mindless creatures would "think" or "not think" to do?
Do mindless creatures make attacks of opportunity or take advantage of other openings/abilities?
I think skeletons certainly would due to their "evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force," but that may not hold up against other mindless creatures, particularly those that are not animated such as plants and oozes. Nevertheless, I believe all creatures are capable of taking advantage of an opening, even mindless ones. But what about other abilities, such as combat maneuvers? Are all mindless creatures doomed to charge in and make full attacks until the end of time? Or can they use a maneuver (or other ability) if it would better serve them in the fulfillment of their instructions and/or instinctual drive?
Can a mindless creature operate mechanical apparatuses or simple machines?
Could a necromancer have his skeletons and zombies operate a warship? I'm sure some would say yes and others no. What about simple things? Like weapons? Or door knobs/handles? Skeletons are called out as being able to use weapons, but that's an exception to the rule...isn't it?
If mindless creatures can't open doors, than a fearsome golem or zombie hoard becomes far less threatening if all you have to do to get away is to run into the next room and shut the door.
Can mindless creatures adapt to changes in their situation and/or environment?
It is clear that many mindless creatures either follow instructions from their creators* or simply try to eat the nearest perceived source of food. But do they do anything to give them an advantage in following those given/instinctual instructions? If a necromancer's zombie tries to kill me because that was what it was ordered to do, does it try to stand up from prone when I trip it? Or does it just crawl along still trying to kill me in its own limited fashion? If a golem is ordered to drive all intruders from its territory, and I put up a wall of stone in its path breaking line of sight, does it forget that I was ever there? After all, it is mindless and has no capacity for memory, no capacity to learn. If a mindless plant is trying to eat me because I stumbled into its nest, does it divert and go after the hunk of meat that I throw down, or can it choose to "go after the obviously larger meal?"
*How well do mindless creatures follow their instinct or instructions?
Really, this question is encompassed by my comments in the above two, but is worth giving its own header for completeness' sake.
I'm not looking for opinions or interpretations, though you are free to give them, but for RAW/RAI examples in Paizo rulebooks, supplements, and adventure paths that help to answer the above plethora of questions. Feel free to add your own related questions to this rules discussion. Though I covered a lot of ground, I think, I would be extremely surprised if I covered all the bases where the behavior of mindless creatures are concerned.
Sorry for the long post. I organized my thoughts and questions as best I could. Hopefully you found it a worthwhile read, and an even more worthwhile discussion/debate.
|
Interesting question.
We know that 'mindless' creatures can follow instructions (undead, golems), craft stuff like webs and tunnels and hives (spiders, ants, bees / wasps), use weapons / armor (undead, golems) and comprehend language (undead and golems, again).
Some 'mindless' undead are also said to seek out and destroy life, which suggests that they can somehow tell the difference between something that is alive and something that is dead (or inanimate, or hiding under a blanket, or 'playing dead,' or just sleeping).
Certain druids, and mites, can also influence the behavior of, and even train, 'mindless' vermin. The 'vermin empathy' of Mites suggests that mindless vermin can't normally be trained in Pathfinder (although vermin-training was not uncommon in 3.X, from brigands riding Spider-Eaters in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, to pretty much any appearance by Drow, ever, even in Lolth-less Eberron, where they trained mindless Scorpions, as well as Duergar and their Steeders).
The Int nonability / mindless trait seems, IMO, to be most notable in how many different ways writers and developers make special exception feats / prestige classes / etc. to get around it or flat-out ignore it.
It's not simulationist (bugs can be trained, have memories, exhibit emotions, can do math, have adaptive language, etc.) and it's, mechanically, more trouble than it's worth (requiring exception-based design to get around), so I'm not sure what purpose it serves, other than as a sop to backwards-compatibility with 3.X.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything mindless follows instructions despite personal consequences. Robot, COnstruct, undead, etc
"But how can it follow instructions if it's mindless?"
The same way a computer does. Basic processing, but no inherient thought. You can program, but not teach.
Serious enough?
An intelligence of - means you can not formulate tactics or adjust to a situation.
Example:
If you are prone you will stand up not even noticing the potential AoO.
You will not take the safe route to avoid an AoO.
Flanking will not be done on purpose.
You care basically a computer. You do what you are programmed to do. At best you can act on instincts such as an knowing you want to kill living things.
I think the attack of opportunity is going to happen since it represents you letting your guard down making you easier to hit. Combat is simulated and even if you roll the dice once it is assumed that attacks are always being made.
PS:I am not providing RAW because mindless is not in the rules. This is one of those common sense things.
As far as turning a door knob I would have to say no. Insects are also mindless, and I don't see them turning door knobs even if they have hands.
Insect, undead, and constructs should pretty much have the same problem solving abilities, IMHO.
If you are prone you will stand up not even noticing the potential AoO.
Would they though? Or would they just continue on from their prone position?
My personal interpretation liens up with everything else you said.
I think Lincoln Hills illustrated it best in another thread:
...ordering the undead to "cut down this forest" and acting surprised when all you came back to was a bunch of bones scattered around fallen logs. (Yes, a tree is a blunt weapon!)
If mindless creature's don't necessarily know to step out of the way of a falling tree, would they know then to stand up and regain the advantage of not being prone?
Anything mindless follows instructions despite personal consequences. Robot, COnstruct, undead, etc
"But how can it follow instructions if it's mindless?"
The same way a computer does. Basic processing, but no inherient thought. You can program, but not teach.
Serious enough?
I would go with that.
The great thing about computers is that they do exactly what you tell them to do.
The problem is that they do EXACTLY what you tell them to do, no more, no less.
The same way a computer does. Basic processing, but no inherient thought. You can program, but not teach.
I agree like a machine, but I'd characterise it as that is can be programmed (either by nature, as in vermin, or by a creator, as in a construct or antimated object), but cannot program or re-program itself.
Something with a mind can form conclusions and make inferences leading to new responses to given situations. Something without a mind is stuck with whatever behavior is was born or created with, or is later impressed on it.
So, an animated skeleton can use a bow, because the magic that animated it imbued it with that skill. A bee can build a hive because it's in it's nature. But bees will never use bows and skeletons never build hives, unless a wizard comes along who re-writes their programming.
Of course, it's up to the GM what programming what kind of creature has. In an evil campaign I'm running I've determined that animated dead have a default "kill living, obey undead" subroutine, which makes life interesting when the PC evil cleric isn't very careful about his Command Undead orders.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would go with that.
The great thing about computers is that they do exactly what you tell them to do.
The problem is that they do EXACTLY what you tell them to do, no more, no less.
Now I'm picturing some anthropomorphic rat-man coming back to find his master's tower flooded by his mindless skeleton minions in 'The Necromancer's Apprentice.'
If you are prone you will stand up not even noticing the potential AoO.
Would they though? Or would they just continue on from their prone position?
That falls under instinctive to me, just like the undead knows it has to get closer to you in order to attack you. As an example when you disturb a bunch of skeletons that are set to attack intruders they always stand up. There is an example of this in a recent AP. Past adventures have done that also, and while the movie based undead do the same thing, which is what the game's undead are based off to some extent.
If you are prone you will stand up not even noticing the potential AoO.
Would they though? Or would they just continue on from their prone position?
My personal interpretation liens up with everything else you said.
I think Lincoln Hills illustrated it best in another thread:
...ordering the undead to "cut down this forest" and acting surprised when all you came back to was a bunch of bones scattered around fallen logs. (Yes, a tree is a blunt weapon!)If mindless creature's don't necessarily know to step out of the way of a falling tree, would they know then to stand up and regain the advantage of not being prone?
Think of it more programatically.
It has a combat routine that it follows. If the "program" says that standing is the proper combat position, then it will always attempt to get up, even when standing up in not a good idea. Stepping out of the way of a tree is something that may or may not be covered in the "program"
I also use the 'mindless creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity' rule. No, it's not RaW and it gimps several otherwise threatening creatures, but I just couldn't reconcile "cannot learn or develop new responses to changing situations" with "sees an opening and takes advantage of it."
Then again, there is a line of thought by which a mindless creature MUST make an attack of opportunity whenever it is able to. If a mindless creature has been ordered or is otherwise driven to attack an enemy, it will simply attack said foe whenever it can, taking a full attack if possible or its most effective standard action attack otherwise (perhaps because it had to move more than 5' to get to the enemy). If the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity and the mindless creature is physically capable of carrying out that attack, there is no good reason for it to hold back. If there IS a good reason for it to hold back, it wouldn't do so -- because figuring out that reason would require a thought process that it is incapable of.
Incidentally, this quote from the PRD (in the section on designing spells, apparently from Ultimate Magic) would seem to make all mindless creatures immune to mind-affecting spells even if their type descriptions do not specifically say so:
"Mind-Affecting: Mindless creatures (those with an Intelligence score of “—”) and undead are immune to mind-affecting effects."
Then again, there is a line of thought by which a mindless creature MUST make an attack of opportunity whenever it is able to. If a mindless creature has been ordered or is otherwise driven to attack an enemy, it will simply attack said foe whenever it can, taking a full attack if possible or its most effective standard action attack otherwise (perhaps because it had to move more than 5' to get to the enemy). If the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity and the mindless creature is physically capable of carrying out that attack, there is no good reason for it to hold back. If there IS a good reason for it to hold back, it wouldn't do so -- because figuring out that reason would require a thought process that it is incapable of.
What's to stop someone from following that logic to its natural conclusion: That mindless creatures programmed to fight and kill do so in the best way that they can, even going so far as to use simple tactics such as deliberate flanking.
Incidentally, this quote from the PRD (in the section on designing spells, apparently from Ultimate Magic) would seem to make all mindless creatures immune to mind-affecting spells even if their type descriptions do not specifically say so:
"Mind-Affecting: Mindless creatures (those with an Intelligence score of “—”) and undead are immune to mind-affecting effects."
Yay! Another piece has been placed in the puzzle. :)
I also use the 'mindless creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity' rule. No, it's not RaW and it gimps several otherwise threatening creatures, but I just couldn't reconcile "cannot learn or develop new responses to changing situations" with "sees an opening and takes advantage of it."
Within the RaW, I believe all that 'mindless' does is provide a plethora of immunities to various (mostly magical) attack forms.
I can justify it just fine.
Your character is not standing still in between turns; it is assumed that they are bobbing, weaving, looking around and staying active. The game may not outright tell you this, but it's why you retain your Dex bonus, and it's why you are aware of opponents that may have previously been described as 'behind you'.
When a first level fighter progresses and hits 16th level, that doesn't mean that the fighter is literally attacking four times as fast. Rather, a fighter may be attacking and harrying his opponents all through a round of combat -- it's just that because his opponents are dodging and weaving, blocking with a shield, many of those hits are doomed from the outset. It is as a fighter gains levels that he can take those ambient attacks and turn them into true opportunities for damage.
As such, I don't have a problem with an unintelligent undead gaining attacks of opportunity. In my perspective, the undead is harrying you and trying to eat you all through a round, not just on his turn -- and it's when you let your guard down to drink a potion or cast a spell that he gets his opportunity to turn that into a damaging strike.
Hopefully you can see it that way too. It would be a shame to cheat your undead, and other monsters, out of combat power that the system assumes they are entitled to.
Chalk me up for the "Programming" interpretation. I would say that the main effect of this would be that a mindless monster cannot adapt to situations outside of it's original parameters. I know that there is a theme of "machines that learn" but that would, in this case, make the machine no longer mindless.
Perhaps we should consider what the average wizard programs into say, a skeleton.
I would run it as:
Always take AOO when available
Aggresively attack nearest target - will not push past the battle line to target the squishies in the back
Basic obstacle avoidance - Will walk around things like tables, walls and pits but not ambushes or AOO's
Roll to handle corner cases like weather to stand or attack from prone after being tripped. Once decided, that is the tactic for that particular beastie, do not roll again.
Use available weapons, but prioritize attacking over acquiring weapons, so if there is a disarmed skeleton with any enemies in charge range, attack with claws over picking up weapons.
No retreat or regrouping, if appropriate, they could make a noise when first spotting a target to attract other undead.
If there are no active orders, wander randomly until a target is spotted. Weapons can be picked up during this time.
for monsters created by magic, they could have differences based on their programming at creation. But a mindless creature should stick to its chosen tactics once the DM has decided them, even if they prove self-destructive. So if the zombies don't avoid the wall of fire the first time, they should not suddenly learn to go around.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is a topic I was wondering about myself, AoO is somewhat irrelevant to me, the more pressing questions are the 5 foot step and/or withdraw actions. Does a mindless creature perceive potentally dangerous situations and to avoid AoOs?
I think this would make for an interesting Blog topic.
Perhaps we should consider what the average wizard programs into say, a skeleton.
Pardon for the tangent, but this, combined with the arguements about its inherent nature above, makes me suddenly understand why the Animate Dead spells have the [evil] descriptor, but why Juju Oracles can bypass that. It's part of the programming the spell does for you. It's not that the wizard purposefully imparts those things... the pre-designed spell does for him.
Cool, an unrelated problem solved, carry on people. Pardon the tangent.
Then again, there is a line of thought by which a mindless creature MUST make an attack of opportunity whenever it is able to. If a mindless creature has been ordered or is otherwise driven to attack an enemy, it will simply attack said foe whenever it can, taking a full attack if possible or its most effective standard action attack otherwise (perhaps because it had to move more than 5' to get to the enemy). If the enemy provokes an attack of opportunity and the mindless creature is physically capable of carrying out that attack, there is no good reason for it to hold back. If there IS a good reason for it to hold back, it wouldn't do so -- because figuring out that reason would require a thought process that it is incapable of.What's to stop someone from following that logic to its natural conclusion: That mindless creatures programmed to fight and kill do so in the best way that they can, even going so far as to use simple tactics such as deliberate flanking.
Yay! Another piece has been placed in the puzzle. :)Incidentally, this quote from the PRD (in the section on designing spells, apparently from Ultimate Magic) would seem to make all mindless creatures immune to mind-affecting spells even if their type descriptions do not specifically say so:
"Mind-Affecting: Mindless creatures (those with an Intelligence score of “—”) and undead are immune to mind-affecting effects."
You must be taught or figure out how to fight most effectively. Otherwise all you can do is fight. Since mindless cant learn or adjust to situations they can't flank.
You must be taught or figure out how to fight most effectively. Otherwise all you can do is fight. Since mindless cant learn or adjust to situations they can't flank.
I agree with the first part of this, but disagree that mindless cannot flank. Flanking is derived from the defender having to split its attention between two opposite sides of itself, not from the attacker being of any particular keen mind.
In essence, flanking isn't an attacker being better at attacking: it's a defender being less able to defend itself. Mechanically it would be more accurate to apply a -2 penalty to AC vs. the flanking opponents, but the easiest/simplest method was to offer a +2 to attack.
You must be taught or figure out how to fight most effectively. Otherwise all you can do is fight. Since mindless cant learn or adjust to situations they can't flank.I agree with the first part of this, but disagree that mindless cannot flank. Flanking is derived from the defender having to split its attention between two opposite sides of itself, not from the attacker being of any particular keen mind.
In essence, flanking isn't an attacker being better at attacking: it's a defender being less able to defend itself. Mechanically it would be more accurate to apply a -2 penalty to AC vs. the flanking opponents, but the easiest/simplest method was to offer a +2 to attack.
You are correct. What I was trying to say is you can't intentionally flank as a strategy because if you are mindless then you can't use strategy.
Preface: This discussion is turning out to be very interesting, kudos Dork. Getting to the bottom of these questions is very important to me as a GM, as I hope to have my creatures/opponents behave in an "accurate" way during combat. Accurate being incorporating the creature's limitations as well as their strengths.
@flanking
In my opinion a mindless creature would only gain flanking circumtantially, as creatures would get into position to attack. It would not be a "go-to" battle strategy.
Is a zombie (or other mindless creature) capable of deciding when to 5ft step or when to use a withdraw action on their own?
New question:
Whom does a mindless creature target to attack? I assume it would be the weakest or closest creature. But, how does it respond to threats?
From the Golem Entry in the Bestiary: "If uncommanded, a golem usually follows its last instruction to the best of its ability, though if attacked it returns the attack."
Does this mean that a golem will attack whoever attacked it last? Will it change targets frequently as it will identify the newest attacker as the most apparent & visible source of danger?
Finally and above all, how doo this factor into determining how to stratgize as a creature with animal intelligence (if at all) :) What we're really doing here is dissecting tactics and combat performance based on intelligence scores.
There are 3 pertinent levels of intellect for this discussion:
Mindless : Int -
Animal Intelligence: Int 1-2
Sentient Intelligence: Int 3+
I would assume that a creature of Animal Intelligence would not be as cunning as a creature of Sentient intelligence and that a creature that is Mindless would not perform as well to adversity as one with Animal Intelligence.
Thing is, not a lot of what you want is actually covered RAW. It really is mostly covered in fluff and likely, for most of us, is colored not only by interpretation, but by long experience.
AoO
I've been posting my opinion on mindless creatures and AoO since the early days of 3.x. First over there on their forums, and lately over here.
Typically, unless a character has done something really stupid that really and obviously puts him in danger, I do not allow AoO for skeletons, zombies, or mindless golems. Why on earth would something mindless possess such tactical understanding? On the other hand, I do allow AoO to vermin. That's because living vermin do display an instinct for taking advantage when they see a potential meal.
I also personally believe that as 3.x aged, it relied more and more on AoO for every new ability and feat, until the game could have been renamed Dungeons & Attacks of Opportunity. It made me rather ill that the game was so relentlessly over-reliant on one mechanic. And no, it never broke a game or made it too easy on the party that the occasional skeleton or flesh golem missed out on a free hit or two.
Using Machinery
Using machinery or certain weapons... I always wondered how a golem could be ordered to guard a door. Does a golem know what a door is? What, then, is the extent of its understanding? My friends and I have written this off as the golem understanding a mental image given to it by its creator when the command is issued. But could a skeleton pilot a ship? Strictly speaking, I don't think so, but you see it from time to time. Still, the creature must lack all skill in the task, I would think. This is further blurred by scenes in zombie flicks where the zombies (who presumably do not remember their past lives and are nothing more than brain stems searching for a meal) manage to figure out how to turn doorknobs. They are definitely more scary that way, but does it make sense? I don't think so.
I will say I do not allow zombies or skeletons to work firearms beyond a single shot already loaded for them (and they suck at it). I make skeletal champions for that purpose. Constructs, likewise, unless the gun is built-in, like with a robot in d20 Modern or a Warjack. There's precedent for that, and it makes sense to me in that this is how the thing is made.
Adapting to Changes
Much of this sort of thing is often built into the fluff for creatures, or the description of the environment. For instance, a golem's instructions may be to guard a certain area until its creator returns. This would imply the golem would return to the area after intruders flee, never leaving that area to pursue. Similarly, though a mechanics monkey might like it better if a prone skeleton jumped up to its feet to continue the battle, it actually seems creepier (definitely does in movies) if the thing just starts crawling after and clawing at its prey.
|
|
There are 3 pertinent levels of intellect for this discussion:
Mindless : Int -
Animal Intelligence: Int 1-2
Sentient Intelligence: Int 3+I would assume that a creature of Animal Intelligence would not be as cunning as a creature of Sentient intelligence and that a creature that is Mindless would not perform as well to adversity as one with Animal Intelligence.
Flanking in packs and coordinating attacks (or pouncing on flat-footed foes, or using terrain to get advantage) seems to be the preferred tactic of animal intelligence combatants, so I'd be generous in allowing many animals to make use of cunning tactics.
I'm not sure how much of that sort of thing I'd allow to be 'programmed' into a construct or undead. One under direct control of its creator, who is either present or somehow directing its actions remotely, could use whatever tactics are instructed, but that still creates a delay of up to a full round before a golem or zombie can take a 5 ft. step or move to flank or whatever, which, given the fast pace of d20 combat, could be too late... Perhaps a golem could be 'programmed' to fight defensively and move in ways to avoid attacks of opportunity, or to always attack and ignore hurtful terrain or provoking attacks of opportunity (the default state for skeletons and zombies, perhaps, maybe even unchangeable, unless one has create undead and can 'program' one's own undead?).
I removed some posts. If you don't want to participate, don't.
You are correct. What I was trying to say is you can't intentionally flank as a strategy because if you are mindless then you can't use strategy.You must be taught or figure out how to fight most effectively. Otherwise all you can do is fight. Since mindless cant learn or adjust to situations they can't flank.I agree with the first part of this, but disagree that mindless cannot flank. Flanking is derived from the defender having to split its attention between two opposite sides of itself, not from the attacker being of any particular keen mind.
In essence, flanking isn't an attacker being better at attacking: it's a defender being less able to defend itself. Mechanically it would be more accurate to apply a -2 penalty to AC vs. the flanking opponents, but the easiest/simplest method was to offer a +2 to attack.
They could flank if they are programmed for it. It would be tricky as a statement like "Always try to get on the opposite side of an enemy from an ally" could lead to a lot of unintentional and bad side effects.
I think the key is that mindless creatures are all or nothing. Either they always try to flank even when it is a bad idea, or they never try to flank. There is no individual discretion.
That said, most mindless creatures would not flank. It is a bad idea at least some of the time, so most smart programmers would leave it out of the "program".
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best way to get one's mind wrapped around "mindless" is to watch some documentaries about insects, spiders, and the like. They're capable of doing some really impressive things, but aren't capable of doing much beyond what they've evolved to do. They're essentially robots—they're "programmed" to do one thing and they do that well but that's about it. Don't ask them to do much else!
Another tactics that mindless creatures may not be able to well. Using reach weapons properly or rather swapping between reach and non-reach weapons.
Best way to get one's mind wrapped around "mindless" is to watch some documentaries about insects, spiders, and the like. They're capable of doing some really impressive things, but aren't capable of doing much beyond what they've evolved to do. They're essentially robots—they're "programmed" to do one thing and they do that well but that's about it. Don't ask them to do much else!
So in short we should just refer to the creature descriptions to see what they are "programmed" to do?
What about simple things that anyone can do, such as attacks of opportunity, 5-foot step, and the withdraw action? Do mindless creatures do these things?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best way to get one's mind wrapped around "mindless" is to watch some documentaries about insects, spiders, and the like. They're capable of doing some really impressive things, but aren't capable of doing much beyond what they've evolved to do. They're essentially robots—they're "programmed" to do one thing and they do that well but that's about it. Don't ask them to do much else!So in short we should just refer to the creature descriptions to see what they are "programmed" to do?
What about simple things that anyone can do, such as attacks of opportunity, 5-foot step, and the withdraw action? Do mindless creatures do these things?
That's up to each GM's comfort level, honestly, with what he thinks a mindless creature could do.
But a mindless creature can't use dynamic tactics, nor does it particularly make the smartest choices. In fact, making specifically BAD choices in tactics in combat can really help to make a mindless creature feel, well, mindless.
Taking attacks of opportunity: Sure; lashing out at a creature that suddenly leaves itself open to attack doesn't require tactics at all. It's an instinctual lunge at a sudden target. Mindless creaters can do this.
5-foot step: A mindless creature would only do this if it only needed to move that far to get to its foe. It'd certainly not go closer than it needed to with its reach—and conversely, wouldn't think to get up adjacent to a foe so that the foe couldn't easily escape without provoking attacks of opportunity. So no... a mindless creature would not often use a 5-foot step at all.
Withdraw: Nope. If a mindless creature even has the idea to run away from combat when it's low on hit points (and I doubt most of them would even think of this), it wouldn't necessarily withdraw. Not on purpose, at least.
|
Creative Director
|
Somebody has seen too few zombie movies.
And certainly not THAT skeleton fight scene.
Seventh Voyage of Sinbad or Jason & the Argonauts? Both were fun!
Worth pointing out that one of those was probably a skeletal champion, and the others were a different type of undead entirely, according to Pathfinder. None of them were bare-bones (HA) skeletons.
Would it be reasonable to have the creator of such mindless things 'push' them to more intelligent actions?
Ie, Lich uses his move action to yell at his skeletons "No! No! Stop you worthless bones! Go around the firewall!"
That's up to each GM's comfort level, honestly, with what he thinks a mindless creature could do.
But a mindless creature can't use dynamic tactics, nor does it particularly make the smartest choices. In fact, making specifically BAD choices in tactics in combat can really help to make a mindless creature feel, well, mindless.
Taking attacks of opportunity: Sure; lashing out at a creature that suddenly leaves itself open to attack doesn't require tactics at all. It's an instinctual lunge at a sudden target. Mindless creaters can do this.
5-foot step: A mindless creature would only do this if it only needed to move that far to get to its foe. It'd certainly not go closer than it needed to with its reach—and conversely, wouldn't think to get up adjacent to a foe so that the foe couldn't easily escape without provoking attacks of opportunity. So no... a mindless creature would not often use a 5-foot step at all.
Withdraw: Nope. If a mindless creature even has the idea to run away from combat when it's low on hit points (and I doubt most of them would even think of this), it wouldn't necessarily withdraw. Not on purpose, at least.
Interesting James, your ideas have once again captured my interest. I hadn't thought about the 5 foot step as the easiest form of transport before - now it's making more sense to me that these creatures would use the 5 foot step only to cover distance and if it happened to be beneficial at the same time then the benefit would be purely circumstantial. I'd be interested to hear your opinions on Tactics of creatures with Animal Intelligence compared to Sentient Tactics, in general, as well.
How does a mindless creature (say an uncommanded skeleton) choose it's target? (I assume it is closest perceived threat, but can that change?) I ask primarily because standard Skeletons do not have a tactical write up in the Bestiary.