I cannot tell you how much I would like to bang my head on my desk until the pain goes away when I hear Paizo suggesting that DMs should adjudicate rules issues. What about Pathfinder Society?We do expect GMs to adjudicate rules issues for their home games. When it comes to PFS, Mark and I are the GMs and we adjudicate when needed.
Jason isn't the GM of PFS though, and what works for the game as a whole might not be allowed in PFS (Crafting Feats I'm looking at you). That doesn't mean Crafting feats should be removed from the game. Pathfinder is bigger than PFS and I'm ok with that.
You are dodging the issue. What about unclear rules for things from the larger Pathfinder that are in Pathfinder Society?
I am good with DMs adjudicating things for their own games. I am even willing partially accept Paizo staff telling DMs to adjudicate for their own games rather than clarifying or fixing the rules. What I don't like is the latter action in face of the fact there exists a Paizo supported system that must adhere to the rules.
Druids hate Giant Eagles and Gryphons and Unicorns and Pegasi. Great.
Aren't those all magical beasts? I saw nothing in James's post about the relationship between druids and magical beasts.
Druids hate Giant Eagles and Gryphons and Unicorns and Pegasi. Great.Aren't those all magical beasts? I saw nothing in James's post about the relationship between druids and magical beasts.
I was being hyperbolic, but Jason did imply that Druids cease being concerned with animals the moment they become magical beasts. Which is nonsense, IMO.
|
I would like to commend Jason for picking a fun (and controversial) topic for this weeks design blog.
Some of the others have felt like safer choices. This is a hairy beast of a topic, and it's fun to see it discussed, as we get to learn how designer preferences, text brevity, etc. affect the rules mechanics.
As I mentioned upthread, between Druids, Rangers, Paladins, Sorcerers, Wizards, Animal Domain Clerics/Inquisitors, anybody with the Handle Animal skill, Cavaliers, Summoners and Witches, there are a *ton* of classes and class options that are heavily affected by rules involving animals / familiars / mounts / companions and / or eidolons.
It's a pretty big rabbit hole, that affects a lot of character options, if not clear or intuitive.
Director of Games
|
Hey there Everybody,
Just a quick note.
If you have questions about how animals work in PFS, I highly recommend you ask them in the PFS forum. Hyrum and Mark are going to pay a lot more attention to posts over there, and I am not fully qualified to answer such questions (and it helps keep design thoughts and theories from getting in the way of Org Play rulings).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
While I'm sure how animals work in PFS is very interesting, that really wasn't where I was going.
|
Director of Games
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should also add a quick note that there was a much simpler option here...
By a very strict reading of the rules, you cannot give an animal an Int higher than 2. If you do it becomes a magical beast, at which point in time it is no longer an option for an animal companion, which obviously goes against some of the rules mentioned in the AC guidelines. We decided not to go that way, since it too broke written rules, but was even less satisfactory.
In the end, if you want monkeys in your game wielding greatswords and using wands, thats fine. Its your game (Core Rulebook, page 9). The rules are relatively unclear so we left that door open at this time. Its not really what I envision the druid being about (and there are serious power balance issues to be considered, which is why many consider the druid to be terribly unbalanced), but for now anyway, the rules leave it open.
PFS, is another matter entirely, and I will not address it here.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Ugh. What a mess.
Yes. Agreed.
|
|
While I'm sure how animals work in PFS is very interesting, that really wasn't where I was going.
Then why even mention PFS as your example? Surely you've been on these boards long enough to know that anything that mentions PFS gets shunted over to those boards :P
Perhaps using a different example would clarify your intent so that there aren't posts saying "Take it to the PFS boards"?
I was being hyperbolic, but Jason did imply that Druids cease being concerned with animals the moment they become magical beasts. Which is nonsense, IMO.
It seemed to me that he said druids don't treat magical beasts as animals. What level of concern they have is undefined, and probably more situational.
While I'm sure how animals work in PFS is very interesting, that really wasn't where I was going.Then why even mention PFS as your example? Surely you've been on these boards long enough to know that anything that mentions PFS gets shunted over to those boards :P
Perhaps using a different example would clarify your intent so that there aren't posts saying "Take it to the PFS boards"?
My intent has been put forward in multiple threads on multiple boards.
You are dodging the issue. What about unclear rules for things from the larger Pathfinder that are in Pathfinder Society?
While I'm sure how animals work in PFS is very interesting, that really wasn't where I was going.
Here's where you have lost me. Is there some other PFS problem you are championing? Do you actually play PFS? Have you ever experienced a PFS game which you believe actually suffered from an incorrect ruling due to unclear rules? Or do you just like to fight with people on the boards over issues you have no actual interest in?
Come on guys, reign it in. We are adults, let's just luuuurv each other.
In the end, if you want monkeys in your game wielding greatswords and using wands, thats fine.
Wouldn't the lack of fully opposable thumbs prevent the former, and the inability to speak prevent the latter -- without intelligence being an issue at all? "Animals have Int 1-2, no matter what, and Int 3 is needed to wield weapons" seems like a clunky and roundabout way of addressing a problem that could have been solved by saying "creatures of the Animal type lack fully opposable thumbs (and thus cannot wield weapons) and verbal speech (and thus cannot utter command words), regardless of intelligence."
Sorry, didn't mean to call anyone out or start an insult war...
You're fine dude, never apologize for the actions of others.
|
Yeah, Jason, I love that you tried to clarify it, sorry that it's turned into a larger hassle.
For my home games, if you can raise an animals int via AnCo rules or familiar rules or whatever, then when it hits 3 int it is sentient and as long as it learns a language it doesn't need to be pushed using handle animal as it's your companion.
A great example of this is the old TV show Brisco County Jr. In that show I just imagine Brisco's horse Comet as an AnCo with Int of 3, the horse doesn't talk and only does horsey things, but it's clear that it understands people talking to it and has some level of intelligence.
Love that you tried to clarify this, but I prefer to run things my way and luckily this great game lets me do that. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a game starting tonight with a brand new group.
I don't see anything in the animal companion advancement rules that increase the animal companion intelligence. Did I miss it?
When the animal companion gains an attribute boost at 4, 8, 12 HD, some people might be tempted to bump up Int to the level where it would understand verbal commands. The designers are hereby declaring that illegal. Remember, even an animal with Int 20 lacks a vocal apparatus and therefore isn't capable of speech, so talking or wand-using animal companions are off limits even without this additional limitation.
|
|
In the end, if you want monkeys in your game wielding greatswords and using wands, thats fine.Wouldn't the lack of opposable thumbs prevent the former, and the inability to speak prevent the latter -- without intelligence being an issue at all?
The greatsword bit felt a bit over-the-top anyway, since it probably would be Atk -4 tiny greatsword (1d6-4). Thanks to it's low Cha score, a monkey probably couldn't UMD much in the way of wands, either. Apes with greatswords, on the other hand, ouchie.
Imps and Mephits with wands? I could see that. (Quasits are less personable, so, again, not so great at the UMD.)
Even a Cha 8 awakened monkey with a level of Sorcerer (unable to cast any spells, due to low Cha) would need to make a UMD check to simulate a higher attribute to use a wand.
So, really, mechanically, your best bet for a wand-wielding awakened monkey is to give it a level of Adept and a wand of cure light wounds. (command word, 'eek, eek!') :)
"Healmonkey! Use the wand! No! Not the cause fear wand, the *healing* wand! Bad monkey! No banana!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey here's another thing - the blog post specifically calls out armor use... Which I don't get because, well, barding. Barding is armor for animals. It makes perfect sense that any animal could take armor proficiency for barding.
Clarifying and addressing my concerns by listing them after the blog section;
"an increase in Int comes with all of the standard bonuses, such as additional skill points."
hmm ok.
"Once a creature's Int reaches 3, it also gains a language. This is where things start to get tricky. "Really, now my pet monkey can talk?" Well, not really. Allow me to explain."
Ok it gains a language, but not really.
"There is also the issue of learning the language. The rules are mostly silent on this front, due to ease of play for PCs, but a GM should feel safe in assuming that it might take years to actually teach Common to an intelligent animal. All of this, of course, assumes that the animal even bothers to fill that language slot. Possessing the ability to use a language does not necessarily mean that such an ability is utilized."
A gm should then make the same assumption of a human in regards to linguistics I suppose? The implication that you can choose not to do certain things upon level up is also an interesting one. Wouldn't we assume, that as an extension of my Class Power (Animal companion) that the animal would learn the language I picked for it?
"Another aspect of intelligent animals is tool use. There are a number of feats that convey an understanding and the proper use of weapons and armor. Generally speaking, these feats are off-limits to animals, but when their intelligence reaches 3, the rules state that they can use any feat that they are physically capable of using. Some people take this to mean that they can equip their animal companion in chainmail and arm him with a greatsword given the correct feats."
A bit of verbal judo here. Feat A teaches you how to use Item B. BUT not when Given to creature C, even though rule D states the exact opposite. Of course you CAN equip the creature with the item, as you've given it the feat (representing specialized training in the use of the item) for the item. I don't undeerstand the logic here.
"The rules themselves are left a little vague to give the GM the latitude to make the call that's right for his campaign."
Absolutley no offense meant here, but I do not believe this.
"The Handle Animal skill functions similarly no matter how intelligent an animal becomes. A character must still make Handle Animal checks to train his animal and get him to perform the appropriate tasks. A GM should, however, make exceptions in the case of how such an intelligent animal might react in absence of instructions. It might not know to unlock a door to escape a burning building—as that's a fact that's learned over time and experience—but a smart animal might have a better chance of finding a way out."
Ok, others have posted this BUT - if the animal gains a language (which assumes proficiency in the language, in this case AT LEAST the understanding of it) why are we suddenly assuming that the creature won't understand what we tell it to do? Are Animal language proficiencies different as well? It seems that any feat an animal companion takes has a different set of unstated rules.
Apes with greatswords, on the other hand, ouchie.
Again, if we clarify that fully opposable thumbs are needed for weapon use, and make it a property of the Animal type that animals don't have fully opposable thumbs, we're safe from that even if the gorilla in question is a genius (real-life extant apes other than humans have partially-opposable thumbs, not fully-opposable ones). The awaken spell ALREADY introduces a whole slew of changes to the affected animal: suddenly your stats change, your type changes, you gain HD, etc. -- so presumably adding one more change (fully-opposable thumbs) wouldn't be too big a stretch there. And then we could provide a CR adjustment for awakened animals, which is lacking.
The "eek" command for the wand I'd consider to be a willful violation of the rules; the monkey still cannot speak a command word, even if it makes noises that approximate the same sound.
|
|
Apes with greatswords, on the other hand, ouchie.Again, if we clarify that fully opposable thumbs are needed for weapon use, and make it a property of the Animal type that animals don't have fully opposable thumbs,
But is that true? Can monkeys, apes, raccoons, etc. not actually grip things effectively? 'Cause, from my days at ye olde animal park, they sure seemed to have pretty darn ferocious gripping ability, far in excess of my own, since I can't hang from a branch, wrestle stuff away from keepers ten times larger than myself and do acrobatics at the same time...
In any event, a locking gauntlet could circumvent that problem, if it existed. Double cost, as per barding rules, for the unusual hand shape, and bang, that greatsword isn't coming out of that gorilla's paw unless he deliberately takes off his locking gauntlet.
I'm not sure that this is a workable solution to the darn, dirty apes problem. Humanity is doomed!
The "eek" command for the wand I'd consider to be a willful violation of the rules; the monkey still cannot speak a command word, even if it makes noises that approximate the same sound.
If the monkey has the brain power to recognize that 'eek' means 'fire the wand,' then, IMO, it's very much a 'word.' Heck, real world animals are capable of attaching meaning to a particular vocalization, so it makes no sense at all to rule that a monkey awakened to be as smart as a person would lose that capability.
The wand *maker* might have to make some appropriate skill check (knowledge nature? survival?) to set that 'command word,' and might send the apprentices away while he practices his 'eek, eek' vocalizations to the satisfaction of the monkey (since it's the monkey that has to repeat the command word he's setting), but it seems do-able.
Personally, I think of animals with increased INT as Hollywood Animals. Lassie definitely knew English, but was not drawing pictures in the dirt to communicate her warnings. She did things that no normal animal could do, but wasn't self-aware enough to debate the right or wrong of an action. She operated as a dog, albeit a *very* smart one.
Comet the Horse from Brisco County, on the other hand, was a fully self-aware and sentient creature, falling into the Magical Beast category.
Does this seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the clarifications and RAW?
(with the understanding that the designers would likely prefer something different, but don't want to directly break the rules as written)
- Animals have a maximmum racial INT of 2
- It is possible to raise that INT (via Template, or Animal Companion Advancement, etc), but unless otherwise specified (such as for Awaken), the creature remains an Animal.
- The Animal Type requires Handle Animal checks to accept orders. An Animal may be more intelligent than normal, but this does not make it sentient. Orders given can be more complex, but the basic interaction is the same.
Someone mentioned a Headband of Vast Intelligence. I could see an Animal that was given such a headband suddenly gaining multiple ranks in Knowledge (History), but being completely unable to use them...they simply don't have the mental architecture for that sort of abstract thought. The same headband granting Knowledge (Geography) might be more useful, as some of the information is (IMO) more 'processable' by an Animal brain, and a Headband that granted skills on the list of allowable skills for Animal Companions would be entirely useful.
It all comes down to a certain amount of GM adjudication. While I want a decent rules structure, if I wanted a game that never required a GM judgement call, I'd play Oblivion or Dragon Age (which I do, and enjoy very much...but it's not the same).
Ok, others have posted this BUT - if the animal gains a language (which assumes proficiency in the language, in this case AT LEAST the understanding of it) why are we suddenly assuming that the creature won't understand what we tell it to do? Are Animal language proficiencies different as well? It seems that any feat an animal companion takes has a different set of unstated rules.
Understanding <> Comprehension.
When I read a book by Stephen Hawking, I understand the words. I can look at them in slow motion, reread them, even read them backwards if I take my time.
What I can't do is comprehend 2/3rds of what he's saying.
I could see an Int 3 Animal (or human of the same level) perfectly understanding the instructions 'Go to the library, get the book on Alchemy by John Forbes, the blue one not the red one, take it to Mr. Cobler in town. When you give it to him, he'll give you a potion. Make sure it's red, not blue. Take that potion to Ms. Baker, she'll give you a green apple pie. Bring that back to me.'
I can also see them running to the library, picking up a green book on plants, taking it to Ms. Shoemaker and wondering why the woman won't give them a bone to bring back.
The animal understood each and every word you spoke, he just didn't comprehend the complex order and failed to execute it. On the otherhand, if you said 'Bite anyone you don't know that comes in the house' I'm pretty sure he'd comprehend that, and then succeed admirably without a handle animal check.
As a player I'm not looking for a combat monkey. I'm looking for an exceptionally smart animal that can do some very clever things even if the druid or ranger isn't there looking over their shoulder. Their presence is pretty ubiquitous in the genra: Shadowfax from lord of the rings, Hoko and poko from beastmaster, the Stark wolves from The Song of Ice and fire, Dog from the deathgate cycle, Comet from brisco county jr...
I also don't see why a druid would have a problem with a talking animal, since they talk to animals on a regular basis anyway.
But is that true? Can monkeys, apes, raccoons, etc. not actually grip things effectively?
A firm grip doesn't necessarily translate to the ability to wield a weapon with skill. If you break your thumbs and let them heal so that they're more or less parallel to your other fingers, then do exercises to improve your gripping strength, you'll be a good analogy. You'll be able to grip things, and will have a good gripping strength, but will still never be a fencer.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm always amazed that people would rather be given a restrictive rule for something then be able to use their imagination and/or common sense and come to their own conclusions.
Everyone has different ideas about animals speaking, using equipment, and ability to process information. For some it is the definition of fantasy, while for others it totally makes a mockery of the verisimilitude of the game world. I would ask that the designers NOT restrict it too much. As a GM I would like to be able to limit a players ability to have a wand using monkey (since that example has been brought up), while also having some more intelligent animals in the setting without breaking the rules of the game.
I do like the idea a poster brought up of having two different templates that could be applied to animals - sort of a "physical advanced" and a "mental advanced" versions.
The one thing that I would like the developers to address is the following line in the rules for animals:
"Proficient with no armor unless trained for war."
Is "Combat Trained" mean "trained for war" or is "combat training" required before an animal can choose the different armor proficiencies? Seems odd that a normal warhorse could never be proficient with heavy armor...
PS About a CR adjustment for the awakened template- I'm not sure that a set number would work. Animals races are so vastly different then each other that awakening one (which would presumably allow class levels...) could be vastly more useful then awakening another species. For example, an awakened herd animal- meh. An awakened ape on the other hand is almost identical to a human. Then there are all the lion rogue type combos that get nasty instantly.
I eagerly await a 3PP to produce a PDF expansion detailing the rules for finer differentiating animal intelligence. Clearly a dolphin is a 2.9 and a parrot is a 2.4. Dogs are 1.3 and cats are 1.9.
But is that true? Can monkeys, apes, raccoons, etc. not actually grip things effectively?
I don't think its a matter of grip so much as stance or balance. Fighting with a heavy weapon requires foot positioning thats hard if not impossible for for something like a raccoon or even an ape which is built on all fours or more hunched over than most humans (the ones at the DMV being an obvious exception)
|
Awww man... I was hoping a druid or cavalier animal companion horse would be tougher than the typical 300gp stock you can buy at your Friendly Local Gaming Stable. It might be a while before a STR 18 4th level advanced horse catches up with a STR 20 purchased warhorse...
Uh...it has Str 19 at 4th, 20 if you put it's Ability Up from 3rd there. Or 20 at 6th level if you put it elsewhere. It's Dex and Con aren't quite up to par, but it's 4 HD (double a heavy warhorse), and +6 NA more than make up for that. It lacks a bite attack, but eh.
So, at 4th level your animal companion averages 30 HP (to a heavy horse's 19), +7 Fortitude Save, +6 Reflex Save, +2 Will Save (okay, all those are 1 lower, that'll be cleared up by 6th), and two attacks at +7 for 1d6+5 (around on par with the heavy horse's 3 at +5), and an AC of 17 without armor (2 better). So, by 4th you're on par (better in some ways, worse in others), and by 6th you're just flat-out ahead.
But is that true? Can monkeys, apes, raccoons, etc. not actually grip things effectively?
I don't think its a matter of grip so much as stance or balance. Fighting with a heavy weapon requires foot positioning thats hard if not impossible for for something like a raccoon or even an ape which is built on all fours or more hunched over than most humans (the ones at the DMV being an obvious exception)
I think it depends on the weapon. Clubs are simple for a reason, and there's a reason for that. Apes have been observed using wooden clubs in nature.
They've been observed in zoo's stockpiling stones and other things to throw at visitors later in the day.
Some chimps have been observed carrying toolkits to get into bee hives. A big club to smash it open, smaller pointy sticks to pry things apart, and tiny twigs to dip out honey.
While I have trouble seeing a 3 or 4 int Ape using an epee or rapier, I can absolutely see them using a club, morning star, maul, or any other thing where the idea is to pick up a big heavy piece of something and swing it as hard as you can at the other guy. Even a battle axe, with a bit of training, given they have boosted their intelligence up to minimum levels for a fighter.
As to stance, yeah, they're not going to be fencing. But they are going to be charging up and bull rushing you quite handily, and then slamming a warhammer into your shield with enough force to shatter your arm through the shield. :)
Ok, others have posted this BUT - if the animal gains a language (which assumes proficiency in the language, in this case AT LEAST the understanding of it) why are we suddenly assuming that the creature won't understand what we tell it to do? Are Animal language proficiencies different as well? It seems that any feat an animal companion takes has a different set of unstated rules.
Understanding <> Comprehension.
When I read a book by Stephen Hawking, I understand the words. I can look at them in slow motion, reread them, even read them backwards if I take my time.
What I can't do is comprehend 2/3rds of what he's saying.
I could see an Int 3 Animal (or human of the same level) perfectly understanding the instructions 'Go to the library, get the book on Alchemy by John Forbes, the blue one not the red one, take it to Mr. Cobler in town. When you give it to him, he'll give you a potion. Make sure it's red, not blue. Take that potion to Ms. Baker, she'll give you a green apple pie. Bring that back to me.'
I can also see them running to the library, picking up a green book on plants, taking it to Ms. Shoemaker and wondering why the woman won't give them a bone to bring back.
The animal understood each and every word you spoke, he just didn't comprehend the complex order and failed to execute it. On the otherhand, if you said 'Bite anyone you don't know that comes in the house' I'm pretty sure he'd comprehend that, and then succeed admirably without a handle animal check.
I don't think that's a valid argument. Doesn't the fact that you spent a character based resource on it make it, you know, work?
Linguistics reads;
"Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language. Common languages (and their typical speakers) include the following.
(long list of languages)"
Basic comprehension should be assumed. I wouldn't expect most people to be able to remember the instructions you used as an example if they were only told once, but if I wrote it down (as the linguistics skill declares that they can read, and its some guidance on language acquisition) then yes I'd expect the animal companion to be able to follow those instructions. If I were GM'ing I'd probably do something like that for comic relief, but if it were a serious situation I wouldn't.
I'd just rather see an explanation that doesn't require a 2nd reading on a bunch of skills, the use of language, and armor (in some cases weapon) proficiency.
On the topic of weaponry - Proficiency means the animal (in this case) is trained in the use of the weapon. Monkeys(I can't remember the breed) can be trained in martial arts, and this would be an exceptionally intelligent animal. The feat for weapon proficiency reads;
"Martial Weapon Proficiency (Combat)
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon."
Again, the feat explicitly states that if you have it, you know how to use the weapon. So yeah, rapier wielding gorilla's should be good. Goofy, but good.
|
|
Understanding <> Comprehension.
I don't want to appear patently disagreeable, here, but understanding and comprehension absolutely do mean precisely the same thing.
In your example, you neither understand nor do you comprehend Stephen Hawking's treatise. You are able to decode the written words that SH uses, and individually you understand/comprehend the words, but taken as a whole, you do not understand his thesis - nor do you comprehend it.
I'm being nitpicky, here, of course, and I apologize. I don't want to appear to disagree with you too much, mdt, because you and I appear to hold a shared viewpoint.
The animal understood each and every word you spoke, he just didn't comprehend the complex order and failed to execute it. On the otherhand, if you said 'Bite anyone you don't know that comes in the house' I'm pretty sure he'd comprehend that, and then succeed admirably without a handle animal check.
Since 'Bite anyone you don't know that comes in the house' is by definition the 'guard' trick, it seems like you're saying that if an animal can understand a language, it should be able to perform the functions provided by the trick system without Handle Animal checks being necessary. If that is what you're saying, I agree wholeheartedly. Am I misunderstanding your viewpoint?
I don't think that's a valid argument. Doesn't the fact that you spent a character based resource on it make it, you know, work?
Not at all, I can spend points on Fly if I really want to, by buying a +2 Headband (Fly). If I don't have any way to fly, I've spent character points on something I can't use.
A 3 INT character should be penalized for that 3 INT, whether it's a PC or NPC. The dog wouldn't be penalized for doggy things, he's actually very good at doggy things. But for human things, he's even worse than a 3 int human, because he doesn't have the social background.
Linguistics reads;"Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language. Common languages (and their typical speakers) include the following.
(long list of languages)"
Basic comprehension should be assumed.
Basic ability to understand the words of the language yes. Having the raw brain power to process them and figure out what they mean in a given circumstance? Not so much. Abbott and Costello's Who's On First routine is an excellent example. A 3 or 4 or 5 int character could easily understand every word said in that routine. It's not hard to understand the words. However, the humor would probably completely escape him, as he'd be as confused as Costello always is. He doesn't get the humor because with a 3 int, he's not able to handle the subtleties of grammar and synonyms/hominyms/etc. I know people with IQ's above average in real life who have trouble with those. The way you state it, as soon as you learn a language, you get perfect understanding of the language and all it's grammatical forms. That's just not a very good interpretation in my humble opinion.
I wouldn't expect most people to be able to remember the instructions you used as an example if they were only told once, but if I wrote it down (as the linguistics skill declares that they can read, and its some guidance on language acquisition) then yes I'd expect the animal companion to be able to follow those instructions. If I were GM'ing I'd probably do something like that for comic relief, but if it were a serious situation I wouldn't.
What would our hypothetical wolf use to write things down? The example was just that, an example. An animal even if sentient has issues that no humanoid character with the same int would. Lack of ability to write down complex instructions is one of them. And, ability to read, again as above, is not an automatic perfect ability as you seem to want to imply. I know people who can speak english very well, but still have trouble with reading comprehension. They struggle with words all the time. Just because a 3 INT animal learns Common doesn't mean he can read a graduate thesis on alchemy. It means he can learn to read common things his int can handle. He could probably read the instructions I used in the example, if he had some way of writing them down, carrying them with him, and pulling them out when he needed them. Since he can't do 2 of those 3 things, he has to rely on memory.
I'd just rather see an explanation that doesn't require a 2nd reading on a bunch of skills, the use of language, and armor (in some cases weapon) proficiency.
I think you prefer a world where everyone, regardless of actual INT score, can perform all things equally. That's fine, but the game is not set up to be a perfect simulation of reality, which means that your stats describe your character. With regards to reading and comprehension, your INT is your raw ability to comprehend and make intelligent choices. If I read you correctly, you want even an INT 3 individual to be able to perform normally in society because he spent one skill point on a language. He should be as erudite and literate as the INT 20 wizard. I don't think that's true. I think an INT 3 character should struggle even reading simple things on a sheet of paper. The kind of guy/gal/animal that has to read it out loud, sound out even simple words, get's confused by hominyms, and has to ask what big words mean.
On the topic of weaponry - Proficiency means the animal (in this case) is trained in the use of the weapon. Monkeys(I can't remember the breed) can be trained in martial arts, and this would be an exceptionally intelligent animal. The feat for weapon proficiency reads;"Martial Weapon Proficiency (Combat)
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon."
Again, the feat explicitly states that if you have it, you know how to use the weapon. So yeah, rapier wielding gorilla's should be good. Goofy, but good.
A gorilla can't use a rapier not because he's not smart enough, but because he can't move the way a human does to wield it properly. That was my point above.
Ape arms and legs are arranged differently than humans are. Orangutangs, as a good example, are not really any stronger than humans, from a muscle density standpoint. What they do have however is a massive strength multiplier based on where those muscles are connected to their arm bones. They have much more lever action going on. This is great for things like swinging their arms or bringing them up and down hard (like bashing with a mace). But for things like a rapier, which requires a lot of wrist dexterity and the ability for the arm and shoulder to bend in different directions, they can't do it. Their arms don't bend like that. Remember, sentient animals can take feats that they can actually perform. They can't take a feat that gives them a boost to diplomacy unless they have a way of speaking (which most don't). They can't take martial weapons unless they can wield said martial weapons. An ape can't take weapon finesse not because he's not smart enough, but because his anatomy is not set up for it.
A monkey could easily take weapon finesse, but his anatomy is different, he's set up for a high degree of dexterity with his wrists and arms. He's much closer to a human in the way his limbs are set up.
Understanding <> Comprehension.I don't want to appear patently disagreeable, here, but understanding and comprehension absolutely do mean precisely the same thing.
In your example, you neither understand nor do you comprehend Stephen Hawking's treatise. You are able to decode the written words that SH uses, and individually you understand/comprehend the words, but taken as a whole, you do not understand his thesis - nor do you comprehend it.
I'm being nitpicky, here, of course, and I apologize. I don't want to appear to disagree with you too much, mdt, because you and I appear to hold a shared viewpoint.
*sigh* As you wish. Pick any two words you prefer instead and use them instead. It really just proves my point in my original post. I'm assuming we're both of at least average IQ (10+ in game terms). We disagree on the words, so how can an INT 3 animal, despite being able to distinguish 'understanding' as a word and 'comprehension' as a word be able to tell the differences and when to use one over the other? Same as a guy with a 3 int. In both cases, either is more likely to use the word 'Know'. "I knows that!"
The animal understood each and every word you spoke, he just didn't comprehend the complex order and failed to execute it. On the otherhand, if you said 'Bite anyone you don't know that comes in the house' I'm pretty sure he'd comprehend that, and then succeed admirably without a handle animal check.Since 'Bite anyone you don't know that comes in the house' is by definition the 'guard' trick, it seems like you're saying that if an animal can understand a language, it should be able to perform the functions provided by the trick system without Handle Animal checks being necessary. If that is what you're saying, I agree wholeheartedly. Am I misunderstanding your viewpoint?
Pretty much. My feeling is, and how I'll handle it in my games, that if an animal has 3+ int, it's borderline sentient. I treat humanoids with 3 INT as borderline animals, so it works out well. I wouldn't limit how many tricks they can learn (except perhaps by HD, say 3 per HD to represent time taken to learn them). And they don't require an Animal Handle roll to be instructed to perform their known tricks, you just tell them in simple easy to understand words and they're good. If you want them to do something weird (like have your INT 3 gorilla AC drive your cart for you) then he's going to require a Handle Animal roll to get that across to him, until you teach him the trick 'Drive Cart'. An INT 3 human I'd probably require to have Handle Animal to drive the cart, and someone teach him using the same skill.
Once you get up into the 5 or 6 level, I'd just do away with tricks all together. The animal is now at a level that humans don't require someone to hold their hand and watch them constantly, so why bother with the animal? Just tell him what you want, and he probably understands it.
mdt;
Linguistics states, clearly, that proficiency in a language implies the ability to understand and read it. I didn't state perfect understanding anywhere, rather the ability to converse with day to day understanding.
In regards to the wolf, I meant that if you were to write the instructions down for it, it should be able to follow them.
"And, ability to read, again as above, is not an automatic perfect ability as you seem to want to imply."
Here I implied nothing, it's a stated RAW effect of being proficient in a language - you can read. What it does with what it reads is another issue, and completely NOT covered by ANY rule.
I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself here - I never indicated that the wolf would be an expert in alchemy. By the same token, the wolf would be able to read a road sign or wanted poster.
An intelligent wolf could carry the instructions in a specially designed pouch, or it's mouth.
I don't prefer a world like that, but I would prefer my druid and his int score increased animal to behave in a manner consistent with the rule set. I could play a 3 int fighter and you'd never DREAM of dictating my actions like this.
You've taken my point and run amok here a bit. I never stated anything remotely akin to a 3 int character being as "erudite and literate as a 20 INT character" I just refute the idea that someone being proficient in a language (as supported by the rules) can, after spending a in game resource to learn said language, not really gain the stated benefit.
3 Int characters are not automatically illiterate, nor have I ever read that they are supposed to be mentally handicapped. I'd play it that way, but that's not RAW.
"A gorilla can't use a rapier not because he's not smart enough, but because he can't move the way a human does to wield it properly. That was my point above."
Proper is a big judgement call there. Regardless, Proficiency states that the recipient has gained the ability to wield the weapon effectively. Who says he has to move the way a human does to use a rapier effectively? I'm pretty sure that proficiency isn't a specific style, otherwise it'd be all Longsword School TM users lunging and slashing exactly the same.
I get what you're saying with the 5 or 6 int, I just think that the Blog post was (with all due respect, I love the hobby and the things you guys come up with most of the time) shoddy. If there was a great big neon sign declaring it an editorial bit, or someone's home rule, it would have been fine but it creates a lot of problems without something like that.
3 Int characters are not automatically illiterate, nor have I ever read that they are supposed to be mentally handicapped. I'd play it that way, but that's not RAW.
"A gorilla can't use a rapier not because he's not smart enough, but because he can't move the way a human does to wield it properly. That was my point above."
Proper is a big judgement call there. Regardless, Proficiency states that the recipient has gained the ability to wield the weapon effectively. Who says he has to move the way a human does to use a rapier effectively? I'm pretty sure that proficiency isn't a specific style, otherwise it'd be all Longsword School TM users lunging and slashing exactly the same.
I get what you're saying with the 5 or 6 int, I just think that the Blog post was (with all due respect, I love the hobby and the things you guys come up with most of the time) shoddy. If there was a great big neon sign declaring it an editorial bit, or someone's home rule, it would have been fine but it creates a lot of problems without something like that.
I'll skip the part on the language, that seems to have been a bit of miscommunication between us. I have no issues with them being able to read roadsigns or other simple things with a 3 int.
3 Int characters are not automatically illiterate, nor have I ever read that they are supposed to be mentally handicapped. I'd play it that way, but that's not RAW.
And I didn't say they were illiterate, did I? I just said they don't have the brain power to do much with that literacy. As to mentally handicapped, I don't know what you would call any sentient being whose IQ was so low they would be animal level if it dropped just 10%. The legal deffinition of mental retardation is an IQ of less than 60 (at least in the state I live in). That would be IQ of 5 or less in game terms (IQ 100 = Average, INT 10 = Average).
"A gorilla can't use a rapier not because he's not smart enough, but because he can't move the way a human does to wield it properly. That was my point above."Proper is a big judgement call there. Regardless, Proficiency states that the recipient has gained the ability to wield the weapon effectively. Who says he has to move the way a human does to use a rapier effectively? I'm pretty sure that proficiency isn't a specific style, otherwise it'd be all Longsword School TM users lunging and slashing exactly the same.
If the gorilla had the feat, yeah, probably. My point is, he couldn't take it in the first place. Could he use a rapier as an oversized dagger and stab with it by doing overhead blows? Sure. Is he going to get the normal damage for a rapier or crit range? Probably not. He's not using the weapon as designed. He's using it mroe as an improvised weapon. It's like taking an orc double axe, cutting one axe end off, and using it as a normal axe. It's an improvised weapon, since it's not balanced or designed to work that way.
Could he use weapon finesse? Never, his arms just don't work that way..
Can he use a longbow? No, his arms just don't bend the way you have to bend to use a longbow.
Could he use a crossbow? Sure, if he can find one that fits his hands (or have one made).
We disagree not on what the feat lets you do, but on whether he could take it in the first place. Your position is he can take it, and once taken, he gets to use it's benefit. My position is there are certain feats he just can't take due to physiology.
Rapiers are, with all due respect, a 'lunging' weapon. That's how you use them. You don't see someone using an epee to slash with, nor do you see someone making lunges with an axe. A long sword you can use to lunge or slash. Axes only slash, and rapiers only lunge.
3 Int characters are not automatically illiterate, nor have I ever read that they are supposed to be mentally handicapped. I'd play it that way, but that's not RAW.
"A gorilla can't use a rapier not because he's not smart enough, but because he can't move the way a human does to wield it properly. That was my point above."
Proper is a big judgement call there. Regardless, Proficiency states that the recipient has gained the ability to wield the weapon effectively. Who says he has to move the way a human does to use a rapier effectively? I'm pretty sure that proficiency isn't a specific style, otherwise it'd be all Longsword School TM users lunging and slashing exactly the same.
I get what you're saying with the 5 or 6 int, I just think that the Blog post was (with all due respect, I love the hobby and the things you guys come up with most of the time) shoddy. If there was a great big neon sign declaring it an editorial bit, or someone's home rule, it would have been fine but it creates a lot of problems without something like that.
I'll skip the part on the language, that seems to have been a bit of miscommunication between us. I have no issues with them being able to read roadsigns or other simple things with a 3 int.
3 Int characters are not automatically illiterate, nor have I ever read that they are supposed to be mentally handicapped. I'd play it that way, but that's not RAW.
And I didn't say they were illiterate, did I? I just said they don't have the brain power to do much with that literacy. As to mentally handicapped, I don't know what you would call any sentient being whose IQ was so low they would be animal level if it dropped just 10%. The legal deffinition of mental retardation is an IQ of less than 60 (at least in the state I live in). That would be IQ of 5 or less in game terms (IQ 100 = Average, INT 10 = Average).
...
"A gorilla can't use a rapier not because he's not smart
Ok so, setting aside the INT bit...
I'm pretty sure that proficiency feats grant training in the weapon, and sure a gorilla could take proficiency in rapier. Gorilla's would actually have some significant advantages in fencing due to target size, reach, and speed. I'm a (admittedly mediocre) fencer, and have been involved in the use and study of medieval weaponry for the better part of my life... Lunges area a vital portion of a fencers offensive suite, but cutting certainly has its place (in fact, cutting almost completely replaces thrusting in the only contemporary sporting weapon, the saber). Big heavy swings are clearly a bad idea, but the cut is far from useless.
You do not slash with an Epee because the blad has no edge. Much like the Estoc the modern Epee is probably derived from, the point was the sole means of offense. As this is most decidedly NOT the case with a Rapier, I think it's clear that the weapon wasn't intended merely for the lunge.
My experience with the bow also leads me to different conclusions, as given the gorilla's strength... if smart enough to use a bow, I would think that the pull/poundage would be so significantly increased that the weapon would, while probably being less accurate, hit far, far harder. Granted his arms would prove problematic, but a woman's arm, due to the greater flexibility in their elbow joints, is often caught in the string. I think, of course, that the gorilla could overcome this with higher intelligence.
I understand your arguments, but none of them revolve around the game system. Pathfinder doesn't address that level of realism, or Giant Eagles, Dragons, and truck sized insects wouldn't work.
Pathfinder doesn't address an int score as requirements to wield a weapon. If that Int score suddenly jumps over a three, then a 3 int human should follow the same rules.
I mispoke, and it's too late to edit it, but I meant to say that the Saber is the only contemporary sporting weapon with which you can cut the opponent.
|
|
PRPG p.16:
Intelligence (Int)
Intelligence determines how well your character learns
and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because
it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures
of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2.
Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score
of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is
comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence
score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based
skills or checks.
Due to the shape of the North American elk's esophagus, even if it could speak, it could not pronounce the word 'lasagna'.
This seems to indicate that sheep dogs do not have the animal type.PRPG p.16:
Intelligence (Int)
Intelligence determines how well your character learns
and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because
it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures
of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2.
Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score
of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is
comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence
score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based
skills or checks.
Understanding speech? You mean your grandma's sheep dog will bring you a sausage from your neighbours fridge if you causually tell him to do so? The dog can be thaught to perform a task upon a command. Whatever the task and the associated command are remains upon the animal handler. You can teach the dog to attack upon hearing the words "Ice cream" and he'd probabbly do this upon hearing "Nice scream" from you and other such things as well. Nope, the dog is surely not disqualified by this.
|
The wand *maker* might have to make some appropriate skill check (knowledge nature? survival?) to set that 'command word,' and might send the apprentices away while he practices his 'eek, eek' vocalizations to the satisfaction of the monkey (since it's the monkey that has to repeat the command word he's setting), but it seems do-able.
Yep, I can see a PC crafting a wand for the specific use by his AC, with an extra pre-requisite to make it idiot-proof, and thus, upping the Craft DC.
What we really want to kill off, is the temptation for a player to retroactively declare that the heretofore-unspecified command word of a found item is 'woof', 'neigh', 'squawk', 'ook', or 'kikikikikikikikiki'.......
Anywho, if a spell can make rocks talk to you, or grass wrap around your feet, or an arrows catch on fire, without the game falling into chaos because rocks are mindless / insensate and grass can't move under it's own volition and arrows explicitly cannot have the flaming property without being both masterwork and +1, then I think a spell can make an animal smarter than Int 2 without having to also make it no longer of the Animal Type, without causing the entropy death of the universe.
Magic is all about making the not-normal possible.
Gives a whole new meaning about saying that someone is dumber than box of rocks. Then I'll have to point out a quarry that will quarrel otherwise.
;-)