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!
Boy, how did those advanced apes managed to use those weapons and other devices -- as well as speaking with a command of the English tongue -- in Planet of the Apes? Damn them for not thinking about the lack of an oppose-able thumb nor the means to actually have the components to articulate their words. Evolution realism fail.
/sarcasm
;-)
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?
Understanding speech? You mean you can tell me the radial drawdown in response to an induced head change in an unconfined aquifer if I casually ask you to do so?
There's understanding, and then there's understanding. The dog might understand "sausage" and "fridge," and maybe even recognize the neighbor's name, but be unable to string together the whole complex command. Likewise, you probably undertsand the words "radial" and "aquifer," but are unlikely to be able to provide an answer off the top of your head. For my part, I'd stand there cluelessly when a mechanic friend asks me to pass him the Stilson Compompeter or whatever.
In other words -- comprehension is a spectrum, not a binary proposition. So is intelligence.
After reading though the post, I think I might go with the 1-4 range for animal intelligence. The 3-4 range would represense unusually smart, non-sentiant animals (such as animal companions or other rare cases).
They are smart enough to take initiative without being given instruction, but must still be trained for the task. For example, an animal companion (say a dog) trained to guard an area might instantly start to patrol the area when the ranger makes camp or even stops to rest. He would not wander off, but would look for hidden threats.
I thought of something with these animal dis assigns. the current view seems to be no weapon feats. what about catch off guard and improvised weapon mastery?
for the record I find apes with pole arms silly. but having one hit you with a table or log as the environment presented might not be so bad.
After reading though the post, I think I might go with the 1-4 range for animal intelligence. The 3-4 range would represense unusually smart, non-sentiant animals (such as animal companions or other rare cases).
They are smart enough to take initiative without being given instruction, but must still be trained for the task. For example, an animal companion (say a dog) trained to guard an area might instantly start to patrol the area when the ranger makes camp or even stops to rest. He would not wander off, but would look for hidden threats.
As long as you treat a human with a 3 or 4 intelligence the same way.
Althought that's probably pretty accurate, as well.
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!
Boy, how did those advanced apes managed to use those weapons and other devices -- as well as speaking with a command of the English tongue -- in Planet of the Apes? Damn them for not thinking about the lack of an oppose-able thumb nor the means to actually have the components to articulate their words. Evolution realism fail.
/sarcasm
;-)
Urizen makes some valid points. Clearly we should heed his nigh-infinite wisdom. How else can we be expected to scream "DAMNED DIRTY APPPPES!"
After reading though the post, I think I might go with the 1-4 range for animal intelligence. The 3-4 range would represense unusually smart, non-sentiant animals (such as animal companions or other rare cases).
They are smart enough to take initiative without being given instruction, but must still be trained for the task. For example, an animal companion (say a dog) trained to guard an area might instantly start to patrol the area when the ranger makes camp or even stops to rest. He would not wander off, but would look for hidden threats.
As long as you treat a human with a 3 or 4 intelligence the same way.
Althought that's probably pretty accurate, as well.
If it was an NPC, I would. I would expect a PC to play it that way as well. I think the 3-4 range works as fuzzy range for smart animals and impaired humanoids and such. At Int 5, the creature becomes a magical beast.
The real take home lesson here is 'this is what happens when you deviate from the core rules'. Why they decided to disregard the core rules and allow animals/companions to have Martial Weapons is a bit of a mystery, but I have to say that the way people got carried away with lance wielding monkeys kinda meant the rules were always going to be reverted.
Back when I was playing my druid, I crafted a magical suit of barding for my lion based on the Hawkfeather Armor from the Magic Item Compendium. We ruled that I was able to create it with a command word that the lion could utter, and that he could learn the command word (and how to use it) at the expenditure of one of his tricks. As most of the tricks available to an advanced animal companion are pretty much crap (you rapidly run out of useable tricks that are worthwhile to know), this was a wonderful use of such a feature.
Of course, eventually I made it INT 3 and we just decided he knew how to use his own darn armor he'd been wearing for months anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are a few people reading way too much into this. The game shouldn't be written like a 1500 page law. It should be flexible and allow for the GM and players to have some fun.
When I have an animal gain a 3 or better Intelligence this is what I do:
1) They may now take any feat they qualify for but that doesn't mean they can automatically use the feat. Just because the druid's tiger wants Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) doesn't mean he can use it. Now, if the tiger is polymorphed into a humanoid, he can then use the sword during that time.
2) The creature gains skill points as normal.
3) The creature understands the appropriate number of languages based on its Intelligence bonus. This does not give the animal the ability to speak, just to understand.
4) The creature doesn't need to learn any more tricks. Just like any other creature doesn't need to know tricks if it has an Intelligence over 2, neither does the animal.
5) The creature retains its animal type unless whatever caused it to gain a higher Intelligence also changed its type.
6) If the animal was an animal companion, the animal is easier to handle. The druid or ranger no longer needs to use Handle Animal to command the animal but still needs to use the same amount of time.
7) As GM, I reserve the right to amend these based on common sense and game play. I will do this on a case-by-case basis.
However if the tiger were so trained and intelligent it could wear armor (i.e. barding) and said barding could have armor spikes on them, which the intelligent tiger could use just as a fighter polymorphed into a tiger could use them.
I'll pay the exceptional circumstance of the spiked armour, however I personally believe that the spikes should have been covered under the Armour proficiency cluster, as opposed to a Weapon proficiency... if that makes sense.
...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.Note, that the piece of Rules text I quoted does not require understanding an entire language, just speech. If I can identify various items by speech, and use a selection of verbs in relation to those words to give commands, then that is all that is required by the rules text. The Int 3 creature does not require higher understanding of complex language. I would imagine that rules-wise a human with Int 3 would have problems with languages as well.
If you take ability to connect sound and item as understanding...
Pleace note the bolded sentence. The dog doesn't understand the words either. It knows what the sound was like and what it was conected with, but it would be mighty confusing for him if you tried to use "Shimps" for shimpnzees and "Shrimps" for a bucket of crustaceans and I'm not sure if both items were present whether the dog would decide correctly unless you were overaccenting something like "ShRRRRimps" while teaching the dog and giving commands (dogs best react on about 3 or 4 letters pronounciation).
The understanding is limited and far from perfect. Try reading something about the experiments to tech dogs to act as a living anti-tank mines on eastern front in WWII.
And yes, I wouldn't trust human with Int 3 to do it corrrectly either.
|
The problem is that it's not magic that causes the animal to have an INT higher than 2. Making it a magical beast is nonsensical, unless it's magic that somehow distinguishes it from other animals of the same genus/species, frex, if the animal is awakened.
If I, as a human, take the "eye for talent" alternate racial ability, and my animal companion raises it's intelligence as a result, where's the magic? It's still an animal. It's just a smart - or "talented" - one.
If you take ability to connect sound and item as understanding...
Reading past the second paragraph, it's the ability to distinguish nouns from verbs that was a lot more impressive.
PS: To Bob- I agree with everything except type.. personally as it's currently written they should be magical beast (augmented animal). If you want to alter the types as this is not palatable then you can handle both animal companions that increase INT along with awakened animals. They could become type animal(augmented) or some such, but that's starting to rewrite rules.
I just don't think it makes enough of a difference as far as my game is concerned. I have only had to worry about it for a druid's animal companion and that player isn't playing a druid any more. I don't really see any need to complicate things any more than they already are.
First off, holy crap that was a very large amount of posts.
Anywaaaay, I think by increasing the animals int to 3 or above doesn't make it suddenly magical or negate the handle animal skill. Although they still should be able to take feats that they meet the pre-reqs for... now a bastard sword wielding armored gorilla is some pretty stinky cheese. If I was DMing a game and one of my pc's wanted to do this it would be a homebrew template for the armor and one for the weapon, and it would take time and handle animal checks, but it wouldn't just be
"Koko takes a weapon prof"
couple sessions later
"Koko takes an armor prof"
doesn't really sit well with me that an 'animal' suddenly becomes as good as a pc with weapons and armor just case it is smart.
On the speaking points there is a feat in a third party advanced feats book for the cavalier that basically boost the companion/mounts int above 2, but all it gets is it knows more tricks, has a simple understanding of 1 language that its 'master' speaks and an intuitive understand of its 'masters' society. That I think sums up what the int boost is meant for, to more integrate the companion animal into the party instead of having them be just an attack roll that you must make a dc for to see if they attack.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
having introduced Summoners into the game, and it is a game, so don't get too disappointed that lassie can't do the same thing a Sphinx can, Druids should get a rewrite to make it easier to control their pets as a class. Animal Companions should have their type changed to Magical Beast. Summoner sets a precedent on how to advance a d10 HD, fast bab creature. it voids arguments that handle animal needs to be used, it makes control of the companion creature faster and more fluid in the game, and unlocks the possibility of druids using a feat later on to have an improved animal companion at some effective druid level, like a Unicorn or Pegasus, etc. And at the same time allows Paladins to take sturdier mounts like a Unicorn or Pegasus, or Hippogriff. A Paladin's mount is already extraordinarily intelligent ( Int 6+ ). So ditching the nitty gritty of controlling animals, while keeping handle animal for diplomacy with regular animals, and giving classes with Wild Empathy a bonus on their roll and allowing them to do a rushed check at no penalty, fixes other problems.
companion entries don't need to change. but the restriction on intelligence, tricks, and how "wild" an animal is, while its Druid companion is present would be lifted.
additional entries with restrictions (unicorn, female characters only, etc. ) and other restrictions could be written up.
The problem isn't animal intelligence mixing with animal companions in a new edition that didn't get rid of some text, the problem is animal companions SHOULD be better than just animals, and should behave accordingly.
|
having introduced Summoners into the game, and it is a game, so don't get too disappointed that lassie can't do the same thing a Sphinx can, Druids should get a rewrite to make it easier to control their pets as a class. Animal Companions should have their type changed to Magical Beast. Summoner sets a precedent on how to advance a d10 HD, fast bab creature. it voids arguments that handle animal needs to be used, it makes control of the companion creature faster and more fluid in the game, and unlocks the possibility of druids using a feat later on to have an improved animal companion at some effective druid level, like a Unicorn or Pegasus, etc. And at the same time allows Paladins to take sturdier mounts like a Unicorn or Pegasus, or Hippogriff. A Paladin's mount is already extraordinarily intelligent ( Int 6+ ). So ditching the nitty gritty of controlling animals, while keeping handle animal for diplomacy with regular animals, and giving classes with Wild Empathy a bonus on their roll and allowing them to do a rushed check at no penalty, fixes other problems.
companion entries don't need to change. but the restriction on intelligence, tricks, and how "wild" an animal is, while its Druid companion is present would be lifted.
additional entries with restrictions (unicorn, female characters only, etc. ) and other restrictions could be written up.The problem isn't animal intelligence mixing with animal companions in a new edition that didn't get rid of some text, the problem is animal companions SHOULD be better than just animals, and should behave accordingly.
Well first you are assuming that the eidolon is in any way a valid comparison for how any companion is supposed to work. A magical entity created wholly from the imagination of a powerful magic user is (and should be) fundamentally different then something you fed while walking through the park one day.
The current rules for animals and animal companions are mostly perfectly fine in regular play. If you have a problem with making an extra die roll every round to control your pet there are other options (I hear domain spells are nice).
Literally that is all you are talking about, 1 extra die roll per round you want it to do anything which you get a bonus too. Not a big enough deal to spend resource time to completely re-write the rules to do, really the exact same thing they already do well enough.
Reigniting the flamewar in 3...2...1...
Is this ever going to be added to the FAQ?
Why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "so everything is in one place" is a better reason.
Animals however aren't sentient. and boosting thier Int doesn't make them so. An animal like a squirrel can be extremely clever without having the qualities of sentience.
I don't agree - I think that's the whole point of animals having 2 Intelligence - they're not smart enough to be sentient. They might have a high Wisdom or Charisma, but they're still just a dumb animal.
Once that familiar gets a 10 Intelligence, it's as smart as the average human. It might be an alien intelligence, especially for some of the stranger familiars, but I don't think you can validly say that a creature with Int 10 isn't sentient.
Further, the comment about weaponry training bothers me - granted, opposeable thumbs (or the opposeable enhancement from Masters of the Wild)are necessary to wield a weapon, but saying that an intelligent creature would opt to continue using its natural weapons when a much more efficient and powerful tool is available is kind of odd - it'd be like saying that humans should only be using their fists, because that's what we were born with and have used most of our lives. If I was a dimwitted but self-aware giant ape, you can bet I'd opt for an enormous length of sharpened steel that bursts into flame when I strike the enemy over my dagger-like claws. I may be stupid, but I'm not an animal...
"We are all animals, my lady." -- Darkness, Legend
As to what happens when they cease to be trained, the trouble is not that they forget what people teach them, the trouble is that they do not. They remember, and they teach others of their kind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-0vbvy2ip4
Imagine if the humans did something really stupid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU
Animals, however, aren't sentient. and boosting thier Int doesn't make them so. An animal like a squirrel can be extremely clever without having the qualities of sentience.
Consider the difference between Sentience and Sapience.
Humans are animals. The differences in our minds is more a matter of degree, not kind.
Ok I'll try and make this Quick...
I set out with a goal to make an animal companion that could attack as part of a ride by attack.
I figured if I gave him spring attack it should work, considering a similar function. Except spring attack as it is worded is its own full round action which doesn't mesh well with others.
So then I figured if I gave him the 3 int maybe he could just take the rideby feat and take part in his own ride by attack. But this doesn't seem right because the way its worded you have to be mounted. Does a mount count as mounted or only the rider?
So then I started to wonder if a mount uses spring attack does the rider provoke. This is just plain confusing.
The only way I can see to get both mount and rider to be able to move, attack and then move again is to give both of them spring attack so its the same action. In which case the whole mounted combat tree becomes useless for what it has been designed for. This way I also am unable to use Spirited Charge which was the whole point of this build.
Any suggestions?
|
|
Your point has actually been suggested before. The official ruling is that an animal with a 3 Intelligence is still an animal (albeit a smart one) and therefore you still need to use Handle Animal. The higher than average Intelligence score does allow the animal to learn addition tricks and any feat it wants (as long as it can physically use it of course)
Have an animal companion with a high intelligence to still worthwhile, in other words, but it does not negate the need for Handle Animal
|
In my opinion, int score roughly translates to IQ score. An animal, or a human with an IQ of 30 is still pretty dumb and tricks are pretty much the only way to get one of them to do something. I don't think having int 3 should grant sentience. If you look at a familiar of a 1st level wizard, it has an int of 6. Arguably it is still very dumb, but getting closer to a normal person. If an int 6 familiar was in school, it would have severe learning disabilities and pretty much need a baby sitter all day. Animals and humans with an int as low as 7,8 or 9 would even be quite dumb, but I would argue, were finally capable of reasoning they were alive and could make choices (finally gain sentience). I think the rules as written for animal companions apply just like normal an should, up until int 6. Every new point in int up until int 6 should represent a better ability to learn and a bigger capacity of learned words (aka tricks). I think just like int 1 and 2 each point in int score should represent 3 empty trick slots so to speak. An animal with 3 intellect would be capable of learning the general meaning of 9 tricks. An animal with int score of 4 could be taught 12 tricks. Animals that are also animal companions of Druids rangers and hunters etc would gain bonus tricks in addition to those "maximum tricks learned". I think after int 6, it is less about the number of tricks learned and more about the difficulties of speech and understanding it. Any creature with int score of six is going to have extreme difficulties understanding and using language beyond their primal instinctual grunts and expressions, properly at least. These difficulties with language would gradually get better and better as the creature got closer to int 9 and 10.
... I think that's the whole point of animals having 2 Intelligence - they're not smart enough to be sentient. They might have a high Wisdom or Charisma, but they're still just a dumb animal.
This idea is a problem to me. Why are animals limited in int? Animals are not dumb. In fact, some studies of animal intelligence have animals solving puzzles that some humans can't solve, as well as solving puzzles rather quickly that humans have trouble with (thus takes a lot of time). Octopi have even been known to figure out how to unscrew a jar, crawl inside, and screw the lid back in place, not to mention realizing that the clear see-through glass is a solid thing that can mean safety.
I've even seen birds use tools even though they aren't normally considered to be tool users.
I've also had some very smart dogs (and some dumber than a rock). Just consider seeing eye dogs that not only need to navigate the human world according to human rules that dogs don't normally deal with as well as remaining aware of things that might affect their person but not the dog themself, such as pipes hanging out over the sidewalk that give no issue to the dog but does to the human.
Personally, I'd rather not tie sapience to an ability score at all, . Animals demonstrate far too good a measure of intelligence in my opinion to be limited to int 1-2 or even up to 4.
here is a question I think fits this thread.
My player has a Hunter PC with a wolf animal companion. Intelligence may be either a 2 or a 3.
If the Hunter takes the feat Combat Advice can the benefits of that feat be applied to attacks made by the animal companion?
here is a question I think fits this thread.
My player has a Hunter PC with a wolf animal companion. Intelligence may be either a 2 or a 3.
If the Hunter takes the feat Combat Advice can the benefits of that feat be applied to attacks made by the animal companion?
If it's Int 2, I'd say no, personally. At that point, it's firmly of animal intelligence. While an animal can be taught to perform specific tasks such as "bite HERE", I'd think that falls into the category of a training trick via Handle Animal. It doesn't make much sense in a generic any fight circumstance.
If it's Int 3, that exceeds animal intelligence, even if only by a little bit. At that point, it's plausible. "Arm!" "Leg!" "Ankle!" "Groin!" "Groin!" "More groin!" I could see a non-animal intelligence responding to guidance.
That said, as the feat is written, it does not speak to the intelligence of an ally. Technically I'd think it works on even mindless allies such as necromancer's skeletons.
Great response. Thank you.
I think I will 'house rule' if you will, that the AC needs an intelligence of 3 benefit from this feat.
I can easily see it going either way but my rational mind wants to think someone, or something, has to be more than just animal intelligence to benefit.
Great response. Thank you.
I think I will 'house rule' if you will, that the AC needs an intelligence of 3 benefit from this feat.
I can easily see it going either way but my rational mind wants to think someone, or something, has to be more than just animal intelligence to benefit.
If you're still checking this thread, I'd like to add one thing...
As a DM, I typically don't disallow things that work as written. So if a player brought this to me and asked if they could use it, I'd allow it.
As a player I likely wouldn't ask for it because I personally feel as you do that it's a little odd. Probably. Unless it really fit into a build concept.
As a designer I would've probably included some language-dependent wording which would a} make sense and b} solve the problem.
So, I just wanted to add that. When you asked your question, I didn't realize you were the DM, so I pitched my response mostly with the angle of encouraging a player to not ask their DM for something a little goofy. Knowing you're the DM, I'd angle a little differently, encouraging you to allow it as-written because frankly while it's a bit counter-immersive (floatational?), it's really not broken or overpowered. So why bother denying a player their little toy? Meh. I'd save the "no" for when it really matters, personally.
Good luck with your game.