Can we get rid of Constitution and Intelligence scores of "--"? It's always seemed odd to me that giant bugs, skeletons and golems somehow need a special intelligence category of their own. Why not just give vermin and Int score of 1, and skeletons, zombies and golems an Int score of 3?
Similarly, why not just give undead and constructs a Con score of 10? (You could make up some special quality called "Tireless", similar to "Mindless", to explain that they never get tired.)
you could give constructs and undead a 10 con score alright, but you will have to explain anyway why and how these scores cannot be altered for PCs and for level advancing characters all about and why equipment, magic poisons and stuff cannot raise or lower that score. Also you'll still have to explain that they are immune to most effects requiring or forcing a fortitude check.
About the intelligence: These creatures simply do not posess intelligence. They are purely driven by instinct and/or an order from their master. Vermin do only what they have in their "genetic programming" and cannot react accordingly to a situation that their predecessors havent been encountering before. as for golems, zombies and skeletons, they are simply moving bodies with no workable thinking faculties at all. An Intelligence score, especially one above 1, would tell something completely different about them. Having an intelligence score means being able to ackknowledge contexts and to learn in at least a strongly limited range, which zombies, skeletons, golems and vermin simply can't.
you could give constructs and undead them a 10 con score alright, but you will have to explain anyway why and how these scores cannot be altered for PCs and for level advancing characters all about and why equipment, magic poisons and stuff cannot raise or lower that score. Also you'll still have to explain that they are immune to most effects requiring or forcing a fortitude check.
(a) Why not let equipment raise the score?
(b) Undead are immune to anything that requires a Fort save and doesn't affect objects (e.g. poisons). They're also immune to physical ability damage. That wouldn't change.About the intelligence: These creatures simply do not posess intelligence. They are purely driven by instinct and/or an order from their master. Vermin do only what they have in their "genetic programming" and cannot react accordingly to a situation that their predecessors havent been encountering before.
How come drow have all kinds of cool spider pets, then? And how come golems and skeletons aren't always walking into walls or off of cliffs? And how come they can follow instructions that a snake can't?
(a) Why not let equipment raise the score?
(b) Undead are immune to anything that requires a Fort save and doesn't affect objects (e.g. poisons). They're also immune to physical ability damage. That wouldn't change.
Because they are not supposed to be either tough or frail. They are nothing more than a walking body.
How come drow have all kinds of cool spider pets, then? And how come golems and skeletons aren't always walking into walls or off of cliffs? And how come they can follow instructions that a snake can't?
Drow pets: Selectively breeding spiders with a social instinct is the first thing that comes to mind. Other than that the whole thing doesnt make any sense anyway. Or we just go with the allexplaining "a wizard did it"
Avoiding walls and cliffs: Pre-programmed behaviour, much like instincts, probably even simpler though. And a snake cannot follow instructions because it does not need to. Snakes live mostly for themselves and ignore taming attempts mostly. Golems and mindless undead however have been made solely to follow instructions. You know, they're magical and all.
Can we get rid of Constitution and Intelligence scores of "--"? It's always seemed odd to me that giant bugs, skeletons and golems somehow need a special intelligence category of their own. Why not just give vermin and Int score of 1, and skeletons, zombies and golems an Int score of 3?
Similarly, why not just give undead and constructs a Con score of 10? (You could make up some special quality called "Tireless", similar to "Mindless", to explain that they never get tired.)
Because the lack of an ability more accurately models the conception of the creatures as presented. What you're proposing also hurts backwards compatibility for really no benefit: the upshot is that skeletons are mindless and don't really have much of a causal relationship to their bodies either way. It's just a matter of whether you're building it directly into the abilities that are actually effected or you invent some descriptors that need to be tacked on to every undead, vermin, etc.
As-is, the system works, and the different will never come up in-game. It won't make the game more fun to change this, and I'm not really even sure why you think we should change it. All in all, I vote no touchies.
Because the lack of an ability more accurately models the conception of the creatures as presented. What you're proposing also hurts backwards compatibility for really no benefit: the upshot is that skeletons are mindless and don't really have much of a causal relationship to their bodies either way.
But that's just it. Skeletons are not mindless in the sense of knowing nothing. If you tell a skeleton to open a door, it knows what a door is, it knows what a door knob is and how to operate it, etc. If you tell a skeleton use swing a sword, it knows what a sword is, how to use it, etc. If you tell it to attack a particular person, it knows not to run through a fire in order to get to the enemy because fire will damage it, it knows to take the shortest route possible, etc. From my experience, skeletons and golems generally act with an Int score of roughly 3 -- the dumbest human possible. You might make a good case that they're not capable of independent thought, but to me that's represented by their Cha score of 1 (almost no sense of self).
Similarly with a giant bug. I don't see how they're treated any differently in-game than the dumbest animal possible (an Int score of roughly 1).
Con scores I don't feel that strongly about, but I think Squirreloid mentioned giving undead a Con score (for some extra hp, etc.) so I just tossed it in there.
Here's what I've seen in the past. Someone makes a skeleton out of a dead animal, like a bear. All of a sudden, the bear is smarter! It can suddenly understand commands like "Destroy that book" and "Grab the halfling, but don't kill him" that it would have been too abstract before. The other issue is people wanting to train giant spiders and other bugs: the rules imply it's not possible, but it happens in about every third module!
Because the lack of an ability more accurately models the conception of the creatures as presented. What you're proposing also hurts backwards compatibility for really no benefit: the upshot is that skeletons are mindless and don't really have much of a causal relationship to their bodies either way.But that's just it. Skeletons are not mindless in the sense of knowing nothing. If you tell a skeleton to open a door, it knows what a door is, it knows what a door knob is and how to operate it, etc. If you tell a skeleton use swing a sword, it knows what a sword is, how to use it, etc. If you tell it to attack a particular person, it knows not to run through a fire in order to get to the enemy because fire will damage it, it knows to take the shortest route possible, etc. From my experience, skeletons and golems generally act with an Int score of roughly 3 -- the dumbest human possible. You might make a good case that they're not capable of independent thought, but to me that's represented by their Cha score of 1 (almost no sense of self).
Skeletons, and especially golems, act like machines, nothing more. Their minds are basically computers with voice recognition software. They'll do exactly what you tell them to do, but they aren't capable of thought. Computers do not have an intelligence score. Thus, neither do skeletons.
And, this change still has nothing to do with playability.
Skeletons, and especially golems, act like machines, nothing more. Their minds are basically computers with voice recognition software. They'll do exactly what you tell them to do, but they aren't capable of thought. Computers do not have an intelligence score. Thus, neither do skeletons.
And, this change still has nothing to do with playability.
Exactly my point. Furthermore they are opertated purely magically which gives them these sort of abilities.
An intelligence score of 1 is adressed to a lot of animals. But all of even these animals still have a lot more sense of abstraction and contextual thinking, than most if not all insects could ever dream of.
Lets go back in time a little bit. The first appearance of intelligence was with a tiny fish that was almost entirely featureless. This tiny little creature was compared even to fish today incredibly stupid. But it still had an incredible advantage towards most invertebrates (mainly insects, spider-likes and crustaceans), because those creatures had no intelligence whatsoever. They had and still have only their pure instinct dictating their reactions to diverse situations and they cannot react differently.
Have you ever had an insect inside your room that was constantly trying to fly through the window but it couldn`t because the window was closed? That is because the insect's instincts only tell it "if you can see nothing down that way, the way is clear", so the insect cant see the window and flies against it and it doesn't stop trying, because it cannot think as far as "wait, i didnt get through here the first time, so it probably isn't possible", but even the stupidest animal, even a totally idiotic, overbred dog will know after the first time bumping into the glass, that the way it tried to go is locked. And that is the difference between an Int score of 1 and no Int score at all.
EDIT: Un an unrelated note: Where have I heard the name hogarth before?
Okay there are intelligent invertebrates, but they are pretty much a minority, considering "vermin" mostly includes insects.
If you go beyond the invertebrates that are classified as 2vermin" in DnD you actually get extremely intelligent creatures like octopods.
Butthe rules mostly refer to vermin that is instinct guided rather than reasoning.
Skeletons, and especially golems, act like machines, nothing more. Their minds are basically computers with voice recognition software. They'll do exactly what you tell them to do, but they aren't capable of thought. Computers do not have an intelligence score. Thus, neither do skeletons.
No, they're not like computers at all in terms of intelligence; they're like "sci-fi" robots. They're "smart" enough to understand commands that an animal never could. Of course, they have no will of their own, but that has nothing to do with intelligence; more like wisdom and/or charisma.
And, this change still has nothing to do with playability.
I don't know what to tell you. I've personally seen arguments over what a skeleton is (or isn't) intelligent enough to do. For instance, if I tell a horse skeleton "Sunder the tallest halfling's magical boots if he attacks you first", can the skeleton understand that or not?
And the idea of giant spiders unable to learn or to be used as pets has been thrown out the window a long time ago.
It might not have anything to do with your campaign's playability, of course.
EDIT: Un an unrelated note: Where have I heard the name hogarth before?
I'm famous for my series of engravings "Industry & Idleness" and "The Rake's Progress".
|
No, they're not like computers at all in terms of intelligence; they're like "sci-fi" robots. They're "smart" enough to understand commands that an animal never could. Of course, they have no will of their own, but that has nothing to do with intelligence; more like wisdom and/or charisma.
And I think it's fair to say that when they're animated, they are no longer animals or possess animal's capabilities -- they necromantic creations bound to their creator, who can give them commands which they can barely understand. It is irrelevant whether the corpse was a human or a duergar, or an animal -- the effect of the spell is not language-dependant.
If you get rid of "non-stats", there's bound to be a lot of mechanical problems, and not just with backwards compatibility. For example, when 4E got rid of "non-stat" and some immunities, Undead are no longer immune to mind-affecting effects and Sleep (I read about someone using the 'Sleep'-spell on skeletons, which I found to be ridiculous).
I find the current system to be more concise and elegant than giving, for example, "non-intelligent" or incorporeal creatures "positive" stats.
It might not have anything to do with your campaign's playability, of course.
I think the system gives you clear examples of how complex commands you can give to "mindless" undead and constructs. I, too, have seen arguments over how much a semi-intelligent animal could understand ("My own dog understands everything I say, so it's fair to say that these rules are clearly written by people who don't have dogs. And therefore I know that my character's Dobermann can deliver the message to the first priest of Skyfather he sees in Wickedtown") and I know that we could argue to ad infinitum about how much a golem or a skeleton or a dog should understand and be able to "improvise" under different circumstances -- however, what would be the point? I prefer an elegant solution over the "most realistic" one (whatever that would be).
|
The reason constructs and vermin do not have Intelligence scores, and that Undead do not have Constitution scores, is simple: it makes them immune to any form of ability drain, damage and enhancement.
You cannot adjust the intelligence of a construct or vermin. It doesn't think, so you can't make it think faster or slower or befuddle it's thinking. It simply acts on programming -- actual commands in the case of the construct, and evolved stimulus responses in the case of the vermin. You can create spells that affect the programming/responses of constructs and vermin, but these are not "mind-affecting" spells, because do not affect a mind.
Likewise, you cannot affect the health of a dead thing. You cannot make it more healthy or less healthy. It's dead.
And I think it's fair to say that when they're animated, they are no longer animals or possess animal's capabilities -- they necromantic creations bound to their creator, who can give them commands which they can barely understand. It is irrelevant whether the corpse was a human or a duergar, or an animal -- the effect of the spell is not language-dependant.
Right. And I would call that capability to understand commands and carry them out in a reasonable manner "intelligence".
Let me put it this way: if a golem with an Int score of "--" can understand requests to open a door, attack all intruders, go to a specific place, etc., then why can't a giant spider with an Int score of "--" understand the same things?
If you get rid of "non-stats", there's bound to be a lot of mechanical problems, and not just with backwards compatibility. For example, when 4E got rid of "non-stat" and some immunities, Undead are no longer immune to mind-affecting effects and Sleep (I read about someone using the 'Sleep'-spell on skeletons, which I found to be ridiculous).
This is an non-issue for 3.5 & Pathfinder; it already says that under the Undead type -- "Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects)." It has nothing to do with whether they have an Int score or not.
I prefer an elegant solution over the "most realistic" one
Certainly. I find the idea of "An Int score of X means you can understand ideas this complex" to be very elegant compared to "Some mindless creatures like skeletons can deal with complex concepts, and some mindless creatures like amoebas can't; you can't tell just by looking at the Int score."
|
|
Can we get rid of Constitution and Intelligence scores of "--"? It's always seemed odd to me that giant bugs, skeletons and golems somehow need a special intelligence category of their own. Why not just give vermin and Int score of 1, and skeletons, zombies and golems an Int score of 3?
Similarly, why not just give undead and constructs a Con score of 10? (You could make up some special quality called "Tireless", similar to "Mindless", to explain that they never get tired.)
Oh, that's one of my biggest pet peeves about 3rd edition!
Bugs are trainable. They can *learn.* They can remember. They can follow directions. They aren't exactly brilliant, and their tiny little brains are very specialized, but they aren't rocks. Intelligence 1 would make them trainable, and they could even have skills. The darn things invented agriculture before we did, they're hardly 'mindless.' Like cats, they sure aren't *easy* to train, but that doesn't mean that they are mindless.
The no Con score thing also bothers me, particularly when it's applied to creatures that clearly have some sort of metabolism, needing to feed to survive (ghouls, vampires, etc.). Why does a Clay or Stone or Iron Golem, a lump of earth animated by an elemental spirit, have a zero Con score, while an Earth Elemental, a lump of earth animated by an elemental spirit, has a *high* Con score? In what way does this make sense? Does an earth elemental have a bloodstream? Does it breathe? Does it age? No. Nor do many Outsiders, many of whom have quite high Con scores.
The assignment of nonabilities is an arbitrary ruling that just ends up creating all sorts of strange corner cases, such as the Drow training spiders thing, which is pretty much impossible without some special exception. I don't think the rule offers any benefit, and only results in the need for a bunch of exceptions, so, IMO, it should just be ditched. If a particular undead warrants a Special Quality 'Immune to any effect that would call for a Fort save' then give it that Special Quality.
|
|
Right. And I would call that capability to understand commands and carry them out in a reasonable manner "intelligence".
Let me put it this way: if a golem with an Int score of "--" can understand requests to open a door, attack all intruders, go to a specific place, etc., then why can't a giant spider with an Int score of "--" understand the same things?
First of all, I would call it "programmed responses" in the same sense that, for example, I can program my cell phone or computer to respond to voice commands. It does not make my computer or cell phone "intelligent" in any way, as the reaction is purely mechanical and programmed in nature.
As for "mindless" undead and constructs, I think they primarily respond to "mental" images/commands their creator "sends" them rather than just "voice". That's the difference, I think, between giving instructions to a giant spider or a skeleton. Also, consider summoned monsters -- as the player has pretty much total control over them, so does the character "mentally" instruct and guide them in their actions.
Arguing this further is really about the same as arguing about targeted Dispel Magic at only a portion/area of the spell (making it a lot easier), or that magical constructs should deactivate in Antimagic Field , or that Damage Reduction should not protect a corporeal creature (such as a wererat) if you make a 'Called Shot' at its eyes (BTW, all of these are "real" arguments they had in my friend's group!).
Certainly. I find the idea of "An Int score of X means you can understand ideas this complex" to be very elegant compared to "Some mindless creatures like skeletons can deal with complex concepts, and some mindless creatures like amoebas can't; you can't tell just by looking at the Int score."
That's what the rulebooks say? Hmmm... I remember that there are explicit examples of what kind of instructions you can give. Of course, an ooze probably has a different kind of "psyche" than a skeleton. My own take on this is that if you're using magic to summon/control/create a creature, you can "feed" it mental "images" to program it. Training, of course, is another issue...
|
The assignment of nonabilities is an arbitrary ruling that just ends up creating all sorts of strange corner cases, such as the Drow training spiders thing
I just wanted to say that it isn't so much a thing of training a spider to accept a rider, as much as training a rider to ride a spider. In this case the rider just finds some way to avoid the spiders realization to feed on it (magic or scent or something). once on the rider just has to figure out how to make the spider turn or bite or whatever through learing/force with magic or harness etc. The spider isn't tamed or trained in any way and will kill someone who tries to do things wrong.
|
Skeletons, and especially golems, act like machines, nothing more. Their minds are basically computers with voice recognition software. They'll do exactly what you tell them to do, but they aren't capable of thought. Computers do not have an intelligence score. Thus, neither do skeletons.No, they're not like computers at all in terms of intelligence; they're like "sci-fi" robots. They're "smart" enough to understand commands that an animal never could. Of course, they have no will of their own, but that has nothing to do with intelligence; more like wisdom and/or charisma.
And, this change still has nothing to do with playability.I don't know what to tell you. I've personally seen arguments over what a skeleton is (or isn't) intelligent enough to do. For instance, if I tell a horse skeleton "Sunder the tallest halfling's magical boots if he attacks you first", can the skeleton understand that or not?
And the idea of giant spiders unable to learn or to be used as pets has been thrown out the window a long time ago.
It might not have anything to do with your campaign's playability, of course.
Just why simple undead creatures (as opposed to intelligent undead creatures, such as vampires and ghosts) are able to seemingly understand commands is an oft-debated topic at many a gaming table. Generally, these creatures are created by the use of Animate Dead or some similar spell. Unfortunately, the spell description leaves something to be desired when it comes to explaining the actual mechanics involved with imbuing them with intelligence enough to understand simple commands. Obviously, there is no brain to process those commands (or what is left of the brain is mostly rotted away, in the case of zombies), so there's really no physiological reason for their seeming intelligence. It's a function of the magic itself, not something inherent in the creature. My theory is that the necromancer basically creates a telepathic or telempathic link with his creation, albeit not on a conscious level, and when a simple undead creature like a skeleton or zombie follows a basic command, it is not doing so of its own accord, but is being guided subconsciously by the necromancer (sort of a puppetmaster and marionette relationship). That would help to explain why they lose their apparent ability to think and reason, beyond a purely instinctual level, if their creator dies or abandons them (or why they automatically cease to be animate, in some games). That's one theory, anyway.
No, they're not like computers at all in terms of intelligence; they're like "sci-fi" robots. They're "smart" enough to understand commands that an animal never could. Of course, they have no will of their own, but that has nothing to do with intelligence; more like wisdom and/or charisma.
Your objection isn't substantive enough for me to have anything to counter.
I don't know what to tell you. I've personally seen arguments over what a skeleton is (or isn't) intelligent enough to do. For instance, if I tell a horse skeleton "Sunder the tallest halfling's magical boots if he attacks you first", can the skeleton understand that or not?
This calls for clarification, not a change. In general, I'd say they can understand any if-then statement with concrete triggers they can perceive. The example you gave is actually a pretty simple command, if not particularly well-worded (technically, it would only come into play if the skeleton were to encounter the tallest halfling ever, and the adjective "magical" is extraneous, since he can hardly be wearing two sets of boots, and impossible for the skeleton to perceive, since he doesn't have continuous Detect Magic). Really, it's a question of how picky the DM wants to be. That command could simply fail due to syntax errors, or he could cut the players some slack, since the meaning is pretty clear and would be well within the skeleton's capability if phrased a little better.
And the idea of giant spiders unable to learn or to be used as pets has been thrown out the window a long time ago.
I didn't say anything about vermin. In any case, your argument there is that they do have a mind (ie the ability to reason and learn), not that their mindlessness is being badly implemented.
It might not have anything to do with your campaign's playability, of course.
Unless your DM tries to "get" you (in which case you have far bigger problems of which this is only a minor symptom), it shouldn't effect anyone's playability. If the command is a simple if-then statement, the skeleton can do it, and leave it at that.
I think some of this can be answered with the fact that many of these examples of non-intelligence are creatures that have -- Int, but a normal Wis score. Cha is not as big a factor, as the awareness of self is an independant factor (it can occur in intelligent or non-intelligent things).
Intelligence is only one aspect of a creature's mental capacity. Being able to react to your surroundings requires Wisdom, which is all that is needed to act upon orders for the most part.
Reacting to a cliff in the way, climbing a ladder, opening a door, etc. These are reacting to your environment, using the base of instinct or set programming.
Thinking for yourself, proactively deciding to do something other than pure instinct, using logical deduction rather than trial and error, or doing anything other than your magically given orders demands you do, is partly what Intelligence denotes.
Another aspect of Intelligence is learning, which many non-ability creatures lack too.
There may be a case for some creatures (such as insects) that can learn through trial and error via memory, to have an Int of 1. Being able to remember anything would denote some level of intelligence I would guess...
Not sure if it's enough of an issue to rewrite and break backward compatibility.
There may be a case for some creatures (such as insects) that can learn through trial and error via memory, to have an Int of 1. Being able to remember anything would denote some level of intelligence I would guess...
Not sure if it's enough of an issue to rewrite and break backward compatibility.
What part of backward compatibility would it break?
Here's a couple of scenarios to illustrate my point:
- An orc skeleton (with "--" Int, 10 Wis, 1 Cha) and an orc (with 3 Int, 3 Wis, 3 Cha) are given the same simple order: "Patrol this dungeon and attack all intruders". What kind of situation can come up where the orc "outsmarts" the skeleton?
- A party enters a cave where a giant spider and a constrictor snake make their home(s). What kind of situation can come up where the snake "outsmarts" the spider?
I'm just curious to see what other people think.
EDIT: I thought of an example. An orc might be fooled by a particular illusion 99 times in a row, but then figure out it's an illusion the 100th time. Whereas if an orc skeleton is fooled by something once, it will be fooled by the same thing every time.
What part of backward compatibility would it break?
It could potentially change or disrupt an adventure built around a formerly non-ability INT creature as part of it's encounters. Now it can be affected by things that it couldn't before, opening up different tactics that the adventure, and thus the DM, wasn't prepared for.
It's not a major issue, either way.. but it could become one. Something a DM would have to keep in mind if he decided to change things this way.
.
An orc skeleton (with "--" Int, 10 Wis, 1 Cha) and an orc (with 3 Int, 3 Wis, 3 Cha) are given the same simple order: "Patrol this dungeon and attack all intruders". What kind of situation can come up where the orc "outsmarts" the skeleton?
I'm not sure if it's so much "outsmarting" as simply mental capability. Basically, the Orc could decide to shirk his duties for something else... maybe he decides to eat the pie?
He could be talked to, convinced to NOT attack through regular non-magical means such as bribing, etc.He can be reasoned with (yeah, not likely, but still "possible"), scared into not doing what he was told, or any number of other things.
Basically, he has the capacity to learn and think outside his given orders.
I guess a specific example of "outsmarting" is if the dungeon collapses, and it no longer is capable of being patrolled. He'd report back for further duties. Another might be to NOT attack a delegate of another orc tribe he found wandering in the dungeon, and bring him to the chieftan to parlay.
Or even just surrender to an obviously superior force (the PCs) and give information in exchange for saving his skin (PCs let him go). While this fails in the mission for the one giving orders, the Orc is still alive, and thus smarter than the unthinking creature that blindly attacks a force that could kill it without hesitation.
A party enters a cave where a giant spider and a constrictor snake make their home(s). What kind of situation can come up where the snake "outsmarts" the spider?
See, this is where I said that insects would likely fall into the range of potentially being a candidate of Int scores.
I'm not exactly familiar with insect behavior vs snake behavior... however I KNOW snakes are willing to retreat when they find out their prey isn't as easy a kill as they thought (personally witnessed this). Are insects capable of this kind of reasoning, or do they just attack and fight to the death anything that fits their programmed "it's the right size and squishiness, I'll kill it"?
And a follow up question... the snake would likely have learned from the experience and not attack a similar looking creature again (or at least the same creature, recognition senses notwithstanding), but would the spider understand this as well? Or would the spider attack the same thing if it saw it again?
This might only be answerable by someone that knows the capabilities of these creatures in reality... not just any person that might have seen these things in media.
Insects do have a "brain" which at normal size probably does not produce "thought," but once made giant that brain may be the size of a cat's or a dog's and so giving giant spiders an INT score is not unreasonable. Normal insects behavior is hormonally driven. No INT.
As for magical constructs, well those are the rules for operating them. Most of us are ok with how it works.
Well.. it depends. A dinosaur's brain size has been estimated (by the skulls left behind) to be around the size of a peanut. If all you need is instinct and basic motor functions, it doesn't take much brain matter no matter how huge you get.
So it's possible the giant spider might have barely a larger brain than a normal spider does.