My copy of the APG says it doesn't give them any extra vocal ability.
Give your monkey a chalk board.
Or learn to speak Monkey, duh!
Learn sign language and teach it to the monkey.
My copy of the APG says it doesn't give them any extra vocal ability.
Give your monkey a chalk board.
Well the APG only states that the creature needs to be able to articulate sound, it doesn't say that the creature needs to have the same vocal range as a human (or dragon). Monkeys can articulate sounds quite well. I have interpreted that to mean that the monkey can now talk -it's a magic spell designed for this.
Even if you don't interpret it that way, a mage can speak with their familiar from 5th level in a language only known to the two of them.
For those who say an animal can only have an Int of 1 or 2, it has been officially stated that an animal companion with an int of 3+ is still considered an animal, not a magical beast.
If an animal is allowed to use a headband of vast intelligence or mental superiority, is there any reason not to allow it regular use of languages?
I would allow it to be able to strategize and understand clearly, but it still could not speak due to physical limitation.
The Caster of a Permanency spell, can make a tongues spell permanent on himself.
The Caster of a Permanency spell, can make a Telepathic Bond spell permanent between two creatures.
Since Pathfinder has planted their feet on animal intelligence, I have been forced to compromise. Foxes have intelligence 2 only as humans understand intelligence. They have stealth 18, the ability to pass without trace as a non-magical feat, and with speak with animals or tongues they seem smarter than humans. Just not book smarts.
One could always rule that foxes are magical beasts, after all they are considered magical creatures in Japanese mythology (and some people still believe that today).
One could always rule that foxes are magical beasts, after all they are considered magical creatures in Japanese mythology (and some people still believe that today).
I think that's an option even though cappadocius brutally shot me down. He seems to think being a magical animal qualifies them for personhood. The Blink Dog is not capable of arguing the point. Not even with a collar of common speech.
I'd hardly call a hydra a person (but not to his face :) ), he can be handled like any other animal
I'd hardly call a hydra a person (but not to his face :) ), he can be handled like any other animal
5 to 10 heads and he can't understand that long a phrase.
|
Since Pathfinder has planted their feet on animal intelligence, I have been forced to compromise. Foxes have intelligence 2 only as humans understand intelligence. They have stealth 18, the ability to pass without trace as a non-magical feat, and with speak with animals or tongues they seem smarter than humans. Just not book smarts.
I'm not sure what drives your viewpoint on the intelligence of foxes and cats.
They seem just as unable to handle the concept of crossing a roadway as the local opossum, raccoons, groundhogs, and squirrels, judging by the apparent ratio of carcasses:population density.
Breakdown by speciesIn 1993, 25 schools throughout New England participated in a roadkill study involving 1,923 animal deaths. By category, the fatalities were:[5]
81% mammals
15% birds
3% reptiles and amphibians
1% indiscernible
Extrapolating these data nationwide, Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People Newspaper estimated that the following animals are being killed by motor vehicles in the United States annually:[6]
41 million squirrels
26 million cats
22 million rats
19 million opossums
15 million raccoons
6 million dogs
350,000 deer
This study may not have considered differences in observability among taxa (i.e. dead raccoons are easier to see than dead frogs[citation needed]), and has not been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadkill
Cats in my experience, are all individuals.
Some smart, some dumb, a very few are pacifists.
|
|
If an animal is allowed to use a headband of vast intelligence or mental superiority, is there any reason not to allow it regular use of languages?I would allow it to be able to strategize and understand clearly, but it still could not speak due to physical limitation.
I believe I read that cats meow because they are mimicking human speech, but do not have the correct vocal cords to pronounce words; and that feral/undomesticated cats (those not around speaking humans) never meow.
I'd probably rule that without magic to increase intelligence, grant a language, and transmute physical vocal capabilities, the majority of animals are not going to do any speaking.
...as a side-note, the fun occurs when an animal has finally been granted intelligence, language, and it's own custom necromancer throat graft, and a table of players eagerly lean forward to hear it's first spoken dialogue... and as the GM, you declare that it instead jumps off a cliff.
Since Pathfinder has planted their feet on animal intelligence, I have been forced to compromise. Foxes have intelligence 2 only as humans understand intelligence. They have stealth 18, the ability to pass without trace as a non-magical feat, and with speak with animals or tongues they seem smarter than humans. Just not book smarts.I'm not sure what drives your viewpoint on the intelligence of foxes and cats.
They seem just as unable to handle the concept of crossing a roadway as the local opossum, raccoons, groundhogs, and squirrels, judging by the apparent ratio of carcasses:population density.
The same can be said of humans, any many people get hit every year by crossing the road, when they should not.
Just remember Everyone makes mistakes, even RoadKill.
Cats do not normal meow at other cats. They use scent to communicate with each other. Cats do meow at other animal, like humans.
On the other hand, my cat meow right before i let him out. I have gotten into the habit of meowing twice when i let him out. It is also good, that i have a black floor matte, she can scratch, to let me know when she wants outside as well.
.....
On the other hand non of this matters... This is a rule question forum, so the Cat has INT 2. as listed in the book. Unless awakened by a druid spell, or given a magic item which permanently increase its INT.
|
I think that's an option even though cappadocius brutally shot me down. He seems to think being a magical animal qualifies them for personhood.
If you're going to moan and whine about me hurting your feelings because cats can't talk, don't poke the bear with a stick. You want me to leave you alone, don't invoke my name. Being self-aware makes one a person, having a concept of a mind that isn't your own makes one a person, and that's a part of what an Intelligence 3 represents. I've long argued with the developers on the Chat that certain real world animals should have an intelligence 3, and there are certain abnormal humans that, well, shouldn't. They're not interested in corner cases and weirdo exceptions to the rules, and I appreciate that, even when they're wrong! ;) Foxes and Cats are not on that list because there is no evidence whatsoever that they even approach this concept of personhood, and they're, frankly, not even terribly clever outside of the very narrow confines of being a small enough predator that they have to do double duty as prey.
If you want to give Foxes a 13 intelligence, SLAs, and a candy bar in your games, that's cool and I encourage you to do the thing your group is happiest with in your games, but don't expect the rest of us to jump up and down and squeal like little girls because you have a hobby horse. We've all got hobby horses, and they all look stupid to someone who doesn't share them.
The Blink Dog is not capable of arguing the point. Not even with a collar of common speech.
And then I don't even know what this means. The Blink Dog can either A) argue the point because it speaks Sylvan, in game, or B) cannot argue the point because it isn't real.
Calico was able to say, "Mommy let me out" and one of my Mom's friends who wasn't a big fan of cats said,"Is that cat talking?"
Calico was a real cat.
If you going to call me a piss pot for an argument that you started, you should be taking meds. too.
I do, however, agree with you that the universe has never made complete sense.
Here’s an option, have some animals, usually mammals, able to gain animal levels. They can start at 2 intelligence at young adulthood, and gain 1 intelligence at certain levels. They need a 3 intelligence before they can gain up to 5 of any ability from a book. Familiar is a different class than Animal. Animals with this capability that lose their master, can substitute Animal levels for the Familiar levels.
|
If an animal is allowed to use a headband of vast intelligence or mental superiority, is there any reason not to allow it regular use of languages?This leads to two question:
1) Would i allow a animal with a higher Int score to understand languages, if the Int score gave it bonus languages. = YES.2) Would i let it speak the bonus languages. = NO. (parrot being an exception).
Raven's speak languages...just saying.
Keep in mind if you awaken an animal companion they can no longer be an animal companion.
If an animal is allowed to use a headband of vast intelligence or mental superiority, is there any reason not to allow it regular use of languages?This leads to two question:
1) Would i allow a animal with a higher Int score to understand languages, if the Int score gave it bonus languages. = YES.2) Would I let it speak the bonus languages. = NO. (parrot being an exception).
Raven's speak languages...just saying.
Keep in mind if you awaken an animal companion they can no longer be an animal companion.
Companion or familiar levels are based on the human(elf, dwarf, half-orc, or whatever)levels. If they become ineligible for one class they can have their levels converted to the other. (Excess levels are discarded.)
Raven's speak languages...just saying.
Keep in mind if you awaken an animal companion they can no longer be an animal companion.
No they don't. Raven FAMILIARS speak a language.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/03/10/funny-pictures-videos-talking-cat/
If you defy the rule, you can just have the animal not gain any intelligence as long as they already have more.
A Raven that becomes a familiar just doesn't gain common as a language because they already have it.
Lamens terms please. I couldn't even find diatic in the dictionary.Put simply, animal communication only relates to stimulus and response. There is no element of actual choice, relationship, or understanding of the nature of symbols. Also animal communication is not language in the human sense that includes rules of syntax. Despite the behaviorist hoopla about how, for example, apes could be taught to communicate via sign language with humans and/or with each other in the same way humans communicate with each other, nothing of the sort ever took place. Instead, behaviorists just ended up with really well-trained apes who could ape the behaviors that behaviorists wanted to them to demonstrate in order to "prove" the behaviorist thesis correct.
If I understand what you mean here ("monkey see, monkey do, because monkey get reward after"), I might disagree. There's an ape named Kanzi that can carry on conversations, and has even 'invented' ways to describe things he didn't know words for.
This is just the first story I found about him online. I'm sure there are more.
Granted, an ape's brain is probably more developed than a cat or a bear, but I believe that given a sufficient and well-researched learning environment, almost any animal could be taught to understand speech -- at least enough to get the gist of what is going on, even if there are no articles, or clauses, or proper verb conjugation.
Just because we don't understand how animals think or percieve doesn't mean they can't learn the same things we do. There are humans with learning deficiencies that we don't fully understand.