| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
At the table I was DMing we had an issue come up with a Gorilla animal companion wearing a Belt of Dwarvenkind. We had a disagreement over whether or not this meant the gorilla could talk. This was for Pathfinder Society so a clear RAW ruling would be best (although I would be happy to know RAI, RAW would overrule if there is a conflict between the two).
On the one hand, the Gorilla is Int 3 so it's capable of understanding language. It's also humanoid so it's also capable of wearing a belt. The belt also says "The wearer can understand, speak and read Dwarven." This distinguishes between understanding (which is the best Int 3 animal companions are normally capable of) and speaking and bestows both abilities upon the wearer of the belt.
On the other hand apes are physically incapable of communicating in human languages. They can understand it, but aren't capable of actually speaking it themselves. Therefore if the belt does grant a gorilla the ability to speak dwarven, any creature whether it's a horse or a dog could have this belt fastened around them and suddenly gain the ability to understand AND speak dwarven.
I'm inclined to rule a gorilla can't speak dwarven because IRL they are physically incapable of it (the best we've managed is simple words like mama after years of painstaking work. We've proven this isn't due to a lack of understanding). But I can certainly understand the POV of it working because it acknowledges there is a difference between understanding and speaking and grants the wearer the ability to do both.
We're talking about magic here so what the critter normally can do is largely irrelevant.
The magical item in question specifically and directly allows the wearer to both understand and speak a specific language.
"The wearer can understand, speak, and read Dwarven." is a direct quote from the item.
If it said it added Dwarven to their languages known then I'd say no, but as written your PFS DM is flat out incorrect.
The magical item in question specifically grants a creature the ability to both speak and understand the Dwarven language.
Apes can't talk, but apes wearing Belts of Dwarvenkind can speak Dwarven.
-S
I agree that an animal companion that is not physically able would not be able to speak. If the player wanted the logic to that reasoning, I would point them to the requirements to craft an Belt of Dwarvenkind. The spell tongues is used. If you consult the entry for the spell tongues it specifically says, "Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don’t speak."
Except the item specifically grants the ability to speak and understand the language. It has no qualifiers.
You can't use the base spell as a guideline because magical items do Not do what the spells used to make them, do. (see, rings of spell storing and the spell used to create it, bracers of armor clearly violating the spell description used to create it, etc..)
Any living creature wearing a belt of Dwarvenkind gets to speak and understand Dwarven- even an animal companion.
-S
One question for John, why does it matter that the ape speaks Dwarven? The Pathfinder Society Rules clearly state:
An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy), or activate magic devices. Also note that raising an animal companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher does not eliminate the need to make Handle Animal checks to direct its actions; even semi-intelligent animals still act like animals unless trained not to.
So, if the player is trying to avoid Handle Animals checks that's a no go. If it is just a flavor thing, it probably ain't worth the trouble to fight the player.
The player has had his PC invest in the belt, and the description says that it allows the wearer to speak dwarven..
why not let them?
Generally, in a shared world campaign like Pathfinder Society it is VERY bad idea to base a character concept around whether individual GMs interpret the rules a certain way.
Just because a player invests in a certain interpretation does not mean I, as GM, have to allow it. (It doesn't mean I have to go around nerfing everything that I don't completely agree with either).
Again, I go back to question of what benefit is the player trying to derive from it. If it is a roleplaying flavor thing, sure the ape is able to grunt out some monosyllabic Dwarven. If the player is trying to parlay the ability into triggering magic items or something else that might affect the balance of the game it's my duty as GM to put an end to the shenanigans.
|
I agree that an animal companion that is not physically able would not be able to speak. If the player wanted the logic to that reasoning, I would point them to the requirements to craft an Belt of Dwarvenkind. The spell tongues is used. If you consult the entry for the spell tongues it specifically says, "Tongues does not enable the subject to speak with creatures who don’t speak."
Your quote there doesn't support your position. You want a quote that says something like "Tongues does not enable a subject who cannot speak to speak". Recall, the gorilla is wearing the belt and is the subject of the spell.
Your quote there doesn't support your position. You want a quote that says something like "Tongues does not enable a subject who cannot speak to speak".
I have to admit a misread it a first, but I let it stand as it seems to support the idea that in and of itself the spell doesn't grant the ability to speak in the general sense.
Unfortunately, the rules throw around the term 'speak' without really nailing down what it means. We know that speak with plants will let you ask questions of a grove of trees but the spell is silent as it were to whether the trees grow ears and mouths so it can communicate verbally (Personally, I think not since it is a divination).
The only place I know of in the core rules where it talks about animals speaking as such is under Druid's Wild Shape ability:
A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.)
But even that is far from definitive.
|
|
Sorry for being terse in the first post. I'm in tax paper writing / exam mode. :)
The speak with animals spells is level 1 for rangers and druids and allows animals to communicate, but as you said with speak with plants, is unclear as to what is actually going on.
Personally I'd think the phrase "grants the subject the ability to speak and understand the language of any intelligent creature" coupled with the target being "creature" not "humanoid" gets us 90% of the way there. If the drafters had intended the granted ability to be restricted to understanding (if the the subject creature was incapable of speech) surely they would not have used speak and understand, just understand, or just speak.
I think the fallacy here is assuming the description of the belt was not written to assume a Pc would be putting it on.
I think the animal would gain any more benefitbthan knowing any other language.
One question for John, why does it matter that the ape speaks Dwarven?
As someone who had a druid recently it was a big boon to be able to communicate with my animal companion (I simply turned into an ape, communicated with my animal companion and had the ranger cast speak with animal when it was important for me to pass that information on).
I'm also new to DMing and I would like to try to get my rulings with rules right. I made a ruling at the time, but I've now come to double-check that ruling (and I willl apologise to the player if I was wrong). What's more, if the gorilla can speak with this item then sticking this item onto a horse would suddenly make it Mr. Ed (as far as I can find animals have no item slots, so it's up to the GM to make reasonable rulings. I think it's reasonable for a piece of leather to be tied around a horse). I take issue with the flavour of that.
If it is just a flavor thing, it probably ain't worth the trouble to fight the player.
It's not going to be an argument moving forward. I made a ruling and that was the end of it during last night. Either it's allowed or it isn't. But I don't want to unfairly penalize the player.
If it is allowed I wont' allow it in my home campaigns for flavour reasons and because I don't generally appreciate rules lawyering. I think it's quite clear the item wasn't intended to be worn on an animal companion. IMO the player has taken a corner case simply so he can say "Ha! I got this silly loophole in the rules working." I wholeheartedly dislike this (largely due to playing on a RPI MUD where players were expected to report bugs rather than exploit them. Exploiting them was grounds for being banned. I've kept the same mentality). But I acknowledge I have to allow it in Pathfinder Society if it's technically allowed
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that an animal companion that is not physically able would not be able to speak.
Casting an Awaken spell on an animal enables it to speak, even though it is physically incapable of it. Like the spell, the Belt of Dwarvenkind is magical; realism has its place in a game like this, but it only goes so far. Magic frequently breaks the rules concerning realism.
I agree that an animal companion that is not physically able would not be able to speak.Casting an Awaken spell on an animal enables it to speak, even though it is physically incapable of it. Like the spell, the Belt of Dwarvenkind is magical; realism has its place in a game like this, but it only goes so far. Magic frequently breaks the rules concerning realism.
That is true. I have been mulling over my answer and have considered I may have been a bit hasty in ruling it impossible.
However, I still have to wonder exactly what it means to speak (in game terms). For example, with the magic of speak with plants. We know that you can get useful information from the plants by 'speaking' with them. Now do the plants just rustle as if in the wind and you are about to understand that? or does the plant develop a mouth to communicate verbally.
Funny, I just noticed that speak with plants and speak with animals don't acutally say that they can speak, rather you "communicate" with plants and "receive answers" from animals. Since it is a personal spell it wouldn't require anyone else being able to understand what is said.
Hmmm, I still don't like it thematically, and in home game I would likely disallow it, but I have to admit that it appears to consistent with the tongues spell and item description.
Maybe its like Magic Mouth, but from the animals mouth...
I think the item says it grants an ability; if you can use the item, you get the ability.
|
|
I'm inclined to rule a gorilla can't speak dwarven because IRL they are physically incapable of it
This sentence made me laugh. A lot.
1. IRL, there is no such thing as speaking dwarven;
2. A gorilla can't speak dwarven? I imagine dwarven as a series of grunts and pokes... there. Do you still think, based on my imagining of dwarven, that a gorilla can't speak it.
Food for thoughts people... foooooooooooood! hooo-hoooooooo-haaa-haaaa!!
Your all forgetting one big point there are many animals within the beastiary that are able to speak like the Warg. If a wolf like animal is able to speak not only common, but goblin as well what limiting other animals if they have the intelligence. Plus, with animals that are able to get over 12 intelligence i say they can learn to speak a learn language on there own. Many creatures are able to speak within the beastiary that don't have the so called makings to, but till do. Example Unicorn, Dragon, phoenix, Nightmare, Hellhounf Nessian, any half celestial or infernal, Chimera (speaking from three different head non-human, Blink dog, Silvanshee and Aranea. Some even have a intelligence of 4. Also many races have animal heads and speak totally fine. I say the ranger has to teach them the language, much like teaching another ncp or pc to speack a language; or they have a magical way of inducing speech.
Plus, i like to have Ntanga found in the NPC Guide, a sentient ape rogue that speak a Abyssal, Common, Elven, Osiriani, and Polyglot; no one but five different languages.
COLLAR OF THE TRUE COMPANION is a item that also allows animal companions to speak located within the ultimate equipment book.
Dherrii can speak, Apes on the planet of the apes can speak. This IS fantasy. Dehrrii are gorillas with wings...
I'm not so sure apes can't speak. I'm pretty sure it's their animal intelligence. IRL you have no way of making a INT 3 ape out of an INT 2 ape.
Look at Ravens and Parrots...bump them to INT 3 and see what they start doing.
RAI, this device is copy/pasted from much older editions of the game and was never meant to mesh with being worn by an animal companion....
RAW WHY NOT?
Worgs speak goblin, wolves cant speak.... what makes a worg special? Isn't it a bigger smarter wolf?
I don't have a problem with this magical device making BJ able to speak to the Bear, in dwarven
In a way it's unsettling and odd. But Dehrrii already freak me out so....
(I keep picturing a wolf companion doing this tho)
|
COLLAR OF THE TRUE COMPANION is a item that also allows animal companions to speak located within the ultimate equipment book.I was so excited by that that I immediately ran over and opened UE looking for the item. Sadly "This does not give the animal the ability to speak"
There really should be such an item.
exists, banned in pfs
Magic items: all magic items on pages 26–27 are legal except circlet of speaking
