Can animal Companions get reading ability?
If they hit Int 3 they can learn a language (including written forms by default if I remember right), but after Int 3 they're no longer considered an animal and can't be an AC any more I believe.
Other than that, Int 2 or below don't understand speech, written or otherwise.
Having Int 3 or more doesn't stop an animal from being an animal. In fact, mounts for Paladins and Nature Oracles start with 6 Int, but they're still treated as animal companions.
If you put a rank in Linguistics, that will allow an AC to read and understand a language of your choice.
There's something in the rules for animals that says they can't be animals with 3 or more Int (I looked it up when somebody mentioned it the other day because I thought it sounded silly).
I'm like 80% sure at least the Paladin's Mount counts as a Magical Beast (which doesn't have the same restriction).
Edit: I'ma pop some quotes in hurr.
Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/creature-types#TOC-Anim al
And the Paladin and Oracle have a caveat that says "unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed".
The AC, oddly, has no such caveat. That leads me to believe that it is assumed to follow the same rules as normal animals.
I would agree with Rynjin, with one small correction. I agree, they can't read, but they have LIMITED understanding of speach... Enough to learn tricks, but not a full understanding. Otherwise, no animal would "stay".
I would agree with Rynjin, with one small correction. I agree, they can't read, but they have LIMITED understanding of speach... Enough to learn tricks, but not a full understanding. Otherwise, no animal would "stay".
Actually, that's not true.
The only reason animals do such in real life (and there's no reason to assume a difference here) is because they learn to associate the meaningless sounds that come out of your mouth with an action you make them do simultaneously until they associate that word with the action and do said action when you say it.
You could replace the word "Stay" with "Garblefraggle" and it wouldn't make a difference to the animal.
The general rule is that animals with intelligence higher than 2 are not animals. The specific rule regarding animal companions is that the general rule does not apply.
General Rule, Pg. 307 Bestiary
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence
score of 3 or higher can be an animal).Specific Rule, Pg. 52 CRB
If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill.
That's odd.
So why does Awaken make it so animals aren't ACs and such any more if they can continue to be Companions with Ints of 3+?
I'm not objecting to the concept of an Int 3+ Companion but there seems to be some conflicting stuff here, at least logically if not RAW-wise.
Skills: This lists the animal's total skill ranks. Animal companions can assign skill ranks to any skill listed under Animal Skills. If an animal companion increases its Intelligence to 10 or higher, it gains bonus skill ranks as normal. Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice.
Smart Kitty: If you have increased your animal companion's intelligence score to 3 using various means, then great! You can now have your companion learn any feat it can physically perform, and it can put ranks into any skill. What this increase does not accomplish, however, is any advantage in commanding your companion whatsoever. It's still the same DC 10 to handle and DC 25 to push. It may still only learn six tricks plus your druid bonus tricks. However, for every point of Intelligence it gains above 2, that is three more tricks it can learn. A smart animal will have more versatility without needing to rely on pushing.
There are many ways an animal can gain intelligence. It can gain hit dice and apply its ability score boost to Int. It can gain the advanced simple template. A druid could cast awaken on it. Regardless of the source, an increase in Int comes with all of the standard bonuses, such as additional skill points. 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.
Gaining a language does not necessarily grant the ability to speak. Most animals do not possess the correct anatomy for speech. While a very intelligent dolphin might be taught to understand Common, there's no way for him speak it. 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.
Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way.
Yup.
That's odd.
So why does Awaken make it so animals aren't ACs and such any more if they can continue to be Companions with Ints of 3+?
I'm not objecting to the concept of an Int 3+ Companion but there seems to be some conflicting stuff here, at least logically if not RAW-wise.
Because that's what Awaken does, not as an automatic consequence of INT boosts, but because that's what it does.
I stand very corrected then.
Can't say I'm disappointed though TBH.
No, it would simply teach the animal that in our silly language "Garblefraggle" means stay. ;)I would agree with Rynjin, with one small correction. I agree, they can't read, but they have LIMITED understanding of speach... Enough to learn tricks, but not a full understanding. Otherwise, no animal would "stay".Actually, that's not true.
The only reason animals do such in real life (and there's no reason to assume a difference here) is because they learn to associate the meaningless sounds that come out of your mouth with an action you make them do simultaneously until they associate that word with the action and do said action when you say it.
You could replace the word "Stay" with "Garblefraggle" and it wouldn't make a difference to the animal.
Right. That's how EVERYONE learns a language. When my daughter was an infant, everything I said was gibberish. It was only through repetition and association that she learned English. It's also how I learned Spanish (and some French) as an adult. Repetition and association. Currently, Klingon sounds like Garblefraggle... But if I took the time, maybe I'd learn what Garblefraggle means in Klingon. (I'm not going to take the time).
I wondered, "why would you want your armor class to read?"
AC has been armor class since basic. Is there not a better abbreviation for animal companion, just asking?!
The Blog touched on the aspect of learning a language once you're entitled to, although what it says on that is pretty much outside the scope of the rules. Language is kind of neglected and grossly unrealistic in PRPG/D&D, but I thought of a reasonable way to model it. Whenever you might learn a new language AFTER initial character creation (from Linguistics Ranks, from INT increase), you need to roll a Linguistics check to actually learn it. Perhaps there could be different DCs depending on the language, similarity to existing languages you know, gross biological differences, etc. If you pass, you learn it, if you fail, you don't. To try again, you need to put in an extra Rank to Linguistics or raise INT again, and re-trying to learn the same language you failed at gives you a +2 for each previous attempt. That makes teaching an animal a language more difficult (with a 3 INT), but even without raising the INT beyond that you can eventually do so by putting in Linguistics ranks, and doing so makes it easier to teach other languages as well. Probably good to record 'Unlearned Languages' for ones you're tried but failed (and how many attempts you've had), that could even be used so the GM could say 'you can understand a couple words, but not everything'.
Right. That's how EVERYONE learns a language. When my daughter was an infant, everything I said was gibberish. It was only through repetition and association that she learned English. It's also how I learned Spanish (and some French) as an adult. Repetition and association. Currently, Klingon sounds like Garblefraggle... But if I took the time, maybe I'd learn what Garblefraggle means in Klingon. (I'm not going to take the time).
There's a huge amount of difference there.
A sentient being has a certain context associated with the words being said, and understands what they actually MEAN once they've learned them.
The animal has no concept of meaning or understanding, all they know is that a certain sound is associated with a certain phrase.
Can animal Companions get reading ability?
Yes. Share the Read Magic cantrip with your Companion.
Right. That's how EVERYONE learns a language. When my daughter was an infant, everything I said was gibberish. It was only through repetition and association that she learned English. It's also how I learned Spanish (and some French) as an adult. Repetition and association. Currently, Klingon sounds like Garblefraggle... But if I took the time, maybe I'd learn what Garblefraggle means in Klingon. (I'm not going to take the time).
There's a huge amount of difference there.
A sentient being has a certain context associated with the words being said, and understands what they actually MEAN once they've learned them.
The animal has no concept of meaning or understanding, all they know is that a certain sound is associated with a certain phrase.
Your assuming animals aren't sentient. A rock isn't sentient. Your cat is very sentient. Since we lack a common language the animal's ideas and understanding are vague at best. However, cats, dogs, marine mammals such as whales and dolphins, monkeys, and apes, etc. Do have vocalized 'language' and show abilities to create tools, and even strategize for hunts and defense.
For a human we hear two dogs going 'woof woof' at each other but we don't understand their verbal AND non-verbal communications. They could easily be saying Dog 1: "Hey Roy I found a dead squirrel!" and Dog 2: "That's awesome!"
On the flip side of this though is repetition and word association, that CAN cross over. Just as pointing to a spot and saying 'stay' to the dog, makes the dog understand the meaning and point of 'stay'. The dog whining to the owner and pawing the door is "Open the door I gotta pee!" and the owner lets the dog out before the carpet gets stained.
For the sake of topic. I see no reason why an Animal Companion couldn't read a language it knows, if it's that smart. Though monkeys are the forefront many animals have demonstrated a limited grasp on reading instructions, without verbal cues.
Your assuming animals aren't sentient.
That would be because they are not.
Your cat is very sentient.
I assume you have some scientific proof to back up this claim?
That's some Nobel Prize winning research if true.
Since we lack a common language the animal's ideas and understanding are vague at best. However, cats, dogs, marine mammals such as whales and dolphins, monkeys, and apes, etc. Do have vocalized 'language' and show abilities to create tools, and even strategize for hunts and defense.
None of which is an indicator of sentience.
Just the ability to react to physical stimuli is not enough. There must be higher level thought. Animals obviously do not possess this thought. Cows, dogs, cats, etc. are not sentient. There is some argument for apes and dolphins for being on the threshold, but otherwise no.
The fact that you have to put language in quotes says it all really. They do not possess a true language, at best they have a limited form of communication that can convey simple ideas lie "Food here" or "Danger stay away", not the higher level concepts of subjective thought (This thing is "good", that thing is "bad", etc.).
Obviously you have never watched Lassie. ;)
Yes, because Lassie was a high level Druid, and Timmy was her animal companion.
Your assuming animals aren't sentient.That would be because they are not.
I think you don't know what sentient means.
Your cat is very sentient.I assume you have some scientific proof to back up this claim?
That's some Nobel Prize winning research if true.
There has been a lot of research done in this field. Apes have learned sign language to convey wants, and emotions, and use it without prompting by their handlers.
Since we lack a common language the animal's ideas and understanding are vague at best. However, cats, dogs, marine mammals such as whales and dolphins, monkeys, and apes, etc. Do have vocalized 'language' and show abilities to create tools, and even strategize for hunts and defense.None of which is an indicator of sentience.
Just the ability to react to physical stimuli is not enough. There must be higher level thought. Animals obviously do not possess this thought. Cows, dogs, cats, etc. are not sentient. There is some argument for apes and dolphins for being on the threshold, but otherwise no.
The fact that you have to put language in quotes says it all really. They do not possess a true language, at best they have a limited form of communication that can convey simple ideas lie "Food here" or "Danger stay away", not the higher level concepts of subjective thought (This thing is "good", that thing is "bad", etc.).
Again your wrong, reaction to physical stimuli is evidence of sentience. You poke a rock it doesn't go "Ow stop poking me!" You poke a tiger and well...good luck.
And what is your bench mark for 'higher levels of thought'? Because by your definition there is some humans that aren't sentient. I put language in quotes because it's a barrier we can't physically cross yet. We can't 'speak' wolf because we don't have the biological tools to make their sounds exactly, nor can we perfectly mimic their body language. However wolf packs can and do strategize, and even adapt tactics when they hunt prey. African Wild Dogs, have tons of vocal responses to one another on the move, so they can cut off animals from a herd, and then isolate and bring down their prey.
The only reason we haven't seen a wolf go "I think therefore I am." is because to us it'd just be howling. Two cats could easily be composing complex philosophical debates with one another and we'd just hear yowling. They sure as hell can demonstrate problem solving, the full range of the human concept of emotion. Even sympathy. Empathy is harder because I again we can't 'ask' the animal how he or she feels with our limited means of communication.
I think you are the one who doesn't know what sentient means, or you wouldn't have typed anything you just did.
Here's a decently worded explanation from someone who's not me:
"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. Eighteenth century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think ("reason") from the ability to feel ("sentience"). In modern western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia")."
Animals can reason, to a certain extent, and some more than others. They do not feel.
Again, apes may be on the borderline, but this whole "What if dogs and cats actually DO talk but we can't understand it?" thing is something any given 3 year old thinks of as soon as they're able to do so and has little basis in scientific fact.
There has been a lot of research done on the subject. None of it conclusive.
So you don't believe dogs can feel pain?
Are you sure you're not confusing sentience with sapience?
They can feel physical pain, yes. That is a matter of nerve endings hard-wired to send signals to the brain.
I don't believe they can feel emotional pain, no.
They don't have the capability for such things. Upon losing a family member a dog will immediately come to terms with the fact that that animal or person is no longer with them, no matter what sappy Disney films would have you believe.
There is no proof they DON'T feel, but there is plenty of examples of animals showing 'feeling'. I've personally seen a dog grieve, I've seen a dog express joy, I've even seen anger at a person that caused them harm.
You mention sensations, they experience it in every way we do.
They can feel physical pain, yes. That is a matter of nerve endings hard-wired to send signals to the brain.
I don't believe they can feel emotional pain, no.
They don't have the capability for such things. Upon losing a family member a dog will immediately come to terms with the fact that that animal or person is no longer with them, no matter what sappy Disney films would have you believe.
You must not have ever had a dog then. They have the full range of emotion. It takes them months to get over losing 'family'
And I've never seen such things except where they were connected to the presence or absence of something they find physically stimulating.
They might be "sad" when their master doesn't pet them, because they find that to be something that causes physical pleasure, or feel hostile towards someone who has harmed them, but none of these things are true emotions, they're at best advanced forms of instinct. They take "joy" from playing because it keeps them fit and ready for the hunt, and "angry" at people who hurt them because they know that physical pain is harmful and too much of it can result in an end of life.
But they do not "feel" these things in the same way a human does because they lack the ability to UNDERSTAND these base feelings to BE emotions.
You must not have ever had a dog then. They have the full range of emotion. It takes them months to get over losing 'family'
I've had dogs before, yes.
I find they're just as content to be pet, catch a ball, and eat their own shit as before after their master has died, though it takes them a while to get used to new people being the ones that pet and feed them.
Ok so back you why I ask...
I want my Animal Companion [Nature Oracle - INT 6 which already understands Common] to be able to read a MANUAL OF BODILY HEALTH.
So assuming Horsie (my loyal steed - Camel, I have clounded Vision) puts his next skill point into Linguistics he'll be able to do that right?
You could say the same about humans.
A friend dies, the human grieves but after a while the human gets used to a new friend being the one that hangs out with them.
Ok so back you why I ask...
I want my Animal Companion [Nature Oracle - INT 6 which already understands Common] to be able to read a MANUAL OF BODILY HEALTH.
So assuming Horsie (my loyal steed - Camel, I have clounded Vision) puts his next skill point into Linguistics he'll be able to do that right?
I seriously don't see why not.
Ok so back you why I ask...
I want my Animal Companion [Nature Oracle - INT 6 which already understands Common] to be able to read a MANUAL OF BODILY HEALTH.
So assuming Horsie (my loyal steed - Camel, I have clounded Vision) puts his next skill point into Linguistics he'll be able to do that right?
Should be, yeah.
You could say the same about humans.
A friend dies, the human grieves but after a while the human gets used to a new friend being the one that hangs out with them.
You could say that, but you'd be wrong.
Humans understand the concept of a cessation of existence.
You could say the same about humans.
A friend dies, the human grieves but after a while the human gets used to a new friend being the one that hangs out with them.
You could say that, but you'd be wrong.
Humans understand the concept of a cessation of existence.
Nope your wrong, they understand it just as well as we do.
Ok so back you why I ask...
I want my Animal Companion [Nature Oracle - INT 6 which already understands Common] to be able to read a MANUAL OF BODILY HEALTH.
So assuming Horsie (my loyal steed - Camel, I have clounded Vision) puts his next skill point into Linguistics he'll be able to do that right?
Why not just have a caster cast whatever number of wishes on your companion instead? It is cheaper. 26,530gp per Wish cast versus 27,500gp per Inherent bonus of the book. This way you do not have to worry about if an animal can read and you save some gold as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope your wrong, they understand it just as well as we do.
Again, the burden of proof is on you.
Also, *you're
I've put forth the evidence you choose not to believe and haven't once brought an example to support your position. Because no study has ever proven they don't have emotion.
You just 'believe' your right.
And yet studies have proven animal intelligence, and emotional responses, that you refuse to take as proof on your own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, please take your discussion/argument to a new thread. It is not a rules question anymore and it is really distracting from what the poster is asking. If you want to get back to game mechanics and rules, fine, but it seems to have really gone off in a different direction.
But hey quick google search for kicks:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90169&page=1#.UeOhINbD_L8
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-final ly-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings
http://animal.discovery.com/animal-facts/animals-have-emotions.htm
http://www.newworldlibrary.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/230/ArticleID/15/Defaul t.aspx#.UeOitNbD_L8
"Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill."
There you go. Give em a 3 int, and put a rank into... Whatever language the body tome is in.
Also to the discussion above: An animal companion gaining 3 int is not the same as an animal having Awaken cast on them. Awakened animals are independant beings. Animal companions with a high int score are only that smart because of the supernatural bond between them and their owner. When that bond breaks, the animal gets stupid again, and loses all their fancy HD and abilities.
Cavaliers, Druids, and Rangers' Companion is an (Ex) ability, not Supernatural.
Paladins' Mount ability is a (Sp) ability that lets them attract a mount with special intelligence right off the bat and eventually Celestial Templates, but even that doesn't change anything... The Mount itself just exists, although the ability allowing it to be attracted is (Sp), the Mount can't be dispelled.
Bestiary stats are for typical examples of a creature, but that doesn't mean every creature of that species is typical.
The Paizo Blogs on the subject I quoted above directly reference HD increases for animals, when that is clearly not the standard stat block, and there is no normal 'means' for that to happen to an animal. But it doesn't matter how it happens, a create may simply have different stats. Of course that would change or invalidate the CR, but that is a separate issue from whether such a creature can exist with those stats.
The Companion ability is not applying some sort of buff effect on top of a 'normal' stat creature, which is subject to suddenly ending.
Nothing indicates that a Companion's stats would suddenly change if their Master died, for example.
Companions aren't really covered by the CR system on their own as independent creatures, but that doesn't mean their stats need to change.
The 'CR' of a Cavalier includes their Mount, which doesn't die or lose abilities if the Cavalier dies.
If you want to encounter orphaned Companions or keep them around for a long time (past the encounter where the Cav dies, really), that's problematic for game balance, and you will probably want to decide what it's CR is using the Monster Design/CR guidelines, but nothing says that anything happens to the Animal creature known as a Companion just because it's Master dies.
Huh. I never noticed that. I guess I always assumed animal companions turned back to normal critters like familiars do.
Weird.
So with a month's work, a 20th level druid could have the scariest herd of bison ever imagined.
...
I desperately want to play a cowboy druid now.
I mean, there's nothing 'guaranteeing' that the stats will stay the same for ever, but there's no reason to think that they disappear suddenly either. If a character 'dismisses' their mount, their mount leaving is the normal result. Regardless, the creatures have their own CR if not included in the Druid/etc's own CR via the class feature.
Yes, I was under the impression that their stats jumped back to normal like with a familiar. That does not seem to be the case.
It would be an interesting thing, using an evil druid NPC who upgrades all the squirrels in the forest to be as mean as bears