How complicated of a "plan" could a creature with Int 3 come up with?

[Wonton]

Title says it all, I have a 3 Int creature in my game that is the enemy of the PCs. Something like faking its own death to lull the PCs into a false sense of security is probably beyond its reach. But what kind of things can I do to show that it does have higher than animal intelligence?

[Phelix-Mu]

Animals can't make plans that aren't instinctive behaviors or things they've been trained to do. Certain animals might be said to "train" each other, such as wolves learning how to use pack tactics from each other.

Generally speaking, nothing specific is possible in the way of plans. Animals always react to a certain sensory stimulus with one of maybe two or three instinctive responses, and that is maximum. Usually it's just stimulus, response. An animal may have some limited ability to remember previous experiences, but an animal is pretty likely to fail even simple Int checks to see if it remembers things.

In general, a good way to think about animals is like hyper-emotional people, such that ability to think is always dwarfed by response to emotional cues.

[Erik Vale]

Animals are known to fake their own deaths [Slaver Ant's or something like that]. They are also known to use tools [apes, octopus], disable electric fences [pigs, they ground the fence using sticks if I remember.] and get around [basic] locks [Hyena].

So, depending on race, you would have very basic traps based on the terrain [pit traps definately.], playing dead is an option [if an ant does it as a way to propergate t's species as a whole, I'm sure int three can think of it.].

My sources for the animals my not always be best [the ant thing is from cracked, pigs I'm not sure, but Hyena is from a science books whos name I can't remember...], but anything that isn't long term or having a large number of steps [say, if the plan has two or three steps, it will do.] Also, acknowledge it has a wisdom score, if it is likely to have seen something else do it, the creature may copy it. It may also copy things it's seen in nature [It sees knights ocassionally unhorsed by trees, possibly it has a stout stick attached to something around a blind curve, at knight hight or not.].
Also, possibly have it drop from a tree, birds do it from the air all the time, and I think some sort of cat does it, [but like drop bears, it could be a myth].

[Gnome Alone]

I don't know, possums play dead and they don't have 3 INT. Maybe the creature could lay down in front of the PCs and say: "And now I am dead." Then spring its cunning attack.

[Deaxsa]

I don't know, possums play dead and they don't have 3 INT. Maybe the creature could lay down in front of the PCs and say: "And now I am dead." Then spring its cunning attack.

that's not a learned ability, that's instinctual. (one could argue that it's learned from their parents, but no, they actually have glands that secrete a smell so that they smell rotten too)

[Flickerdart]

3 Int is plenty to make pretty complex plans - crows at Int 2 are capable of figuring out tools they've never seen before in very short order. Here are some that should be well within the creature's capabilities:

Hide/play dead until creatures reach a certain place and then jump 'em.
Keep the enemy away from a certain valuable location - its nest, the way out, but not a place the creature has no reason to value like a potions lab.
Stalk the PCs silently until they are vulnerable.
Use its size to its advantage - running off into small holes or across thin surfaces if it's small, or knocking PCs off ledges/pushing heavy objects down from above if it's large.
Distinguish between the party members; remember their abilities and go some ways towards countering them (keeping out of range of the guy with the sword and engaging the archer in melee, for instance); keeping grudges against individual PCs.
Lead the PCs into the territory of a more powerful predator and then escape, leaving them to fight it.
Craft rudimentary traps such as tripwires, snares, and covered pits.
Pursuing the PCs if they are wounded and harassing them until they collapse.
Fashioning crude tools from things on hand.

Basically, anything that any animal or early hominid can do, this thing can do.

[Clistenes]

I think int 3 is about the same level as a chimp, and animals less inteligent than a chimp are able to pull tricks like playing dead. Some jackals and foxes are said to have learnt that playing dead they attract crows and other carrion-eating birds (they don't know why the birds approach them, but they know that the birds approach them if they stay still).

Chimps have learnt to use stones to break nuts, to make sponges of leaves to take water from hollow trunks, to throw stones and to use little sticks to take termites out of their nests. They have also learnt how to surrender and herd small monkeys in order to better catch and hunt them. All those are learned behaviours, not instinctive.

[Flickerdart]

I think int 3 is about the same level as a chimp
Nope. Chimps are Int 2, like all smart animals. Int 3 is automatically smarter than any animal.

[Phelix-Mu]

But all that play dead let's the creature do is lay low in plain sight until the predator is gone or not paying attention anymore. In no way does it allow the critter to catch the fooled creature unsuspecting and launch an attack. It is beyond the scope of most animal creatures to, on short notice, transport one type of behavior from a specific circumstantial trigger to be used in some other circumstance. This is tantamount to improvisation, something that is normally only attributable to the smartest animals.

It's unrealistic to suggest that all animals are Int 3 or less, in any case. In specific circumstances, I might rule that dolphins or apes are around 4-5, as smart as a human child, but their ability to learn, adapt, or plan are still heavily limited. Most animals have a very limited concept of "the future," if any at all. Plans without a concept of the future are not going to be very effective.

[NavyBlue]

Animals have an intelligence of at most 2. Sentience begins at Int 3. So yes, while it is certainly very dumb by Human standards, A creature with 3 int is able to lay simple ambushes, sneak, and do other things that a particularly dumb PC could do.


It's unrealistic to suggest that all animals are Int 3 or less, in any case. In specific circumstances, I might rule that dolphins or apes are around 4-5, as smart as a human child, but their ability to learn, adapt, or plan are still heavily limited. Most animals have a very limited concept of "the future," if any at all. Plans without a concept of the future are not going to be very effective.

Its that very inability to comprehend the future, or consequences of certain actions, that puts them at 2 Int. They may have a higher Wis or Cha, giving them more empathy, personality, etc (much like a dolphin or chimpanzee), But none of those qualities are related to raw Intellect - Represented by an Int score.

[Flickerdart]

It's unrealistic to suggest that all animals are Int 3 or less, in any case.
"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)."

[Invader]

There's a spider in the amazon that weaves a larger spider into its web to deter predators.

Orcas teach their young how to wash seals off ice flows into the water where they can reach them.

There's hundreds of examples of animals that display unique tricks, plans, or whatever you want to call it so I don't see it as a problem unless its something completely unreasonable.

[Phelix-Mu]

"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)."

My bad, replace 3 with 2.

[Yora]

Exceptionally smart animals have come up with plans that involve two steps, like "first stack two boxes and climb on them, then use a stick to reach the thing you want".
Since Int 1 and 2 are common animal intelligence, I would say that's about what you can expect from Int 3.

However if you apply the 3d6 to generate the Intelligence score of a humanoid, human PCs and NPCs with an Int score of 3 would be as common as people with an IQ below 60. Which is considered only mild retardation. Which I think is still fully capable to function in modern society without permanent supervision.

[Phelix-Mu]

There's a spider in the amazon that weaves a larger spider into its web to deter predators.

Orcas teach their young how to wash seals off ice flows into the water where they can reach them.

There's hundreds of examples of animals that display unique tricks, plans, or whatever you want to call it so I don't see it as a problem unless its something completely unreasonable.

Both provided examples are not created by said animal in response to a novel set of circumstances, and the orca behavior is learned from other orca. Unless the creature the OP is using routinely is gunning for PCs as a natural prey species, then developing a plan on how to ambush them shouldn't be any more complicated than a plan to ambush some creature it plans on eating.

I am also a huge fan of smart animal stories. The fact remains that the vast majority of animal behavior is not governed by logic or thought. Confronted repeatedly by the same situation, an animal can certainly develop a tool or strategy designed to help solve a problem related to the situation. However, many animals will just lose interest before this point of learning occurs, as moment-to-moment, most animals are driven by instinctive urges and behaviors, firstly safety, then food/water/sleep, then reproduction.

In-game, basis for animals making plans is even worse, since animals must be taught what to do in combat with Handle Animal; most animals run when combat is presented, only fighting when cornered or startled, and then only in a reckless and unpredictable manner.

[Piggy Knowles]

Int 3 = smart enough for speech, but only just. I'd say that it was smart enough to make simple plans, and it could have instinctual behaviors that mimic more complicated scenarios.

[SowZ]

Animals can lay ambushes, strategize about how to flank prey, and some animals are even known to double back their own tracks when they think they are being followed to lay in wait and size up their pursuer and throw them off.

Faking their own death to make an enemy feel safe is done not too rarely in the animal kingdom, Int 3 could certainly pull it off.

[Clistenes]

I think int 3 is about the same level as a chimp, and animals less inteligent than a chimp are able to pull tricks like playing dead. Some jackals and foxes are said to have learnt that playing dead they attract crows and other carrion-eating birds (they don't know why the birds approach them, but they know that the birds approach them if they stay still).

Chimps have learnt to use stones to break nuts, to make sponges of leaves to take water from hollow trunks, to throw stones and to use little sticks to take termites out of their nests. They have also learnt how to surrender and herd small monkeys in order to better catch and hunt them. All those are learned behaviours, not instinctive.


Nope. Chimps are Int 2, like all smart animals. Int 3 is automatically smarter than any animal.

Well, the creature the OP spoke about is even more intelligent than a chimp, then, and able to do all those tricks and more.

[Yora]

Tought behavior as forms of behavioral evolution... Interesting way to think about it.
The story about the pigs made me think a bit of something like that. If it happened, then one really smart pig made the observation that the fence does not zap when a stick is leaning on it. But that might have been a single random coincidence, as Skinner demonstrated with his boxes that even less brainy animals will randomly assume anything they observed when an event happened, was the cause of the event. Let animals do this millions of times all over the world every day and every now and then, one of these completely radom associations happens to be actually correct.

Other animals will copy the new behavior they see, but since animals can't tell each other what result to expect, they will continue repeating it only when they notice something good resulting from it. If they don't see the point in performing the action, our one misguided animal will be forever alone in its silly behavior and his false knowledge die with him.
It's basically the scientific process and peer review. Theories that can't be replicated by other people don't become established fact in the community. :smallbiggrin:

However, that is still just learning. Not planning. The pig most certainly did not form a theory of electricity and correctly deducted that grounding the conduit would render it harmless, and that a stick would be the right tool to achieve this outcome.

[Invader]

Both provided examples are not created by said animal in response to a novel set of circumstances, and the orca behavior is learned from other orca. Unless the creature the OP is using routinely is gunning for PCs as a natural prey species, then developing a plan on how to ambush them shouldn't be any more complicated than a plan to ambush some creature it plans on eating.

I am also a huge fan of smart animal stories. The fact remains that the vast majority of animal behavior is not governed by logic or thought. Confronted repeatedly by the same situation, an animal can certainly develop a tool or strategy designed to help solve a problem related to the situation. However, many animals will just lose interest before this point of learning occurs, as moment-to-moment, most animals are driven by instinctive urges and behaviors, firstly safety, then food/water/sleep, then reproduction.

In-game, basis for animals making plans is even worse, since animals must be taught what to do in combat with Handle Animal; most animals run when combat is presented, only fighting when cornered or startled, and then only in a reckless and unpredictable manner.

I was using those examples to illustrate the point that if they can figure out those behaviors the OP's monster with a higher int should be able to figure an ambush.

And it's pretty clear that orcas learn that tactic from other orcas, in fact I said exactly that but at some point the figured out on their own how to do it in the first place.

[Flickerdart]

That a behaviour is learned doesn't matter - unless that creature is the only one of its kind and also has never had the opportunity to observe such a behaviour from any other animal, it would have learned it.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hmm, slight misreading of OP. Regardless, aside from a few skill points and no need for Handle Animal, the creature is not going to be appreciably smarter than an animal in terms of game effects.

If we are going for metagame stuff, go for it. A creature with a strong enough motive and enough time can do pretty much anything, but is limited in ability to do pretty much anything well. What was that quote? Ah, from the familiar description: "Familiars are as smart as people, though not necessarily as smart as smart people." Stupid people often make poorly conceived plans, write open-ended spell descriptions, devise martial classes that aren't good at attacking....

*ahem*

Basically, you really can't expect something less intelligent than a toddler to come up with an ingenious plan. It may well think that it has such a plan, however.

EDIT: Stupid people also occasionally misread the OP. My apologies.

[Flickerdart]

Regardless, aside from a few skill points and no need for Handle Animal, the creature is not going to be appreciably smarter than an animal in terms of game effects.
You mean except for the part where it's smart enough to speak a language, which means abstract thinking, which means basically all of the things that make us special? Int 2 -> Int 3 is the single most significant ability score threshold in the game.

[Phelix-Mu]

You mean except for the part where it's smart enough to speak a language, which means abstract thinking, which means basically all of the things that make us special? Int 2 -> Int 3 is the single most significant ability score threshold in the game.

Ability to learn a language is not equivalent with speaking one, so based on what the creature actually is, we have little idea how relevant that point of intelligence is. Implying abstract thinking directly from the OP is extrapolating data we don't have a reference for.

Other than that, your statement is entirely valid. I would point out that critters that in-game have an Int of 2 can, irl, be taught fairly complicated languages. The game doesn't reflect this with it's arbitrary concept of "animal intelligence," probably for the sake of simplicity. Modeling the raw Int score onto real life instances of displaying intelligence is an extremely poorly defined exercise.

[Qwertystop]

Exceptionally smart animals have come up with plans that involve two steps, like "first stack two boxes and climb on them, then use a stick to reach the thing you want".
Since Int 1 and 2 are common animal intelligence, I would say that's about what you can expect from Int 3.

However if you apply the 3d6 to generate the Intelligence score of a humanoid, human PCs and NPCs with an Int score of 3 would be as common as people with an IQ below 60. Which is considered only mild retardation. Which I think is still fully capable to function in modern society without permanent supervision.

Yeah. When you look at the actual math for what qualifies as "Int 3", and one step lower becomes nonsentient, it becomes clear that the gap between Int 2 and Int 3 is really not the same sort of gap as, say, Int 3 and Int 4, or any other gap.

Urpriest said it pretty well here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10232297&postcount=41).

[SowZ]

Ability to learn a language is not equivalent with speaking one, so based on what the creature actually is, we have little idea how relevant that point of intelligence is. Implying abstract thinking directly from the OP is extrapolating data we don't have a reference for.

Other than that, your statement is entirely valid. I would point out that critters that in-game have an Int of 2 can, irl, be taught fairly complicated languages. The game doesn't reflect this with it's arbitrary concept of "animal intelligence," probably for the sake of simplicity. Modeling the raw Int score onto real life instances of displaying intelligence is an extremely poorly defined exercise.

Int 3 means ability to grasp concepts without any object/event as an example. things like freedom and morality. That is the difference between human and animal language, and yeah, it is massive. Int 3 is still severely mentally handicapped, though, so as a human you wouldn't really be able to survive on your own.

So in depth planning of ambushes or traps or somesuch? Probably not. But playing dead or hiding behind a tree and attacking someone in the back? Or taking advantage of numbers and surrounding someone? No reason they couldn't.

[Raven777]

SCP-106 (http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-106) would like to remind you that an Int 3 creature with rudimentary hunting tactics can still be very, very scary.

[Twilightwyrm]

All these are theoretically possible, but it may also depend on the behavior and temperament of the creature in question. A Hydra, for example, has Int 3, and yet I have a difficult time imagining it attempting to play dead, setting up boulder traps, or even using basic tools. This is because a Hydra is typically so powerful that none of these tactics become necessary, making it less inclined to employ them. Hell, while they are more sophisticated about it (they may, for instance, drop boulders on your head instead of attacking face on), I wouldn't expect that much more advanced tactics from Wyverns, and they have an Int of 6! So it is going to depend largely on your predator in question. The bigger they are, and the more potent, natural weapons they have, the more they come to rely on these weapons, the less likely they are to rely "cunning" traps and innovative tactics, to a greater or lesser degree, regardless of Intelligence.

[Clistenes]

All these are theoretically possible, but it may also depend on the behavior and temperament of the creature in question. A Hydra, for example, has Int 3, and yet I have a difficult time imagining it attempting to play dead, setting up boulder traps, or even using basic tools. This is because a Hydra is typically so powerful that none of these tactics become necessary, making it less inclined to employ them. Hell, while they are more sophisticated about it (they may, for instance, drop boulders on your head instead of attacking face on), I wouldn't expect that much more advanced tactics from Wyverns, and they have an Int of 6! So it is going to depend largely on your predator in question. The bigger they are, and the more potent, natural weapons they have, the more they come to rely on these weapons, the less likely they are to rely "cunning" traps and innovative tactics, to a greater or lesser degree, regardless of Intelligence.

About wyverns, I mentioned in another thread how weird I found that wyverns have int 6 and chimps int 2, but everybody usually portrays wyverns acting more stupid than apes.

An int 6 creature should have roughly the intelligence of a little child, and be able to come with quite complex strategies (nothing like what an adult human would do, but a lot more complicated than anything an animal could try).

[Azoth]

I do have to agree with Clistenes. Depending on the size, temperament, environment, natural weapons, and raw power the creature has depends on the tactics it will use and plans it will make. Though if truly cornered with no chance for flight...well we all resort to one tactic: full out assault with little/no regard for defense.

I see creatures similar in build to kobolds/goblins using ambush tactics and rudimentary traps to help it out and playing dead if all else fails. A creature built like a silverback gorrila may use some pit traps or surprise, but is generally going to resort to brute force and frontal attacks once things get started.

[Worira]

Sure, a Wyvern could come up with a moderately detailed (although not necessarily good; they are still pretty dumb) plan. Generally speaking, though, when you're a one-ton flying lizard with a venomous tail, you don't really need to bother with a strategy beyond "go kill it to death".

[Clistenes]

Sure, a Wyvern could come up with a moderately detailed (although not necessarily good; they are still pretty dumb) plan. Generally speaking, though, when you're a one-ton flying lizard with a venomous tail, you don't really need to bother with a strategy beyond "go kill it to death".

I dunno...you would think that wyverns would have realized by now that attacking and killing humans only will manages to attract parties of dangerous adventurers.

[Worira]

But they taste so gooood!

[javijuji]

Do creatures use 5' foots or does their lack of INT not allow them to do this?

[Flickerdart]

Do creatures use 5' foots or does their lack of INT not allow them to do this?
Anything but mindless creatures would understand the concept of careful movement.

[Palanan]

Stepping back a bit, the "threshold" for animal intelligence has always frustrated me, because it's obvious the game designers knew next to nothing about nonhuman cognition. I've always ignored the animal Int scores and substituted numbers more in line with the real world.

The fact is, many animals can and do make plans based on an understanding of past and future. The precise tactics of a chimpanzee hunting party would put a wolfpack to shame; they plan and execute detailed strategies which they adapt on the fly.

Beyond hunting tactics, a primatologist named Christophe Boesch has documented (http://www.eva.mpg.de/primat/staff/boesch/pdf/anim_behav_teach_chimps.pdf) how chimpanzee mothers carefully teach their young not only how to use simple tools, but how best to use them, correcting mistakes in tool grip and positioning before they cause problems. Boesch has also documented (http://www.eva.mpg.de/primat/staff/boesch/pdf/prim_mental_map_chimps.pdf) the detailed mental maps chimpanzees use to navigate their territory, including keeping track of favorite tools over a period of years.

There are a great many other examples out there, all of which point up a simple biological fact: in the real world, there is no "threshold" between human and nonhuman intelligence, but instead a great deal of overlap and intergradation.

So to the OP, I would say, make your critter as cunning as you like--because somewhere out in the world, there's probably an organism that already uses the tactics you have in mind.

[Wonton]

Yeah. When you look at the actual math for what qualifies as "Int 3", and one step lower becomes nonsentient, it becomes clear that the gap between Int 2 and Int 3 is really not the same sort of gap as, say, Int 3 and Int 4, or any other gap.

Urpriest said it pretty well here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10232297&postcount=41).

OP here, thanks for this post. Very helpful. Int 2 is definitely nothing like Int 3 and treating it as a "nonability" of sorts is a good way to make that point clear. Maybe we can coin the term "partial ability"?

For the record, the creature is a one-of-a-kind Medium-sized winged chupacabra (chupacabras (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/chupacabra) are in the Pathfinder SRD). It is a Magical Beast with 3 Int (I dunno why half the posts in this thread kept telling me it was an animal). The adventure path clearly states that it enjoys hunting and tormenting its prey and employs scare tactics like flying in at night and dropping in the body of a goat on the party's camp (basically as a show of force). It knows one language but can't speak it.