Sentience and Int-boosting items.

[Admiral Squish]

Simple question. If you managed to strap an item of +4 int to a dog, would said dog suddenly become sentient? Could a sentient dog take class levels? If said dog were to gain class levels, would they disappear if the item were removed?

[Deaxsa]

from what i understand, it would be able to do that if, say, it read(yea, yea, i know, a dog that reads) a tome of greater intellect, but not if it put the item on (remember, items don't give you more skill points on level up)

[TuggyNE]

One of three things would happen:

The dog changes type to Magical Beast for as long as it wears the item, and can then be advanced in the usual way
The dog becomes a Magical Beast permanently, and can then advance in the usual way
The dog remains an Animal, and as such has a maximum Int of 2

[Clistenes]

I think the dog gets int 6, but it doesn't become a Magical Beast. It can't speak, it can't learn more skills than he would do without the ring, and if it learns anything (class levels, feats, whatever) that it couldn't have done without the ring, then it forgets it when removing the ring.

If you use a Wish to permanently increase its Intelligence above 2, it becomes a Magical Beast and plays with the same rules than everybody else (he would still have to spend a skill point to learn to speak and read, however).

[Gavinfoxx]

A dog with an int of 6 from an item is still a dog, still animal type. It is sentient for the duration of the effect, though.

If you teach it to read, and it reads a tome of intellect, it's int is permanently 3, and it is now a Magical Beast.

Whenever an animal gains an int of 3+ permanently, it is now a Magical Beast.

[Urpriest]

There is no general rule that says that an animal that gains Int>2 becomes a magical beast, it's just limited to specific cases. The general rule is that:


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).

A creature with Int 3+ simply can't be an animal. Either a situation in which an animal would gain Int 3+ does not occur, or the creature becomes something else. With no reason besides precedent to prefer a particular type, you default to waiting for WotC to release errata on the subject.

[Clistenes]

There is no general rule that says that an animal that gains Int>2 becomes a magical beast, it's just limited to specific cases. The general rule is that:



A creature with Int 3+ simply can't be an animal. Either a situation in which an animal would gain Int 3+ does not occur, or the creature becomes something else. With no reason besides precedent to prefer a particular type, you default to waiting for WotC to release errata on the subject.

I think WotC mentioned in some of their articles that Intelligence-boosting items work on Animals, but I don't think they mentioned anything about their type changing to Magical Beast while wearing it.

[dascarletm]

I think RAI is that anything with a higher base Int of 3 is not an animal. Is there rules that actually say certain creatures can't take class levels? If not then the dog could take them anyway?:smallconfused:

[Namfuak]

The same question could be applied to an animal that increases its intelligence on level up - for example, a brown bear has 6 HD, could it increase its intelligence to 3 to gain sentience?

While it is not a rule, there is some precedence with familiars that magic can make an animal sentient, since all familiars have at least an intelligence of 3, which was presumably raised when they turned from a regular animal into a familiar.

[Clistenes]

I think RAI is that anything with a higher base Int of 3 is not an animal. Is there rules that actually say certain creatures can't take class levels? If not then the dog could take them anyway?:smallconfused:

Well, a character who takes level in a prestige class whose requirements only meets thanks to some magic items loses all the class features when he loses the magic items, so the dog would lose all class features.

I guess the dog could temporally become a Magical Beast as if it had been targeted with a Polymorph spell.


The same question could be applied to an animal that increases its intelligence on level up - for example, a brown bear has 6 HD, could it increase its intelligence to 3 to gain sentience?

While it is not a rule, there is some precedence with familiars that magic can make an animal sentient, since all familiars have at least an intelligence of 3, which was presumably raised when they turned from a regular animal into a familiar.

Nope. An Animal can only advance taking Animal HD, which doesn't allow it to increase its mental stats. As a matter of fact, if can't even earn XP (the HD increase is due to increased size when it grows, and the new feats and skills are due to having lived more time).

[Curmudgeon]

Magical Beast Type

Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. The RAW says that, if the Dog get an INT higher than 2, it isn't an Animal any more. So this is what it has to become.

There's no requirement in the Magical Beast type description that such a creature be capable of speech.

[Urpriest]

The RAW says that, if the Dog get an INT higher than 2, it isn't an Animal any more. So this is what it has to become.

There's no requirement in the Magical Beast type description that such a creature be capable of speech.

Magical Beasts happen to be specified to be similar to animals, but they are not the only type that can contain creatures similar to animals. Several Aberrations are similar to animals, as are many Outsiders, and arguably all Humanoids and Giants. It's quite simply an example of one of many rules vacua, where the only RAW solution is for WotC to release errata.

[Devils_Advocate]

If you managed to strap an item of +4 int to a dog, would said dog suddenly become sentient?
No, the dog was already sentient.


Well, a character who takes level in a prestige class whose requirements only meets thanks to some magic items loses all the class features when he loses the magic items, so the dog would lose all class features.
But base classes don't have Ability score requirements in 3rd Edition, just alignment requirements. (There's probably an exception somewhere, but this is the general rule.) I see nothing in the description of feeblemind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/feeblemind.htm) that suggests that it works as you're implying. So what prevents a creature with an Intelligence score of 2 from having levels of, say, Barbarian, and all associated class features? Indeed, what, if anything, prevents it from gaining, as well as retaining, class levels?

It's not playable, of course, but non-playable monsters can have class levels. Isn't there even a prestige class specifically for beholders, which are LA —?


An Animal can only advance taking Animal HD, which doesn't allow it to increase its mental stats. As a matter of fact, if can't even earn XP
Where is this stated?

Page 107 of the Dungeon Master's Guide says "NPCs gain experience points the same way that PCs do", and page 104 says "Animals, vermin, magical beasts, and other low-intelligence monsters form a special category of NPC".


There is no general rule that says that an animal that gains Int>2 becomes a magical beast, it's just limited to specific cases. The general rule is that a creature with Int 3+ simply can't be an animal.
Ah, but do absolute prohibitions have any place in an exception-based ruleset, or are they best simply disregarded?

If a published rulebook contained a creature of the Animal type with an Intelligence score of 3, would that monster be invalidated by this (parenthetical!) statement? It seems to me that to say that it would be invalidated is to reject the principle that specific trumps general. Thus, to hold that specific does trump general is to say that such a monster would be valid. But in that case, animals with Intelligence scores higher than 2 are allowed to exist!

[Clistenes]

But base classes don't have Ability score requirements in 3rd Edition, just alignment requirements. (There's probably an exception somewhere, but this is the general rule.) I see nothing in the description of feeblemind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/feeblemind.htm) that suggests that it works as you're implying. So what prevents a creature with an Intelligence score of 2 from having levels of, say, Barbarian, and all associated class features? Indeed, what, if anything, prevents it from gaining, as well as retaining, class levels?

It's not playable, of course, but non-playable monsters can have class levels. Isn't there even a prestige class specifically for beholders, which are LA —?

I can't remember the page and line, but Animals, Vermin, Oozes, Mindless Constructs, Mindless Undead and all other creatures with Intelligence below 3 can't take class levels, base or otherwise.

[Malimar]

An Animal can only advance taking Animal HD, which doesn't allow it to increase its mental stats.

Rules citation?

[TuggyNE]

Ah, but do absolute prohibitions have any place in an exception-based ruleset, or are they best simply disregarded?

If a published rulebook contained a creature of the Animal type with an Intelligence score of 3, would that monster be invalidated by this (parenthetical!) statement? It seems to me that to say that it would be invalidated is to reject the principle that specific trumps general. Thus, to hold that specific does trump general is to say that such a monster would be valid. But in that case, animals with Intelligence scores higher than 2 are allowed to exist!

That's a faulty line of argument; absolute prohibitions can be assumed to govern free-form interactions, such as this one, even if they may be overridden by published material in certain cases.

Or, in short, specific overrides general, but general does not stop being applicable to other specific cases that do not explicitly grant an exception.

[Urpriest]

Ah, but do absolute prohibitions have any place in an exception-based ruleset, or are they best simply disregarded?

If a published rulebook contained a creature of the Animal type with an Intelligence score of 3, would that monster be invalidated by this (parenthetical!) statement? It seems to me that to say that it would be invalidated is to reject the principle that specific trumps general. Thus, to hold that specific does trump general is to say that such a monster would be valid. But in that case, animals with Intelligence scores higher than 2 are allowed to exist!

It's a type restriction, though. This is important, because the creature would still have the animal type, so it would have "Cannot have Int>2" and "Has Int>2" simultaneously, rather than one overriding the other. In general, when the devs want a creature to be a member of a type but with some exception to the normal rules of that type they give it an explicit ability to do so. Look at Warforged: they have a Con score, but in order for it to not be immediately taken away by the Construct type they have to have the Living Construct subtype which explicitly allows them to have a Con score. Your hypothetical Int 3+ animal would be built similarly.