How smart is an animal companion?

[Ointhedwarf]

As far as I know an animal companion doesn't get any intelligent score adjustment at any point. So would a cat animal companion follow the red dot? Would a dog companion get caught with its own leash? I always thought of them as bordering on human intelligence, am I wrong?

[Gwendol]

They are not intelligent.

[Urpriest]

They are just as intelligent as normal wild animals, but they are better trained because they have more tricks than a normal animal can. So basically, it's an animal (wild, not domestic, so not stupid enough to do stuff like follow dots or get caught on leashes), that is especially attuned with the Druid's wants and desires.

[Ceaon]

I always thought of them as bordering on human intelligence, am I wrong?

That depends, do you think normal, real-life animals border on human intelligence? If not, then no, animal companions are just as "stupid" as you'd expect their non-companion brethren to be.

Edit: you may be confused by a Paladin's warhorse or a arcanist's familiar, both of which do get more intelligent than the "normal" base animal.

[Fax Celestis]

I generally try to put animal companions into the same disciplined intelligence area as real-world seeing-eye dogs, police dogs, and other service animals--in fact, police dogs might be the best analogue: they're more civilized than their wilder counterparts and are far better trained.

[cerin616]

They aren't any more intelligent as an animal companion (although special mounts and familiars are, and technically they stop qualifying for the "animal" type)

with that in mind, it doesn't mean they will follow the red dot or get caught in their leash, they will behave as they are trained, and a highly disciplined dog doesn't go chasing his tail and barking at squirrels.

[Harlot]

Oh, I'd like to know that as well. In my group the wizard has a raven.

RAVEN
Abilities: Str 1, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 6

The way he's been playing it, the PC claims (referring to real life situations) that it can count - so he'd send it high to scout for enemies, claiming that it would be able to tell, for instance:


How many creatures are moving to wards the group

If these creatures a quadropedal, bipedal or flying

How they look (are they dressed like wizards, are they wearing armor, weapons etc.)

Basically acting like a wizard eye-in-the-sky ...

We've discussed this many times, so I'd LOVE to hear a ruling about this.
Subscribing to this thread!!!

[Svata]

What level is the wizard? That'll help us tell you how smart his familiar is. Familiars get higher INT scaling with their master's level, unlike an animal companion, which doesn't.

[Deophaun]

Oh, I'd like to know that as well. In my group the wizard has a raven.

RAVEN
Abilities: Str 1, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 6

The lowest Int a Raven familiar has is 6. That's for a level 1-2 Wizard. It gets another point of Int every other level.

[Rubik]

Oh, I'd like to know that as well. In my group the wizard has a raven.

RAVEN
Abilities: Str 1, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 6

The way he's been playing it, the PC claims (referring to real life situations) that it can count - so he'd send it high to scout for enemies, claiming that it would be able to tell, for instance:


How many creatures are moving to wards the group

If these creatures a quadropedal, bipedal or flying

How they look (are they dressed like wizards, are they wearing armor, weapons etc.)

Basically acting like a wizard eye-in-the-sky ...

We've discussed this many times, so I'd LOVE to hear a ruling about this.
Subscribing to this thread!!!Familiars are magical beasts and are far more intelligent than their non-familiar counterparts.

However, ravens in particular are very intelligent, along with quite a few other birds, octopi, and several other animals. They learn, and are capable problem solvers. Heck, according to an episode of Quite Interesting, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEuS1Ah84YY) German shepherds tested as having an average I.Q. of 60, which is just shy of high enough to draft into the Spanish military.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Harlot
In my group the wizard has a raven. ...We've discussed this many times, so I'd LOVE to hear a ruling about this.

Well, naturally your DM has final say, but at least some of what the wizard's player is saying is more or less accurate. Ravens are able to distinguish between individual people, so there would be at least some fine-grained scouting possible. Whether or not a raven could distinguish between wizard robes, clerical vestments or barbarian furs is another question.

And as Svata and Deophaun mentioned, the raven's Int score should be higher than what you've listed.

[Ointhedwarf]

Ok, a more mundane question then: do you think training an animal makes it smarter? I'm talking about inherent intelligence, recognizing your own reflection, solving simple problems. I don't think training has anything to do with it.


Edit: and since we're on the subject, is there a template that raises intelligence?

[Fax Celestis]

Magebred from ECS increases the base creature's Intelligence to minimum 2. Fiendish and Celestial make it minimum 3.

[Coidzor]

Magebred from ECS increases the base creature's Intelligence to minimum 2. Fiendish and Celestial make it minimum 3.

Celestial animals become magical beasts and the same goes for Fiendish animals as well though.

Raising the intelligence of straight-up animals is tricky business because you're likely as not to run into people who think raising an animal's Int above 2 makes it into a magical beast automatically by RAW rather than being a gray area left up to the individual DM. But then, gray areas left up to individual DMs are always a bad thing since you're going to get screwed by them 9 times out of 10 anyway.


Ok, a more mundane question then: do you think training an animal makes it smarter? I'm talking about inherent intelligence, recognizing your own reflection, solving simple problems. I don't think training has anything to do with it.


Edit: and since we're on the subject, is there a template that raises intelligence?

It'll appear more intelligent than an untrained animal, I'd say, depending upon what it is trained to do. Training may better prepare an animal for problem solving since it's more familiar with the process as well.

[Urpriest]

Ok, a more mundane question then: do you think training an animal makes it smarter? I'm talking about inherent intelligence, recognizing your own reflection, solving simple problems. I don't think training has anything to do with it.


Edit: and since we're on the subject, is there a template that raises intelligence?

So a more important point here is that while a Druid's animal companion's training doesn't make it any more intelligent (note the lower-case i, not talking about the stat), its higher capacity for training (bonus tricks) does.

[Beleron]

On the other hand of course, many animals do have quite high wisdom. That seemed odd to me at first, because, having come from earlier editions, I thought I knew what wisdom meant in D&D. It was only when I actually check it up in the PHB and found that in 3e, wisdom also represents "being in tune with and aware of one's surroundings" that this made sense.

[Invader]

Just tonight our wizard sent his raven back through a cave system to tell other party members they could move up the tunnel a little bit. Of course the raven being intelligent replied SQUAWK YOU CAN MOVE UP NOW. regardless of their intelligence Ravens have not mastered the art of whispering. :smallamused:

[Ointhedwarf]

hmm, yes maybe I overrated the intelligence of an animal companion, mistaking perception for perceptiveness. The truth is I never cared for a druid's animal companion, I was just making a gray render companion (they supposedly sometimes bond with other creatures, protecting them) and realized it was probably a big role for a creature with intelligence 3. Maybe it will work though, I never thought about the importance of wisdom.

[Chronos]

On the other hand of course, many animals do have quite high wisdom. That seemed odd to me at first, because, having come from earlier editions, I thought I knew what wisdom meant in D&D. It was only when I actually check it up in the PHB and found that in 3e, wisdom also represents "being in tune with and aware of one's surroundings" that this made sense.
Then again, in earlier editions, animals didn't even have wisdom scores at all. Or rather, they presumably did, but the books never bothered to tell you them. That was one of the things that amazed me when I first saw third: "Wow, they tell you all six of the monsters' ability scores!"

[Fax Celestis]

Then again, in earlier editions, animals didn't even have wisdom scores at all. Or rather, they presumably did, but the books never bothered to tell you them. That was one of the things that amazed me when I first saw third: "Wow, they tell you all six of the monsters' ability scores!"

I also had that moment, but it was also concluded with "...and look how little half of them matter!"

Stat function disparity remains my biggest disappointment in 3.5.

[Ravens_cry]

I also had that moment, but it was also concluded with "...and look how little half of them matter!"

Stat function disparity remains my biggest disappointment in 3.5.
It really depends on your character build and concept in my opinion.

[Fax Celestis]

It really depends on your character build and concept in my opinion.

Agreed. Despite that, most classes and monsters won't need CHA for anything. WIS is only useful for divine casting and perception, the latter you can do better at merely by putting ranks in it.

Monsters also rarely have use for INT or INT-skills.

[Ravens_cry]

Agreed. Despite that, most classes and monsters won't need CHA for anything. WIS is only useful for divine casting and perception, the latter you can do better at merely by putting ranks in it.

Monsters also rarely have use for INT or INT-skills.
And to some characters, Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom are godly, and Intelligence can be very important for monsters with class levels, depending on class of course.

[Fax Celestis]

Let me clarify my statement: out of the box, most monsters have next-to-no use for Int, Wis, or Cha.

[Ravens_cry]

Let me clarify my statement: out of the box, most monsters have next-to-no use for Int, Wis, or Cha.
That's not the same as, "Stat function disparity remains my biggest disappointment in 3.5." Besides, quite a few monsters have abilities that depend on mental stats for their DC. For example, the DC a harpy's Captivating Song ability is Charisma-based.

[Coidzor]

Agreed. Despite that, most classes and monsters won't need CHA for anything. WIS is only useful for divine casting and perception, the latter you can do better at merely by putting ranks in it.

Will saves, but that's mostly based on the glut of HD they typically get anyway and a good wisdom on a poor chassis won't do much, I suppose. I found the idea of alternate stats for NADs in 4e an interesting idea to play around with for homebrewing and backporting, I must admit, though that still doesn't do much for most monsters.

[lsfreak]

That's not the same as, "Stat function disparity remains my biggest disappointment in 3.5." Besides, quite a few monsters have abilities that depend on mental stats for their DC. For example, the DC a harpy's Captivating Song ability is Charisma-based.

I think you might be talking past each other; I'm reading Fax as saying that, overall, abilities like Con and Dex highly useful to all but a few rare monsters, while Int and Cha and near-useless to all but a few rare monsters. Across the edition (not a single monster), there's a disparity in which stats are useful and which ones aren't.

[Fax Celestis]

I think you might be talking past each other; I'm reading Fax as saying that, overall, abilities like Con and Dex highly useful to all but a few rare monsters, while Int and Cha and near-useless to all but a few rare monsters. Across the edition (not a single monster), there's a disparity in which stats are useful and which ones aren't.

Correct, for both monsters and players (though those stats are different for both monsters and players).

[Harlot]

Well, naturally your DM has final say, but at least some of what the wizard's player is saying is more or less accurate. Ravens are able to distinguish between individual people, so there would be at least some fine-grained scouting possible. Whether or not a raven could distinguish between wizard robes, clerical vestments or barbarian furs is another question.

And as Svata and Deophaun mentioned, the raven's Int score should be higher than what you've listed.


Erm... that DM would be me :smallsigh:

And the Wizard's level 6 so that'd be a raven of int 7ish?
I've been told that Int in D&D roughly scales 1:10 with the real world IQ scale. If so that would put this particular raven into an IQ of (70-75.) and yes, probably able to do most of the stuff the wizard tells me it can.

Thank you all for clarifying


Just tonight our wizard sent his raven back through a cave system to tell other party members they could move up the tunnel a little bit. Of course the raven being intelligent replied SQUAWK YOU CAN MOVE UP NOW. regardless of their intelligence Ravens have not mastered the art of whispering.

OH this is HILARIOUS. I Really have to remember that and use it against the group some day!

[Fax Celestis]

Erm... that DM would be me :smallsigh:

And the Wizard's level 6 so that'd be a raven of int 7ish?
I've been told that Int in D&D roughly scales 1:10 with the real world IQ scale. If so that would put this particular raven into an IQ of (70-75.) and yes, probably able to do most of the stuff the wizard tells me it can.

Wherever you heard this, it's completely made up, btw. If it works for you, great, but it's not something the game even pretends is true.

[Harlot]

Wherever you heard this, it's completely made up, btw. If it works for you, great, but it's not something the game even pretends is true.

Oh, that's annoying.
Isn't there any thread or source official ruling on this somewhere?
I'd think it would show up in the FAQs on any D&D-site ...

(and sorry for partly derailing the original topic here ... )

[Lafaellar]

Although animal companions receive no INT bonus RAW I allow my players to make them about as smart as Lassie from the TV Show.
So a dog is still a dog, but a very clever one that is able to run and get help if her master is in danger for example.

[Fax Celestis]

Oh, that's annoying.
Isn't there any thread or source official ruling on this somewhere?
I'd think it would show up in the FAQs on any D&D-site ...

(and sorry for partly derailing the original topic here ... )

Nope. The only equivalency ability is Strength (due to the weight-lifting tables). All the rest are too abstract to really measure in real-life terms like IQ.

[Harlot]

OK - so back to group discussions then. Maybe I should just start a new thread asking what people overall allow those raven familiars to do, and NOT to do and WHY and then leave this thread alone ...
Yeah, I'll do that...
Thanx!!!

[lsfreak]

Oh, that's annoying.
Isn't there any thread or source official ruling on this somewhere?
I'd think it would show up in the FAQs on any D&D-site ...

(and sorry for partly derailing the original topic here ... )

It's a meme among fans, but afaik IQ is never, ever mentioned - in any context - in D&D. (Also, equating Int score to IQ is problematic for all the reasons IQ scores themselves are problematic; i.e. they can ultimately only measure how good a person is at taking IQ tests. IQ is regularly shifted because 100 is average, but people are getting "smarter" (whether that's actually getting more intelligent, or just getting better at the types of intelligence IQ tests test, or just getting better at taking IQ tests), so what was 100 when the tests first came out may test as 80 today; there are also huge cultural differences, and when it comes to D&D, a character may be an idiot when it comes to the kinds of thinking IQ considers important, while being a genius in terms of the kinds of thinking a D&D character would find useful.)

[Harlot]

@isfreak: I agree with your view on IQ and all of the difficulties there - it's just the 'houserule' in my group that it relates as described.
It's an old group and I am relatively new to it - just took over as a DM and have begun questioning a lot of their rulings on this and other subjects.

[Chronos]

If you do make an equivalence between IQ and Int score, and you assume that the population at large has Int drawn from a 3d6 distribution, then you find that about 3 points of Int is worth 15 points of IQ (one standard deviation in either case), so a raven with 7 Int would be roughly equivalent to an 80ish IQ. To put that further into perspective, that would be a person whom you would regard as noticeably not all that bright, but not an outright idiot.

[Fax Celestis]

If you do make an equivalence between IQ and Int score, and you assume that the population at large has Int drawn from a 3d6 distribution, then you find that about 3 points of Int is worth 15 points of IQ (one standard deviation in either case), so a raven with 7 Int would be roughly equivalent to an 80ish IQ. To put that further into perspective, that would be a person whom you would regard as noticeably not all that bright, but not an outright idiot.

Part of the issue here is that an Int 3 creature is smart enough to understand and communicate via language, which is something above what the IQ suggested by either the 10-per-point or your standard deviation system (of which a 3 Int would be between 55 and 60 IQ).

[awa]

part of the problem with grading how smart a creature is, is there are different types of intelligence.

Chimps are great tool users and problem solvers but they literally cant work together to save there own life when it comes to defending themselves from other attacking chimps.

While a dog is an awful tool users but great at working together to protect the pack.

so a mental challenged human may have have the same int as an ogre but the ogre int is likely far more practical and focused.

[Chronos]

I'm pretty sure that a person with a 55 or 60 IQ can communicate using language. Very poorly, to be sure, but that's about what you'd expect from a 3 Int.

[Fax Celestis]

I'm pretty sure that a person with a 55 or 60 IQ can communicate using language. Very poorly, to be sure, but that's about what you'd expect from a 3 Int.

Looking up what exactly 60 IQ means, I'm inclined to agree with you. So your StdDev system may actually be pretty okay. However, that also means Int 30 folks are staring at an effective IQ of 200.

[Ointhedwarf]

Although animal companions receive no INT bonus RAW I allow my players to make them about as smart as Lassie from the TV Show.
So a dog is still a dog, but a very clever one that is able to run and get help if her master is in danger for example.

My thoughts exactly, an ever-vigilant but also a bit inventive animal which you can trust for the simplest of tasks. Like rex the dog.


Part of the issue here is that an Int 3 creature is smart enough to understand and communicate via language, which is something above what the IQ suggested by either the 10-per-point or your standard deviation system (of which a 3 Int would be between 55 and 60 IQ).

Where do you base this? Can you post a section where this is implied? :smalleek:


Looking up what exactly 60 IQ means, I'm inclined to agree with you. So your StdDev system may actually be pretty okay. However, that also means Int 30 folks are staring at an effective IQ of 200.

I'd say it's an exaggeration on the other front. I generally follow the rule of thumb that a commoner (meaning every human in existence, ever) can be up to 3rd level and have up to an elite array. So newton, leibneiz and every other intellectual had an intelligence of 15. Meaning that creatures of intelligence 20 and higher, great wyrms, gods, liches and so on, have the intelligence to be able to formulate failproof plans over the course of years or months. Their intelligence is actually ungraspable.
And if you ask how I would justify players with 20 int I would probably attribute that to the fact that they supposedly experiment (i.e. learning new spells) on-the-go, know a variety of skills to expert level and hero-awesomeness :smalltongue:

[Deophaun]

Where do you base this? Can you post a section where this is implied? :smalleek:
Let's go to the SRD! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm)

Intelligence

A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise).

[Ointhedwarf]

oooooh.. that's interesting, thanks :smallbiggrin:. That means that it's already smarter than the smartest animal alive. Though I'm not sure about that, supposedly a biologist once taught a gorilla sign language and they talked daily. This animal cognizance field is pretty hazy and nobody makes an effort of clearing it up.. For example what were they talking about? :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Rubik]

I'd say it's an exaggeration on the other front. I generally follow the rule of thumb that a commoner (meaning every human in existence, ever)I'm pretty sure commoners are basically serfs, uneducated slaves, and dirt-farmers. Anyone with any kind of decent education at all would likely be an expert, adept, aristocrat, or PC class.

[Ointhedwarf]

yes sorry you're right, I meant npc classes in general. It doesn't change my point though since their ability scores are still the same

[Squark]

I believe the 10 IQ points for each point of intelligence was a metric suggested as a very basic rule of thumb in a WOTC article.

For the record, though, Harlot, a 6th level wizard's familliar is INT 8, which puts it within at the bottom of the average range for humanoids (8-13). So, capable of understanding something it's familliar with and having concepts explained to it, but it's not going to necessarily make intuitive leaps on its own. However, it's still a raven, which means it's naturally curious and likely to pick up on things that catch it's eye; So, for example, if a king in royal regalia was unexpectedly at the location where it was sent to scout, the familliar might not recognize the significance of the royal garb if it's never seen a king before, but it will likely be excited about the guy in the bright clothing and shiny hat, and can probably give the party enough information for them to put two and two together.

[Rubik]

I believe the 10 IQ points for each point of intelligence was a metric suggested as a very basic rule of thumb in a WOTC article.And that metric would be wrong, if dogs can test at a 60 IQ. Otherwise, some animals would need Int scores much higher than 2.

[Squark]

And that metric would be wrong, if dogs can test at a 60 IQ. Otherwise, some animals would need Int scores much higher than 2.

Oh, sure. I'm just saying that's where it originated.

[Harlot]

However, it's still a raven, which means it's naturally curious and likely to pick up on things that catch it's eye; So, for example, if a king in royal regalia was unexpectedly at the location where it was sent to scout, the familliar might not recognize the significance of the royal garb if it's never seen a king before, but it will likely be excited about the guy in the bright clothing and shiny hat, and can probably give the party enough information for them to put two and two together.
THIS is a very usable discription as to how it would work. Simply a bright animal that can relate what it observes without making too complicated conclusions on its own. Helps me wrap my head around it :-)
Thanks
/Harlot