So unless I'm mistaken, Pathfinder has 2 Year Old Humans as Int 2?

[Reksew Trebla]

I'm not going into the details too much of why the following is true, so if you want to know, look up the many studies done on the subject on the internet. But anyways, we have the capability of having a legitimate conversation with Gorillas through sign language. Through this, we have placed them around the same level of intellect as a 2, 2-1/2 year old Human.

Unless I'm just derping, Int 2 in Pathfinder equates to not being capable of speaking, and not being an intelligent creature, and Gorillas are listed as having Int 2. Does this mean, that in Pathfinder, 2 year old Humans are incapable of speach?

I mean I know I didn't speak really as a two year old, but that was because of my Asperger's Syndrome. A normal human on average is speaking by the time they're 2 years old.

Just thought I'd bring up this, as it seemed interesting.

[FidgetySquirrel]

I see where you're coming from, and no, you're not being derpy. But there are some things I think I should mention.

1. Statting infants/toddlers is just in bad taste. As far as I'm concerned, they don't have scores at all. That's personal preference, though.

2. For the sake of simplicity, animals can't have 3+ INT. Some animals arguably should, apes for example. It's not really meant to suggest anything about the real world.

3. PF, like 3.5, is very much detached from common sense. I would strongly suggest not trying to incorporate real-world logic into this, lest you get caught up in arguments about head-shots and whatnot.

[Bavarian itP]

Drawing conclusions about Real Life from game rules and then trying to warp this conclusion in game rules never ends well. See also: Commoner Railgun.

[LibraryOgre]

Most D&D-likes don't model youth well, but you're drawing a false conclusion... you're using A=B to prove A=C, without proving B=C. Just because toddlers are not capable of speaking, doesn't mean they have a low intelligence. Lots of people are incapable of speaking, but that doesn't mean their intelligence is low; simply that they either lack the physical ability (an issue with toddlers) or the language skills (also an issue with toddlers).

[elliott20]

D&D models reasonably well when you limit your band to a certain subset of situations. (assuming you're a standard adult male doing stuff) But on the more extreme ends is when it completely falls apart. This is one of those situations.

[Talya]

Most D&D-likes don't model youth well, but you're drawing a false conclusion... you're using A=B to prove A=C, without proving B=C. Just because toddlers are not capable of speaking, doesn't mean they have a low intelligence. Lots of people are incapable of speaking, but that doesn't mean their intelligence is low; simply that they either lack the physical ability (an issue with toddlers) or the language skills (also an issue with toddlers).

Conversely, great apes, most cetaceans, elephants and a certain european magpie are thought to have actual logical reasoning ability somewhat in excess of an average 4 year old human child, and are locked into "INT 2" in D&D/PF, so INT cannot represent in that game what we're meaning for it to represent.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

The reason Gorillas can't speak is because they don't have the proper vocal cords, not because they lack the cognitive capacity. Both babies that can't yet speak Gorillas can learn to ommumicate with signs and adult Gorillas can gain a larger vocabulary than 2 year olds.

I could go on and on citing examples of animal behavior that could be interpreted as being smarter than children. Ravens are better than children and many adults at certain kinds of problem solving, does this mean eight year olds are dumber than Ravens? Should Ravens be Int 3-4? Should eight year olds be Int 2 or 1?

It's better if you don't think too hard and just accept that both Gorillas and two year olds are made unsuitable to be PC's by their low intellect and absolutley no other reasons.

[Talya]

D&D/PF operates under the assumption that humans and animals are different things (and in fact, "Person" and "Animal" are different and non-interchangeable types in these games.) In real life, people are just another great ape. We may be the most intelligent species on earth in most ways, but there is not a wide gulf between us and all other beings. A bottlenose dolphin is closer to human intelligence than it is to a canine intelligence. Likewise, a dog is closer to human intelligence than it is to a mouse. Intellect is more of a sliding scale. We don't stand far apart from the rest of the organisms on the planet. There's a less than 1% DNA difference between us and chimpanzees, and everything that separates us from chimps (including more than intelligence) is part of that 1%.

The games require a certain suspension of disbelief, obviously, and accepting certain other nonsensical paradigms as true (objective Good and Evil, for example). It's not meant to be a simulation.

[Alikat]

Even worse a level 1 human wizard can cast magic missile and color spray. In real life a human wouldn't be able to learn those spells til way later. :smallbiggrin:

[Pan151]

The relation between Intelligence score and sentience/IQ/intelligent capabilities is not linear. As is the case with all ability scores. An ability score just provides you with a modifier for certain things, qualifies you for certain abilities and determines how much poison is needed to incapacitate you -nothing more.

Someone with 4 INT is not twice as clever as someone with 2 - not at all. Most 2INT animals will behave more "clever" than your average 10INT commoner, when in their element. Some creatures with really low intelligence scores can communicate just fine. Some with really high ones can't.

[LibraryOgre]

I could go on and on citing examples of animal behavior that could be interpreted as being smarter than children. Ravens are better than children and many adults at certain kinds of problem solving, does this mean eight year olds are dumber than Ravens? Should Ravens be Int 3-4? Should eight year olds be Int 2 or 1?

And in 2e, Ravens had low (5-7) Intelligence meaning that, when they got the 2 point bump from being familiars, they were technically smart enough to be wizards, themselves.

Dolphins? Very (11-12).

[Reksew Trebla]

In response to everyone who said "Animals can't have int scores of 3+, and that Animal and Person are two separate, non interchangable types", that brings up the question of what constitutes a person. If you're capable of having a full on legitimate conversation with a creature, even if only through sign language, can you really still call said creature "just an animal"? Hmm, maybe I should start a new topic on one of the other forums, as this is starting to get off topic for this forum.

[Talya]

In response to everyone who said "Animals can't have int scores of 3+, and that Animal and Person are two separate, non interchangable types", that brings up the question of what constitutes a person. If you're capable of having a full on legitimate conversation with a creature, even if only through sign language, can you really still call said creature "just an animal"? Hmm, maybe I should start a new topic on one of the other forums, as this is starting to get off topic for this forum.

You're not getting off topic. And it's not "everyone who said," it's the rules of the game. What constitutes a "person" has nothing to do with the ability to have a conversation. A person in D&D\Pathfinder is a creature with the Humanoid type, that could be affected by spells like "Hold Person." An animal, likewise, is a creature with the animal type. They can only have up to 2 intelligence score. When an animal advances past 2 intelligence score, such as when they become a familiar, or when a druid casts awaken on them, they tend to become "magical beasts."

[Renen]

In response to everyone who said "Animals can't have int scores of 3+, and that Animal and Person are two separate, non interchangable types", that brings up the question of what constitutes a person. If you're capable of having a full on legitimate conversation with a creature, even if only through sign language, can you really still call said creature "just an animal"? Hmm, maybe I should start a new topic on one of the other forums, as this is starting to get off topic for this forum.

Lets have a philosophical debate while we are at it...

What IS a human?

[LibraryOgre]

Lets have a philosophical debate while we are at it...

What IS a human?

Human can be defined as a species, but when you start asking "What is a person", you have the twin horns of "Hard to define" and "definitely not on this forum."

[Talya]

Human can be defined as a species, but when you start asking "What is a person", you have the twin horns of "Hard to define" and "definitely not on this forum."


Not as long as you stick to the rules definitions!

[Nibbens]

Pally's get a mount with INT6 - but that doesn't mean they can speak. There's an argument somewhere referring to Chewbacca. He's highly intelligent, but doesn't have the "mouth part" to communicate in "Common."

I do agree, this topic is fairly interesting. lol.

[Renen]

I do agree, this topic is fairly interesting. lol.

Not really

[Talya]

Pally's get a mount with INT6 - but that doesn't mean they can speak. There's an argument somewhere referring to Chewbacca. He's highly intelligent, but doesn't have the "mouth part" to communicate in "Common."



Only due to an oversight on paizo's part is the intelligent paladin mount an animal...in 3.5 it is rightly treated as a magical beast. The line was accidentally omitted in PF.

[FidgetySquirrel]

In response to everyone who said "Animals can't have int scores of 3+I'd just like to point out, since I was one of the mentioned everyone, that I did say it was for simplicity's sake.

Furthermore, as I already said, this game is inherently illogical. Trying to make real-world sense out of pretty much anything in it, let alone ability scores, strikes me as a fool's errand.

[Coidzor]

The smart Animals have Int 2 thing gets more amusing when you recall that they changed the rules so that Animal Companions can have 3+ Intelligence Scores without ceasing to be Animals or Animal Companions and also without making them exactly equal to a PC with that Intelligence Score.

If you look over those rules and then eyeball various Animals' Int Scores, you should be able to patch it yourself to some extent, though.

[Jeff the Green]

Conversely, great apes, most cetaceans, elephants and a certain european magpie are thought to have actual logical reasoning ability somewhat in excess of an average 4 year old human child, and are locked into "INT 2" in D&D/PF, so INT cannot represent in that game what we're meaning for it to represent.

In addition, the one thing we thought was a categorical difference between humans and other animals, the use of syntax, turns out not to be true. Bonobos use syntax. (Being bonobos, of course, it's used primarily to ask if someone wants to go to a shady spot and have sex. :smalltongue:)

[Dimers]

Int 2 in Pathfinder equates to not being capable of speaking, and not being an intelligent creature, and Gorillas are listed as having Int 2. Does this mean, that in Pathfinder, 2 year old Humans are incapable of speech?


Statting infants/toddlers is just in bad taste. As far as I'm concerned, they don't have scores at all.

Very much that. Remember: if you stat it, they will kill it.


Bonobos use syntax. (Being bonobos, of course, it's used primarily to ask if someone wants to go to a shady spot and have sex. :smalltongue:)

Sounds pretty much like human intelligence, yeah. :smallsmile:

[FidgetySquirrel]

In addition, the one thing we thought was a categorical difference between humans and other animals, the use of syntaxI thought that one thing was the capacity for war, until I learned more about chimps and heard about lions killing cheetahs for teh evulz.


Very much that. Remember: if you stat it, they will kill it.Stinkin' murderhobos...

[Jeff the Green]

I thought that one thing was the capacity for war, until I learned more about chimps and heard about lions killing cheetahs for teh evulz.

Or dolphins or ants. There are very few human behaviors that don't have analogues in other animals.

[Coidzor]

Exactly. Babies are inventory items, not creatures. /Ultima

[FidgetySquirrel]

Or dolphins or ants. There are very few human behaviors that don't have analogues in other animals.So much for the ancient wisdom that humans are not animals, huh?


Exactly. Babies are inventory items, not creatures. /UltimaBAHAHAHAHA!!! That's too funny!

[Nibbens]

Not really

Yes, really. Otherwise it wouldn't have garnered so many responses.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Yes, really. Otherwise it wouldn't have garnered so many responses.

I bring in the Troll Threads as evidence. Lots of responses to usually inane topics.

[Talya]

It is rather lacking in courtesy to join a conversation just to complain that the topic is uninteresting. Nobody is forcing anyone else to participate, and obviously several people find it quite interesting.

[Lord_Jord]

D&D/PF operates under the assumption that humans and animals are different things (and in fact, "Person" and "Animal" are different and non-interchangeable types in these games.) In real life, people are just another great ape. We may be the most intelligent species on earth in most ways, but there is not a wide gulf between us and all other beings. A bottlenose dolphin is closer to human intelligence than it is to a canine intelligence. Likewise, a dog is closer to human intelligence than it is to a mouse. Intellect is more of a sliding scale. We don't stand far apart from the rest of the organisms on the planet. There's a less than 1% DNA difference between us and chimpanzees, and everything that separates us from chimps (including more than intelligence) is part of that 1%.

The games require a certain suspension of disbelief, obviously, and accepting certain other nonsensical paradigms as true (objective Good and Evil, for example). It's not meant to be a simulation.

This is the best, most reasonable response I have read in this thread. I whole heartedly agree.

[FabulousFizban]

well, toddlers are animals, so that seems about right.

[Segev]

*cough* I was not only speaking at 2 years of age; I was ordering off the menu at restaurants.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Not as long as you stick to the rules definitions!

I've always assumed personhood to be linked to the minimum requirments of PCdom; Int =/>3, Wis =/>3, Cha =/>3 evidenced by all PC races meeting those requirments and all templates that make unsuitable things suitable to be PC's cause them to meet those standards.

For individual games and even cases I've made rulings on whether creatures temporarilty granted these traits (Paladin Mounts, Familiars, and anything you slap a headband of intellect on) become "persons". Conversely, no amount of stat reduction removes "personhood" from a natural person. Without getting into anything more controversial this would prevent something like cursing someone to reduce their stats then killing them not being murder.

I'd though that becoming a petitioner required 3's and was going to add that to my case, but it only requires 1's. and an include things like animals, oozes and vermin.

[Talya]

I've always assumed personhood to be linked to the minimum requirments of PCdom; Int =/>3, Wis =/>3, Cha =/>3 evidenced by all PC races meeting those requirments and all templates that make unsuitable things suitable to be PC's cause them to meet those standards.

this explains my definition of "person" in d&d.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holdPerson.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargePerson.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reducePerson.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm

[Clistenes]

In response to everyone who said "Animals can't have int scores of 3+, and that Animal and Person are two separate, non interchangable types", that brings up the question of what constitutes a person. If you're capable of having a full on legitimate conversation with a creature, even if only through sign language, can you really still call said creature "just an animal"? Hmm, maybe I should start a new topic on one of the other forums, as this is starting to get off topic for this forum.

If by "Person" you mean "Humanoid", Intelligence doesn't have anything to do with being a Person in D&D. Mindflayers, Beholders, Demons, Devils, Dragons...etc., are more intelligent than humans, but they clearly aren't Humanoids. Animals that get 3+ Intelligence become Magical Beasts, not Humanoids.

If your define a Person not as a creature type, but as "anything with intelligence equal or above 3", then yes, some animals would be people, but that wouldn't have any practical effect in your game, since the rules don't take that into account for anything.