What do you think about the heightened intelligence scores on some animals?

[...]

I just got the monster manual, and I noticed something very interesting in the back of the book. Giant Apes now have an intelligence score of seven (regular ones have a score of six), which is quite more than sentient and just as smart as some other creatures that speak common and have fully functional societies (Bullywug, for example [yeah, I spelled that wrong]). Strangely enough though, Apes don't speak any languages and aren't listed to have one of their own, even though WOTC obviously wants us to use real life facts for these animals, including their primitive verbal communication. Obviously, this raises a couple questions:

-Will Apes socialize with other assumed primates (humans, orcs, and goblinoids, mostly)?

-Are there Apes that learned and can speak Common?

-What do Apes think of organized civilization?

-Are there Apes that live with PC races?

And the most important one of all:

-When are we going to see the Half-Ape?

[Daishain]

First off, vocabulary lesson. A sentient creature is one capable of feeling sensations such as pain, which arguably includes the majority of multicellular life on this planet depending on how one chooses to interpret it. The term you are looking for is sapient, don't worry, it is a very common mistake. In fact I get the impression that more people use that word incorrectly than correctly.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure they've done away with the whole "all int 3 and above are sapient" deal. Its about time too, sapience and intelligence are linked, but not wholly intertwined.

Nevertheless, my take on your questions, in order:

-most likely yes, they're social creatures, and peaceful interaction is quite possible, if not necessarily likely depending on disposition

-standard apes, while they have shown an ability to learn abstract language in various forms, lack the vocal cords to speak one. I'm not aware of any reason to think the great ape is different in that respect, save perhaps for an increased likelihood of adopting a written language from their neighbors.

-the real ones love it once they get used to it. They are after all social tool users, and civilization tends to offer plenty of opportunity for creatures of that description.

-probably. again, the real ones do. Now their status within that society is up in the air. I suspect that in many cases they'd just be used as cheap labor. Of course, I doubt that WoTC has the balls to take the fluff in that direction, given the easy comparison to the way European slavers used to view and treat African slaves. (disclaimer: said comparison is simply a result of historical mistakes on the part of said slavers and has nothing to do with this poster's opinions)

-very soon or never, again depending on whether or not WoTC chooses to open that can of worms.

[...]

First off, vocabulary lesson. A sentient creature is one capable of feeling sensations such as pain, which arguably includes the majority of multicellular life on this planet depending on how one chooses to interpret it. The term you are looking for is sapient, don't worry, it is a very common mistake. In fact I get the impression that more people use that word incorrectly than correctly.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure they've done away with the whole "all int 3 and above are sapient" deal. Its about time too, sapience and intelligence are linked, but not wholly intertwined.


You know, I knew the word Sapient, yet somehow, someway, my brain decided to stop working for the thirty seconds I spent writing that portion.

About your second statement, I'm just assuming that they did not do away with that rule because I think it sets a good baseline and i'd hate to see it go away.

[Daishain]

About your second statement, I'm just assuming that they did not do away with that rule because I think it sets a good baseline and i'd hate to see it go away.
Would you define a dog or a cat as sapient? Because they're both Int 3 now. What about mindless undead? The skeletons and zombies are now Int 6 and 3 respectively. I know there are more examples, but I don't have my own MM yet so can't look them up right now. Overall however it seems clear that they've either moved the bar, or done away with it.

[...]

What about mindless undead? The skeletons and zombies are now Int 6 and 3 respectively.

WAIT, WHAT?
*insert long stream of curse words*
What's next!? Are they going to take away the outsider type!?!....
....Well, ****.
Does WOTC hate tradition?

[Daishain]

WAIT, WHAT?
*insert long stream of curse words*
What's next!? Are they going to take away the outsider type!?!....
....Well, ****.
Does WOTC hate tradition?
Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. But not all traditions are worth preserving, and what I've seen of the current Int distribution makes notably more sense than the manner in which it was previously handled. Including for the undead.

[Sartharina]

You know, I knew the word Sapient, yet somehow, someway, my brain decided to stop working for the thirty seconds I spent writing that portion.

About your second statement, I'm just assuming that they did not do away with that rule because I think it sets a good baseline and i'd hate to see it go away."Sapience" is an arbitrary distinction with vague qualifiers attempting to be a solid cutoff line for something that's actually a continuum. And, as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as a non-sapient mammal (At least any big enough for people to notice). Most myths about the stupidity of animals are caused by an inability to communicate verbally.

[Beleriphon]

"Sapience" is an arbitrary distinction with vague qualifiers attempting to be a solid cutoff line for something that's actually a continuum. And, as far as I can tell, there's no such thing as a non-sapient mammal (At least any big enough for people to notice). Most myths about the stupidity of animals are caused by an inability to communicate verbally.

I think the biggest cutoff on the sapience scale is the ability to express intangible ideas in a cogent manner. Dogs might love you, but they'll never be able to express that idea to another human (or likely a dog) one way or another because they lack the ability to process information in a way that allows for that. Great apes seem to be able to express fairly complex intangible thoughts if taught a method of communication we can understand.

That said the intelligence score is as much how "smart" a creature is in terms of how able it is to follow instructions and process information. Undead with intelligence scores don't mean they're suddenly intelligence, it just means that they have something that rotting corpse that provides some level of instruction processing as well ability to make decisions. It also gives something to screw with for intelligence saves.

[Sartharina]

I think the biggest cutoff on the sapience scale is the ability to express intangible ideas in a cogent manner. Dogs might love you, but they'll never be able to express that idea to another human (or likely a dog) one way or another because they lack the ability to process information in a way that allows for that. Great apes seem to be able to express fairly complex intangible thoughts if taught a method of communication we can understand.We don't know that they can't communicate intangible ideas in a cogent manner to each other, or even if they're trying to communicate them to us. And we can't process information in the same way dogs do. We can communicate with Great Apes because we're so damn similar to them more than anything else.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Considering that there are saving throws for all 6 attributes in this edition (rather than the old Fortitude/Reflex/Will trilogy), it makes sense to not have entire creature types hamstringed against entire classes of abilities (especially when it was already the case that ability damage was hamstringing entire creature types in previous editions - see Ray of Stupidity and Shivering Touch in 3.5e). This also allows them to add some degree of diversity in the way animals (particularly pack animals and social creatures) can be treated, as opposed to "all animals have an intelligence score of 1 or 2", which tells us very little about the animal in general.

[Eslin]

Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. But not all traditions are worth preserving, and what I've seen of the current Int distribution makes notably more sense than the manner in which it was previously handled. Including for the undead.

It really doesn't. Previously, it was pretty simple:
0 int = vermin, golems and mindless undead. They may have varying degrees of complexity in their instructions, but they are incapable of learning.
1-2 int = animal intelligence. Incapable of complex language or tool use.
3+ int = sapient. Able to have class levels.

[Job]

0 int

Pedantry Powers Pontificate!!

Vermin and the like have 'non-abilities' not an Int of zero.

Creatures with and intellect score of 0 are helpless and in a coma.

Bull**** parsing of sentences that needed no clarification AWAY!

[Eslin]

Ok fine, 0 int and -- int are functionally seperate things, but it worked fine as an explanation.

[Objulen]

Does your world have a statue of liberty buried in the sands? ;-)

[Yoroichi]

Im just going to drop this here.

I read the analysis written here frankly it has raised a question, since i am an Indian, sorry, native american, sorry Totem warrior Dwarf barbarian.

What does the spell speak with animals do then?

*flies away*

[Daishain]

It really doesn't. Previously, it was pretty simple:
0 int = vermin, golems and mindless undead. They may have varying degrees of complexity in their instructions, but they are incapable of learning.
1-2 int = animal intelligence. Incapable of complex language or tool use.
3+ int = sapient. Able to have class levels.
Given that intelligence is an extremely complex matter, having a system that is both arbitrary and simple is not a point in its favor. The way they have it now is not without its flaws and mistakes, but is much closer to reality.

Int 10 is supposed to be average human intelligence, with 14 and above being various levels of genius.

On that scale, almost none of the higher order mammals are int 2 or below, and there are several examples of other species types that are well above that mark (ravens and octopi for instance)

P.S. there are several tool using animals that are still ranked Int 2

[Doorhandle]

WAIT, WHAT?
*insert long stream of curse words*
What's next!? Are they going to take away the outsider type!?!....
....Well, ****.
Does WOTC hate tradition?

And that's an issue why?

I think skeletons would be a lot scaryier with animal cunning and the ability to feel hate.

[Logosloki]

Im just going to drop this here.

I read the analysis written here frankly it has raised a question, since i am an Indian, sorry, native american, sorry Totem warrior Dwarf barbarian.

What does the spell speak with animals do then?

*flies away*

It depends on your DM. It can go from "full disney" all the way to vague images and scents. Generally speaking the magic "translates" both your words and actions and theirs. By the spell descriptor at the least they can tell you of nearby places, various creatures and thigs that have happened recently.

The bees you see nearby are performing a dance (for their sisters, you are only an observer) that tells that nearby folliage is devoid of flowers and that predators (of bees) and strange scents have been found around there and there is no need to go there.

You intercept a carrier pigeon and use speak with animals to find out the landmarks it is using as a guide to its destination. It knows that it has something tied to it but doesn't know what it is. It remembers one of the landmarks (a village clock bell tower) was on fire so it flew a little further away from it because of the smoke.

A rat might roam occasionally onto a property that the party is breaking into and with the magic of speak with animals imparts that there is a dog and a cat that live on the property and that the dog is big and the cat doesn't chase it. You could maybe persuade the rat to run ahead as a forward scout or possibly locate an object.

Primates have various calls, hand signals and body postures which converts to a crude language under the power of speak with animals allowing you to have small conversation. They tell you of a hunting party that went by them, which they avoided but one of their group got caught in a trap. If you rescue (and heal) the ape then maybe the group can be persuade to make some noise as part of a distraction.

Play to the intelligence and the type of creature they ask.

[Devils_Advocate]

It is worth noting that no division between animals exists in reality. Humans are animals. We're certainly not vegetables or minerals! Nor is there any division between humans and apes, for humans are apes as well. Great apes, specifically.

But this is one of the many, many cases in which game rules give words special meanings different from the meanings that they have in the English language. So, although apes are humanoid animals and humans are indeed a type of ape, in D&D, Apes are Animals and Humans are Humanoids, and no Animal is a Humanoid nor vice versa, so Humans are not Apes. Just as many other humanoids are not Humanoid and many other animals are not Animals.


It really doesn't. Previously, it was pretty simple:
0 int = vermin, golems and mindless undead. They may have varying degrees of complexity in their instructions, but they are incapable of learning.
1-2 int = animal intelligence. Incapable of complex language or tool use.
3+ int = sapient. Able to have class levels.

Vermin and the like have 'non-abilities' not an Int of zero.

Creatures with and intellect score of 0 are helpless and in a coma.

Ok fine, 0 int and -- int are functionally seperate things, but it worked fine as an explanation.
Okay, so...

If you have no Int score, you have no memory. If you have Int 0, you're unconscious. If you have Int 1 or 2, you can be taught to do tricks but can't learn a language well enough to be able to follow arbitrary instructions.

And if you're a zombie, you can understand and remember instructions more complex than a dog can, like "Kill anyone who enters this room". Because, as a mindless creature, you're exempt from needing any particular Int score to have the capabilities that that Int score represents! You're even exempt from what the rules explicitly say about mindless creatures!

Did I mention that you're somehow evil despite being driven completely by the orders of others and having no will of your own?

Just like how, as a non-living creature, you have no Con score, thereby requiring weird special rules for adjusting your hit points. Because while it turns out that we do want to be able tweak the specific level of toughness you have -- even the level of toughness for something of your creature type AND number of hit dice -- of course we can't do that the same way as for everything else, because just saying "The Constitution scores of constructs and undead don't represent all of the things that they do for living creatures" wouldn't be NEARLY convoluted enough.

Um, call me crazy, but I feel like the simpler system is the one that uses a creature's Intelligence score to indicate how smart that creatue is. And that means giving some Animals an Int of 3 or more if you want verisimilitude, because there sure aren't just two levels of non-human intelligence. That's not abandoning tradition, by the way. In 2nd Edition, baboons had Int 5-7. Dolphins had Int 11-12 and were Lawful Good! (I, uh, gather that the relevant stereotype has rather declined in popularity since then. Every edition of D&D tends to be a pretty clear product of its times, doesn't it?)

The most recent iteration of the Dungeons & Dragons line draws from various previous versions of the game, and in so doing rolls back various changes. I think that they made the right decision in this case. 3E had a bit of a tendency towards miscategorization through oversimplification, I think; or perhaps more accurately overgeneralization. Probably both at once. With results that were unbalanced, confusing, and the opposite of straightforward. Less of that is a good thing.

If anything, they probably didn't go far enough in that direction. It would have been nice if they had made healing spells Necromancy again, for example. But, hey, baby steps.

[Daishain]

If anything, they probably didn't go far enough in that direction. It would have been nice if they had made healing spells Necromancy again, for example. But, hey, baby steps.
It would make sense to bundle those kinds of spells together, but the term necromancy does rather specifically refer to death magic.

I think the best move might be to eliminate the necromancy school altogether. Bundle spells that play around with the forces of life and death into a new school of their own. I think Thaumaturgy (usually translated as miracle working, and was originally associated with healing, raising the dead and other miracles performed by Christian saints) might be the best fit for the name. You can keep calling people that specialize in death magic necromancers, but that would be a title rather than a school.

[Eslin]

Okay, so...

If you have no Int score, you have no memory. If you have Int 0, you're unconscious. If you have Int 1 or 2, you can be taught to do tricks but can't learn a language well enough to be able to follow arbitrary instructions.

And if you're a zombie, you can understand and remember instructions more complex than a dog can, like "Kill anyone who enters this room". Because, as a mindless creature, you're exempt from needing any particular Int score to have the capabilities that that Int score represents! You're even exempt from what the rules explicitly say about mindless creatures!


Think of it like a computer - a computer is capable of taking instruction and doing complex tasks, but it has no intelligence. -- intelligence can represent a range of behaviours - a giant beetle may have a very limited set of behaviours and a golem enchanted by a 30 in wizard may have such complexity of action that it is capable of 'outsmarting' the pcs, but they're both int --.

[Sartharina]

Think of it like a computer - a computer is capable of taking instruction and doing complex tasks, but it has no intelligence. -- intelligence can represent a range of behaviours - a giant beetle may have a very limited set of behaviours and a golem enchanted by a 30 in wizard may have such complexity of action that it is capable of 'outsmarting' the pcs, but they're both int --. Computers do have 'intelligence', though! It just happens to usually be very low, and it doesn't work in quite the same way as human intelligence does (due to the rigidity of the processing ability).

Computers, Beetles, and constructs AREN'T "INT --"

[VeliciaL]

One thing that's always struck me, reading little blurbs about animal behavior studies, is just how stunningly intelligent some animals really are. It's not just great apes; octopi, crows, and even mice and rats have shown problem-solving capabilities that until recently were thought to be human-only. I'm pretty fine with an expanded range of int scores for animals. :smallbiggrin:

[Devils_Advocate]

Think of it like a computer - a computer is capable of taking instruction and doing complex tasks, but it has no intelligence. -- intelligence can represent a range of behaviours - a giant beetle may have a very limited set of behaviours and a golem enchanted by a 30 in wizard may have such complexity of action that it is capable of 'outsmarting' the pcs, but they're both int --.
I do not know what you mean by the word "intelligence". Please clarify. In particular, what is the difference between "outsmarting" and outsmarting? How is it different when something does it in scare quotes? :P

(A thought: Is it even possible to give an unbiased explanation of what intelligence is, given that you're using your intelligence to produce said explanation? Riddle me THAT, why don't you! Riddle. Me. That.)


It would make sense to bundle those kinds of spells together, but the term necromancy does rather specifically refer to death magic.
I believe that historically it specifically refers to communicating with the spirits of the dead in order to foretell the future, or otherwise uncover secret knowledge. The "-macy" suffix denotes divination, right? Not really the type of death magic that "necromancy" is generally associated with in D&D, like zappin' folks with necrotic ickiness and making corpses your minions.

So this is yet another one of those cases where a word is given a special definition within the context of the game, because the best way to create a nigh-impenetrable wall of jargon is to not only make up a bunch of new phrases but to alter the meanings of preexisting terms as well! The jargon wall being just one of the many facets of the game that fill the vital role of chasing off casual players, hopefully leaving you with a group of dedicated roleplayers and/or hardcore optimizers who take pretend magic elf games DEEPLY SERIOUSLY.

Be assured that the above paragraph is exactly as sarcastic as you want it to be.


I think the best move might be to eliminate the necromancy school altogether. Bundle spells that play around with the forces of life and death into a new school of their own.
2E: "Necromancy .... deals with dead things or the restoration of life, limbs, or vitality to living creatures."
3E: "Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force."
5E: "Necromancy spells manipulate the energies of life and death."

That's not a new school. That's the Necromancy school. Not that healing can't legitimately be done by the other schools; rather, that is the problem. Some spell schools are far too broad. Basically every spell could be reasonably classified as either Transmutation or Conjuration as those schools are usually defined, because "changing something's properties" and "making something appear" cover between them pretty much anything you could possibly do. The former in particular is really broad; it covers, for example, endowing someone with magical flight that doesn't rely on the normal movement of the body and thus still functions even if the subject is paralyzed, and thus doesn't have that disadvantage of winged flight. Because Transmutation doesn't have to make you grow wings to make you fly, because it's not just the school for transforming things, it's also the school for making literally anything do anything! Wheeeeeeeee!

Some spells schools need to be reigned in, is what I'm sayin'.

(I dunno if the fly spell still works like that, though. At least they took out the thing where it ends with a feather fall type dealy even if dispelled, because man, that was some seriously wussified crap, amirite?)

Um. Anyway. I think that your point, even if inadvertent, was that the Necromancy school could do with a new name. Sure, sounds reasonable. Not without precedent. Transmutation used to be Alteration.

[...]

Okay, I want to clear this up:

I'm perfectly fine with having animals and vermin being sapient. The old 2e dolphins were even smarter than humans. Unfortunately, mice were not given the same treatment.
I just want the old intelligence 3+ being sapient again. I personally think that it was a great boundary that made ecology easier to understand.

[Grayson01]

If you have no Int score, you have no memory. If you have Int 0, you're unconscious. If you have Int 1 or 2, you can be taught to do tricks but can't learn a language well enough to be able to follow arbitrary instructions.

And if you're a zombie, you can understand and remember instructions more complex than a dog can, like "Kill anyone who enters this room". Because, as a mindless creature, you're exempt from needing any particular Int score to have the capabilities that that Int score represents! You're even exempt from what the rules explicitly say about mindless creatures!



Yes mindless Undead can, beacuse they are a magically controlled and created creatures so they don;t need to follow any form of logical or natural order. That's what makes them Magic.

[Beleriphon]

Yes mindless Undead can, beacuse they are a magically controlled and created creatures so they don;t need to follow any form of logical or natural order. That's what makes them Magic.

They also have the added benefit of never choosing to do something else. A "mindless" giant insect might still run away if hurt badly enough, while a zombie will just keep attacking until it's put down. They're both equally mindless, but they both follow a different set of basic instructions.

[rlc]

I'm just assuming that they did not do away with that rule because I think it sets a good baseline and i'd hate to see it go away.

i'm glad they got rid of that. why? because some animals are smarter than other animals.

[Eslin]

One thing that's always struck me, reading little blurbs about animal behavior studies, is just how stunningly intelligent some animals really are. It's not just great apes; octopi, crows, and even mice and rats have shown problem-solving capabilities that until recently were thought to be human-only. I'm pretty fine with an expanded range of int scores for animals. :smallbiggrin:

Except while that's very interesting from a nature documentary standard (I love cuttlefish!), the focus of D&D is in the complete opposite direction. In 3.5, -- meant it had no true intelligence, and could never truly adapt, 1-2 meant it was of animal intelligence and could not use tools, language or have class levels and 3+ meant sapience. That was simple and made a good dividing line, whereas in fifth edition things are now blurry and nonsensical. I have a 5e fighter who has an intelligence of 3 (rolled four 1s), and in 3.5 that would mean he was very stupid, but still functional and clearly delineated from animal intelligence. Now, however, he has the same intelligence a dog does, and less intelligence than a baboon (which cannot speak or use a longbow). How does that make sense?

[Arzanyos]

It works because of his physiology. Alternately, Hulk Speak. Just because something doesn't speak English* doesn't mean it can't communicate.

*Also applies to other human languages.

[TheOOB]

Remember that their are no stat penalties in 5e, and if you use the point buy or default array stat generation it's impossible to have any score below an 8, which means anything less than an 8 is a sub human level.

[VeliciaL]

Yeah, I'm really not seeing how we've "lost" a whole lot here. 5e is rather deliberately not simulationist in the way 3.5 was.

[Sartharina]

Except while that's very interesting from a nature documentary standard (I love cuttlefish!), the focus of D&D is in the complete opposite direction. In 3.5, -- meant it had no true intelligence, and could never truly adapt, 1-2 meant it was of animal intelligence and could not use tools, language or have class levels and 3+ meant sapience. That was simple and made a good dividing line, whereas in fifth edition things are now blurry and nonsensical. I have a 5e fighter who has an intelligence of 3 (rolled four 1s), and in 3.5 that would mean he was very stupid, but still functional and clearly delineated from animal intelligence. Now, however, he has the same intelligence a dog does, and less intelligence than a baboon (which cannot speak or use a longbow). How does that make sense?

Because 8 is minimum for a 'functioning as we know it' person. INT 3 is like some of the people I've worked with for some humanitarian volunteer work I did a few years ago - they really aren't more intelligent than dogs (as in, severely mentally handicapped, not 'Stupid dolt" stupid.) INT 3 is still technically playable, but it's a challenge. It's not "Slightly below-average intellect person". To use a fictional example, think a somewhat-less-intelligent Hodor.

Also - you continue to underestimate the intelligence of dogs. They are capable of complex object manipulation toward a purpose (Such as getting my dad a beer from the fridge), among other things. What stops them from

Also - Baboons can speak. We just can't understand their language (And they can't understand ours) due to physiological barriers. I could convincingly play a Dog Fighter, I think.

[Easy_Lee]

One thing about these intelligent creatures makes me curious: how intelligent do they have to be to use magic items? What about attunement? I'm not sure we have rules on that yet.

[Devils_Advocate]

Of note is that Charisma is really more the stat for communication in D&D. It's what you use for persuading others and expressing yourself. So the Int stat doesn't necessarily cover everything that we'd describe as "intelligence". It's pretty much strictly "book smarts", because "street smarts" are divided up between Charisma and Wisdom.

More generally... well, "intelligence" is normally used to refer to mental capabilities in general, pretty much. Whereas in D&D, there are three mental ability scores, each of which measures a particular type of mental capability. Someone with only high Int is good at matching patterns, solving puzzles, doing math, remembering things, and all that nerd stuff, but may lack practical experience and/or good judgement.

Have I mentioned that D&D has a tendency to redefine words a bit? ;) It can be somewhat confusing sometimes.


I just want the old intelligence 3+ being sapient again. I personally think that it was a great boundary that made ecology easier to understand.
How to put this...

It may be the case that most words each have several similar yet subtly different meanings. However, some words seem to have significantly more and/or differenter meanings than other words, and I think that "sapient" is such a word. That is to say, it's really quite vague, and thus it does the opposite of clarify.

Also, aren't most of the capabilities that the term is used to denote -- abstraction, problem solving, metacognition, whatever -- things that it's possible to be better or worse at than someone else? In which case, isn't it a sliding scale of more sapient and less sapient rather than a simple division of things into sapient and non-sapient? So if it's obvious to you that a frog isn't even a little bit sapient, and especially if it's obvious to you that there is no such thing as "a little bit sapient", then I super don't know what you mean. It's, like, extra double plus unclear.


Yes mindless Undead can, beacuse they are a magically controlled and created creatures so they don;t need to follow any form of logical or natural order. That's what makes them Magic.
I'm perfectly okay with some things' intelligence being magical and thus functioning unconventionally. A mummy whose cognitive abilities aren't impaired by having had its brain removed? Sure, why not! No problem.

I'm not okay with some things' intelligence being described as non-intelligent in nature. I'm not all right with saying that magic is not bound by the laws of logic and thus can cause contradictions to become true.

I mean, imagine how that would go if you actually took it and ran with it. "You successfully fool the zombie but AT THE SAME TIME YOU DON'T! Two completely incompatible sequences of events both take place! What do you do in response to this?" I think that that's a bit more surrealism than most groups are looking for.

But that's not really what we're talking about doing, isn't it? Rather, we're talking about having some walking corpses demonstrate whatever mental faculties you want them to and then denying that they have said mental faculties.

Now, it's quite possible to bull**** up absolute piles of philosophical bull**** about how a plainly intelligent entity "isn't really intelligent", but my point is that that bull****'s bull****.

Yes, the events that the Dungeon Master describes are fictional, so they're not true either way, but I do believe that it is nevertheless generally considered desirable to produce an elaborately consistent sequence of entertaining lies, rather than to switch between multiple different stories withing the space of a single gaming session.


Except while that's very interesting from a nature documentary standard (I love cuttlefish!), the focus of D&D is in the complete opposite direction.
This sounds like you're denying that the Monster Manual says what it in fact says, which is absurd. What do you think is "the focus of D&D", and what about it precludes a full range of intelligence?

Are you taking into account that exploration is officially one of the three pillars of adventure?


In 3.5, -- meant it had no true intelligence, and could never truly adapt, 1-2 meant it was of animal intelligence and could not use tools, language or have class levels and 3+ meant sapience. That was simple and made a good dividing line, whereas in fifth edition things are now blurry and nonsensical.
So, the real world is "blurry and nonsensical"?


I have a 5e fighter who has an intelligence of 3 (rolled four 1s), and in 3.5 that would mean he was very stupid, but still functional and clearly delineated from animal intelligence. Now, however, he has the same intelligence a dog does, and less intelligence than a baboon (which cannot speak or use a longbow).
How do you know that baboons can't do those things?


How does that make sense?
Um, easily? Is this supposed to be a trick question?

Do I actually need to explain why it makes more sense for the difference in intelligence between an Int 2 creature and an Int 3 creature to be the same as the difference in intelligence between and Int 10 creature and an Int 11 creature, and less sense for a difference of 1 point between two characters' Intelligence scores not to represent a fixed amount of intelligence?


Remember that their are no stat penalties in 5e, and if you use the point buy or default array stat generation it's impossible to have any score below an 8, which means anything less than an 8 is a sub human level.
Um, while some players might endorse the view that anyone not built like a PC isn't a real person, I'm pretty sure that such individuals can still be as human as the player characters.

[infinitetech]

technically the int score of an ant colony should be more than that of most commoners, the average dog is about the same as a human, they just lack thumbs and would have a very low wisdom i think(or maybe those are reversed, dnd mental terms have never been great) honestly, if we keep debating this it will go nowhere but into some darwinism/dataism/creationism/randomism argument

[theduck]

To be fair, I always thought the mental stats were wonky enough when applied to humanoids, but it is a game, and a convenient shorthand, so you just run with it. I think part of the problem is that stats function on a true scale (an intelligence of zero actually means the lack of any intelligence, and someone with 16 wisdom is actually twice as wise as someone with a wisdom of 8 in a meaningful way) and we think that a wisdom of 10 means the same thing regardless if it a applied to a human, an elf, an angel, or a dog, and we simply base it off what we would expect a normal person to have. Maybe a great ape has an intelligence of 7, but that could (and probably should) mean something entirely different than saying a person has an intelligence of 7.

[infinitetech]

here, good scale to actually use:
50 : higher god of magic or planning or...
40 : god of ...
30 : lesser deity of...
20 : genius(smarter than Davinchi or tesla)
18 : genius(on par with " ")
16 : genius(less than " ")
14 : village scholar or elder
12 : town leader, herbalist in training
10 : average worker/artist
8 : average menial worker
6 : that big quiet guy in the mine, not dumb just not bright enough to follow along and realizes it
4 : that special requirement guy who can still function mostly but will never learn school subjects past early grades and isn't exactly safe around power equipment
2 : Special Ed who knows only nursery level things and BASIC problem solving
0 : can eat without utensils, can relieve themselves but not necessarily where they are supposed to, but has no grasp on human ideas or culture, cant understand language other than basic tone and obvious gestures
-2 : needs help with ALL tasks but doesn't need machines(probably bounces body off of the padded wall all day)
-4 : apparatus needed to survive, can respond
-6 : apparatus needed, cant respond, brain still shows activity
-8 : no brain activity from stimuli, body still alive
-10 : body shuts down because brain has turned off

most animals are around a 5 ish id say, some a lot higher, some lower, id actually say that 7 is actually a dub gorilla, id put it at at least a 9

[Sartharina]

here, good scale to actually use:
50 : higher god of magic or planning or...
40 : god of ...
30 : lesser deity of...
20 : genius(smarter than Davinchi or tesla)
18 : genius(on par with " ")
16 : genius(less than " ")
14 : village scholar or elder
12 : town leader, herbalist in training
10 : average worker/artist
8 : average menial worker
6 : that big quiet guy in the mine, not dumb just not bright enough to follow along and realizes it
4 : that special requirement guy who can still function mostly but will never learn school subjects past early grades and isn't exactly safe around power equipment
2 : Special Ed who knows only nursery level things and BASIC problem solving
0 : can eat without utensils, can relieve themselves but not necessarily where they are supposed to, but has no grasp on human ideas or culture, cant understand language other than basic tone and obvious gestures
-2 : needs help with ALL tasks but doesn't need machines(probably bounces body off of the padded wall all day)
-4 : apparatus needed to survive, can respond
-6 : apparatus needed, cant respond, brain still shows activity
-8 : no brain activity from stimuli, body still alive
-10 : body shuts down because brain has turned off

most animals are around a 5 ish id say, some a lot higher, some lower, id actually say that 7 is actually a dub gorilla, id put it at at least a 9
Umm.... what? No. The bottom of that list is wrong.
0 = no brain activity from stimuli, body still alive. Not -10. And the one you have listed and your INT 2 is closer to actual INT 6.

[infinitetech]

was going off of a more original dnd scale, also i forgot to re-edit 2 as i typed it, there actually used to be such things as - stat points and it made sense, also, the scale is still true tho they seem to use a different scale with humans compared to with animals, also - 2 is supposed to say requires constant supervision, and 2 is actually pretty close to right, he knows things that you learn while in a nursery, sharing maybe, BASIC talking, MAYBE basic counting, your name, very very basic items aka tree, animal(MAYBE cat/dog), food, bathroom, and such

also at below -2 in most dnd settings they are as good as dead unless epic teir magic, epic teir crafters/healers, or other similar feats are used to keep them alive, modern RL tech barely does it, traditionally level 0 int is where speech can never be learned, anything higher than that has SOME sort of language, even if its only the yips and wines that make up a dog's voice

[Sartharina]

was going off of a more original dnd scale, also i forgot to re-edit 2 as i typed it, there actually used to be such things as - stat points and it made sense, also, the scale is still true tho they seem to use a different scale with humans compared to with animals, also - 2 is supposed to say requires constant supervision, and 2 is actually pretty close to right, he knows things that you learn while in a nursery, sharing maybe, BASIC talking, MAYBE basic counting, your name, very very basic items aka tree, animal(MAYBE cat/dog), food, bathroom, and such

also at below -2 in most dnd settings they are as good as dead unless epic teir magic, epic teir crafters/healers, or other similar feats are used to keep them alive, modern RL tech barely does it, traditionally level 0 int is where speech can never be learned, anything higher than that has SOME sort of language, even if its only the yips and wines that make up a dog's voice

Your INT 0 is 5e's INT 3. Your INT <-2 is 5e's INT 0

[infinitetech]

well that was the old ODND scale, and it actually makes sense, with the new creature int lvls it makes sense yet again, which fits with their supposed return to roots idea