Seems like animals are underpowered in 3.5

[Scorponok]

What do you think?

One of the players in my group brought this up in a conversation the other day, and after looking at some of the stats, I tend to agree. Take the standard 3.5 SRD lion as an example. AC of only 15, rake is only 1d4+2, and has the same HP as around a level 4 fighter. Attacks seem sorta on par, but a real lion would probably never be hit by swords and other melee weapons easily with an AC of 15. There are others as well, but it seems animals are a bit underpowered vs. their real life counterparts.

[PraxisVetli]

Perhaps try comparing them not to lvl 4 fighters, but lvl 1 commoners.

[Astralia123]

They are capable of killing a lv 6 fighter in one round, which actually suits the real life.

When they pounce, they can perform 2 claw attack, 1 bite attack, 2 rake attack, which are 4d4+1d8+16 in total. Very few can survive such a horrible attack, especially when they are ambushed.

And if you hire 15 men each with a gun, it no longer matters if this creature is underpowered anyway.


Remember, the horrible creatures you may read in a novel may not be just ordinary individuals of their species, but improved ones, maybe several HD higher than their fellows.

[DM Nate]

In my experience, animals are only useful for the first few levels. After that, you have to start using magical beasts...kind like animals, but with a kick.

[Andion Isurand]

I find their movement speeds could use some recalculating.

[frost890]

Start giving them monster lvl's from the MM. Stats in the MM are just for the average of any species. just look up human, dwarf or elf. You can also give them class levels, a couple lvl's of barbarian will make things a lot harder to kill with out you having to change them drastically for the lion that has been around the block a few times.

[ShurikVch]

Seems like animals are underpowered in 3.5
Indeed!
Gorilla IRL as strong as 10 - 12 men
And what's we see in 3.5? :smallconfused:
Ape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ape.htm), Str 21
Even if we progress it up to 8 HD, and slap on Prodigy (Strength) for good measure (total Str 24), I don't think it will be close to X12 or even X10 of commoner's Str 10

[Necroticplague]

One of the main problems I've ever seen with animals is their critically low INT. Just a tiny bit of INT damage can put them down. Ray of Stupidity for the win.

[Palanan]

Safe to say that whoever wrote up the animals didn't actually know much about animals.

The Int issue is a particular frustration for me, since I've done a little work with animal behavior and cognition. Trust me, many animals are a lot smarter than 3.5 game designers think they are.

[Aethir]

Indeed!
Gorilla IRL as strong as 10 - 12 men
And what's we see in 3.5? :smallconfused:
Ape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ape.htm), Str 21
Even if we progress it up to 8 HD, and slap on Prodigy (Strength) for good measure (total Str 24), I don't think it will be close to X12 or even X10 of commoner's Str 10

Human Commoner 1 Str 10 x10 - 330 Light, 660 Medium, 1000 Heavy for load capacity
Ape as statted with 21 Str and large size - 306 Light, 612 Medium, 920 Heavy

Seems pretty comparable to me from base.

[Spiryt]

Nothing 'real' is very stat-able in 3.5 that's the key here.


Indeed!
Gorilla IRL as strong as 10 - 12 men
And what's we see in 3.5?
Ape, Str 21
Even if we progress it up to 8 HD, and slap on Prodigy (Strength) for good measure (total Str 24), I don't think it will be close to X12 or even X10 of commoner's Str 10

Difference between 18 Str and 7 is 6 points in D&D.

Needless to say difference between powerful human and 90 pounds girl is also bigger than ~25% on some rolls 'in real life'.

[ShurikVch]

Human Commoner 1 Str 10 x10 - 330 Light, 660 Medium, 1000 Heavy for load capacity
Ape as statted with 21 Str and large size - 306 Light, 612 Medium, 920 Heavy

Seems pretty comparable to me from base.
And still - underpowered! :smallannoyed:
My example looks a bit better:
Human Commoner 1 Str 10 x12 - 396 Light, 792 Medium, 1200 Heavy
Advanced (8 HD) Ape Prodigy (Strength) - 466 Light, 932 Medium, 1400 Heavy

[SimonMoon6]

And a housecat can only kill an average of about 1 commoner a round. That's not nearly enough.

And elephants with their climbing skill...

[Chronos]

Quoth Palanan:

Safe to say that whoever wrote up the animals didn't actually know much about animals.

The Int issue is a particular frustration for me, since I've done a little work with animal behavior and cognition. Trust me, many animals are a lot smarter than 3.5 game designers think they are.
How smart do you think they thought they were? Do you have some way of making the D&D Int score correspond with real-world intelligence? The designers said that animals are as smart as animals. Int 2 is by definition about as smart as a reasonably intelligent animal like a dog or a horse, and Int 1 is by definition about as smart as a dumb animal like a chicken. Where's the inconsistency?

[DM Nate]

The designers said that animals are as smart as animals.

Er...I'm guessing that means rocks are as dumb as rocks then.

[Astralia123]

Just keep in mind that a relatively high WIS and CHA can also mean you are smart in some ways.

Anyway, stats only have loose link with certain personal characteristics, so you don't really have to act as an idiot when you get a 7 INT character.

When we talk about animals, most of them do have same or higher wisdom scores than average humans.

[ShurikVch]

The Int issue is a particular frustration for me, since I've done a little work with animal behavior and cognition. Trust me, many animals are a lot smarter than 3.5 game designers think they are.Yes.
Orangutans are as smart as adult humans; and bunch of other critters (chimps, pigs, parrots, crows, smart dogs, etc) have intellect no worse than human 5 y. old (which, in-game, will have Int way above 2)

And the most offending thing is Animal Type (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType) itself :smallmad: :
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).

[VoxRationis]

I wouldn't say orangutans are as smart as most adult humans, particularly not in fields like abstract reasoning, but I agree, the Int scale is pretty weird. The trouble is that the stats were all defined by their relation to a bell-curve scale which seemed plausible for humans, and they all used the 3-18 scale. This meant that 3 was 'at the very low end of human intelligence,' so therefore, under the premise that humans are smarter than animals, anything that was not human should get stuck with whatever was lower than that—1 or 2. This ignores the fact that Koko the gorilla got an IQ score of 90; the lower end of human cognitive capacity has a strong area of overlap with the higher end of non-human cognitive capacity.

[Astralia123]

I wouldn't say orangutans are as smart as most adult humans, particularly not in fields like abstract reasoning, but I agree, the Int scale is pretty weird. The trouble is that the stats were all defined by their relation to a bell-curve scale which seemed plausible for humans, and they all used the 3-18 scale. This meant that 3 was 'at the very low end of human intelligence,' so therefore, under the premise that humans are smarter than animals, anything that was not human should get stuck with whatever was lower than that—1 or 2. This ignores the fact that Koko the gorilla got an IQ score of 90; the lower end of human cognitive capacity has a strong area of overlap with the higher end of non-human cognitive capacity.

Don't get too involved in IQ or any types of intelligence measuring, if you see what I mean,and you will see it if you also read a book on history of IQ tests like I did.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Chronos
The designers said that animals are as smart as animals.

My point being the designers really don't have much understanding of animal cognition. It's not a simple cutoff; there's a continuum of cognitive ability, and there's tremendous overlap between species.


Originally Posted by ShurikVch
And the most offending thing is Animal Type itself….

That's always bugged me, and in my animal homebrew I often scale the Int scores above that line, which earns me no end of grief from people who want a fixed barrier.

[jedipotter]

Safe to say that whoever wrote up the animals didn't actually know much about animals.

The Int issue is a particular frustration for me, since I've done a little work with animal behavior and cognition. Trust me, many animals are a lot smarter than 3.5 game designers think they are.

Well, I have lived around animals my whole life, and I think that ''under 3'' is just right for animal intelligence.

The ''animals are super smart'', is just one of the things that gets repeated a lot. And ok, if animals are so smart, then what do they do? They live like animals and do animal things? Well, ok, that does not seem so super smart.

Now I know the backlash is ''if someone says animals are not super smart, they they are saying all animals are super, super, super dumb''. But that is not what I'm saying. Plenty of animals have plenty of intelligence. But that is a far cry from saying they are smart.

Take dogs. They are intelligent and social. Live with a dog and the dog can read or movements, emotions and actions and understand you. Dogs have that ability. But they are not expert social scientists with twelve PHDs.

[Broken Crown]

Take dogs. They are intelligent and social. Live with a dog and the dog can read or movements, emotions and actions and understand you. Dogs have that ability. But they are not expert social scientists with twelve PHDs.

To be fair, neither are most humans.

Personally, having lived and worked with a variety of animals and five-year-old humans, I'd say the comparison is not far off. If anything, the animals show a lot more competence, though that's probably just a matter of having fully mature brains and bodies.

As for physical stats, I think most animals have too much CON relative to humans. Maybe the designers were thinking of the modern office worker when they gave humans an average CON of 10-11, but compared to a pseudo-medieval peasant or tribal hunter-gatherer, most real-life animals would tire extremely quickly.

[Chronos]

No other animal on the planet is as intelligent as humans, and if you think they are, you're deluding yourself. Animals can often have more sense than humans, but that's covered by Wis, not Int, and in fact most animals have a bonus to Wis.

Now, there is a lot more variation in intelligence among real-world animals than there is in D&D. I've met smart dogs and dumb dogs and dogs that were in between, and even the dumbest dog is smarter than even the smartest chicken. But assigning all animals an Int of either 1 or 2 is still a reasonable approximation, for a system that's designed primarily to handle humans and things of intelligence comparable to us.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

human 5 y. old (which, in-game, will have Int way above 2)


Why are you certain that a child a decade below the minimum playable age would have an in "far above" 2 when a 3 is the minimum for a playable character and a human PC is allowed to have an Int of 3? This Int 3 human is able to function in society and perform a limited number of skills at full capacity and is literate by RAW.

[Spiryt]

As for physical stats, I think most animals have too much CON relative to humans. Maybe the designers were thinking of the modern office worker when they gave humans an average CON of 10-11, but compared to a pseudo-medieval peasant or tribal hunter-gatherer, most real-life animals would tire extremely quickly.

CON is stat for many often rather self -conflicting stats, again.

Besides, running and hunting or walking a lot performing hundreds of repetitive movements are again very different.

Medieval peasant or modern Mr. Roadworker with big belly may be able to dig holes with amazing perseverance, but will tire pretty easy while running.

Different muscle performances are just different.

None of this is very doable in 3.5 or any not-madhouse system, likely.

[ShurikVch]

Why are you certain that a child a decade below the minimum playable age would have an in "far above" 2 when a 3 is the minimum for a playable character and a human PC is allowed to have an Int of 3? This Int 3 human is able to function in society and perform a limited number of skills at full capacity and is literate by RAW.
Int 3 is not for humans. It's for particularly dim creatures, such as Cave Troll. Point Buy starts at 8 (Human Half-Minotaur Mineral Warrior may start with Int 4, but it's it)
If you about the rolling, then there is such thing as re-roll:
If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower.

[Astralia123]

My point being the designers really don't have much understanding of animal cognition. It's not a simple cutoff; there's a continuum of cognitive ability, and there's tremendous overlap between species.



That's always bugged me, and in my animal homebrew I often scale the Int scores above that line, which earns me no end of grief from people who want a fixed barrier.

What I try to remind you is that animals do have 10 or more Wisdom score, which may rationalize their wits. You can say they act on intuitions instead of thoughts and considerations.

This is not really a great way to explain animals' cunning wits, but at least it gives an answer, so maybe this system is not THAT stupid anyway.

[Killer Angel]

Er...I'm guessing that means rocks are as dumb as rocks then.

At this point, in the Great Hall of the Designers, the stereotype of the barbarian came out.

[Dumbledore lives]

Honestly most animals seem fine in 3.5. D&D is not and has never been a simulationist game, it's been an abstraction. There is probably a larger continuum to animal intelligence than 1 or 2 but I think it ends up working out fine in the grand scheme of things. Large animals are threats for low level players, especially in groups. I mean wolves are seen as stronger than first level characters by a decent bit, and that's just a single animal of what would likely be in a pack.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Chronos
No other animal on the planet is as intelligent as humans….

Why is it so important to you that animals should never overlap with human intelligence?

And how does it damage the game if we give an ocelot a 4 or a bonobo a 7?


Originally Posted by Chronos
But assigning all animals an Int of either 1 or 2 is still a reasonable approximation, for a system that's designed primarily to handle humans and things of intelligence comparable to us.

Point being it's not a good approximation, because there are other animals whose intelligence is comparable to ours. That's not self-delusion, that's longstanding behavioral research.


Originally Posted by Hand_of_Vecna
This Int 3 human is able to function in society and perform a limited number of skills at full capacity and is literate by RAW.

Where is that RAW? Especially the part about literacy? I'm not seeing that in the 3.5 DMG or PHB.

[ericgrau]

Perhaps try comparing them not to lvl 4 fighters, but lvl 1 commoners.
Ya, which means they pretty much need to roll a 15 to hit AC 15. Or a level 1 warrior with the NPC array needs to roll a 13. Even then he only pisses off the lion then immediately dies.

Don't forget anything with PC levels is hero grade. Even if you start a campaign at level 5 that's already Olympic level elite and it only goes up from there.


Indeed!
Gorilla IRL as strong as 10 - 12 men
And what's we see in 3.5? :smallconfused:
Ape (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ape.htm), Str 21
Even if we progress it up to 8 HD, and slap on Prodigy (Strength) for good measure (total Str 24), I don't think it will be close to X12 or even X10 of commoner's Str 10
Strength 21 and large size gives an ape the carrying capacity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm#encumbrancebyArmor) of 9 commoners. I guess that's not 10-12...

You gotta remember that strength effects are exponential.

[Karnith]

Where is that RAW? Especially the part about literacy? I'm not seeing that in the 3.5 DMG or PHB.
Creatures of humanlike intelligence have Int scores of at least 3 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#intelligenceInt) (PHB p. 9). All characters know how to speak Common, and possibly an additional language depending on race, and any character that does not have illiteracy from some source (e.g. from the Barbarian or Totemist classes) can read and write all languages he or she speaks. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/races.htm#raceAndLanguages) (PHB, p. 12). Because characters always get at least 1 skill point per level, and 4 at first level, even an Int 3 character can have full ranks in one skill (PHB, p. 62). Humans, owing to their extra skill point per level, can have full ranks in two skills even with Int 3.

[nyjastul69]

The animal intelligence debate is moot unless we can isolate exactly what the differences are between Int and Wis in D&D terms *and at the same time*, apply them to real world animals. We can't. We don't understand animal intelligence, if they have any by D&D terms, well enough yet. Wisdom is the D&D score that correlates to 'animal intelligence'.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Karnith
*RAW quotes*

Thanks for clarifying that point. More RAW for me to disagree with. :smalltongue:

[ShurikVch]

By the way, what's happen when sentient creature's Int lowered?
I know what's happen at Int 0, but what's about 1 or 2?

[ericgrau]

By the way, what's happen when sentient creature's Int lowered?
I know what's happen at Int 0, but what's about 1 or 2?
Well RAW has no answer for that since its modifier is still the same but it doesn't use int for anything. Roleplaying-wise int 2 to int 1 has gone from dog intelligence to lizard intelligence. And there are some int - creatures that are basically automatons. So IMO the creature becomes even more simple & direct fight-or-flight reactive and loses even its basic pack tactics.

If you mean from int 3+ to int 2... then IMO you lose the ability to speak and become about as smart as a dog. Still able to fight for your friends, but with little clue about everything that's going on. Before a battle begins you need visual cues from your allies to even determine if some other creatures are friend or foe. An ally that makes exaggerated stalking motions is helpful. Or over time a pet learns patterns of what activity leads to what other activity, so after not too long it could understand what drawing a sword means for example. I enjoyed teasing my dogs with poses I know they'll react to.

[nyjastul69]

By the way, what's happen when sentient creature's Int lowered?
I know what's happen at Int 0, but what's about 1 or 2?

Do you mean sentient or sapient? I can't think of very many creatures in D&D that aren't sentient.

[Broken Crown]

CON is stat for many often rather self -conflicting stats, again.

Besides, running and hunting or walking a lot performing hundreds of repetitive movements are again very different.

Medieval peasant or modern Mr. Roadworker with big belly may be able to dig holes with amazing perseverance, but will tire pretty easy while running.

Different muscle performances are just different.

Different forms of exercise will develop different muscles, it's true. However, any prolonged vigorous exercise will build up cardiovascular endurance, which will improve endurance across the board.

Most animals simply don't perform as well as humans in this respect. I'll admit my evidence is largely anecdotal (with a few scientific papers thrown in, which I can't reference because I don't remember where or when I read them), but there are countless references throughout history to pack animals dropping dead in huge numbers during forced marches. These include animals like horses which have evolved and been bred for long-distance travel. By comparison, most predators are sprinters, without much long-range stamina. Humans are also highly resistant to poison and injury compared to most animals, I've heard. (Again, anecdotal; if you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, please do.)

Since CON is the stat for resisting fatigue, poison, and injury, I would suggest that D&D humans have an unrealistically low CON compared to animals.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Int 3 is not for humans. It's for particularly dim creatures, such as Cave Troll. Point Buy starts at 8 (Human Half-Minotaur Mineral Warrior may start with Int 4, but it's it)
If you about the rolling, then there is such thing as re-roll:

If your scores are too low, you may scrap them and roll all six scores
again. Your scores are considered too low if the sum of your
modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if
your highest score is 13 or lower. PHB pg 8

You may reroll, rerolling is not mandatory. Also, it says you may reroll under one of two conditions, neither of which is having a single stat at 3. This means by RAW you can play a 3 Int character.

Also the PHB entry on Intelligence specifically says "A creature of human-like intelligence has an Inteligence score of at least 3." PHB pg 9




Where is that RAW? Especially the part about literacy? I'm not seeing that in the 3.5 DMG or PHB.

Literacy: Any character except a barbarian can read and write all
the languages he or she speaks. PHB pg 12

Let me know if this and the previous quotes didn't answer your query.

[Coidzor]

Why is it so important to you that animals should never overlap with human intelligence?

And how does it damage the game if we give an ocelot a 4 or a bonobo a 7?

Because not int 5 is int 5, unless you make some special rules just to cover non-sophont intelligences greater than 2.

Mostly it means you gotta make extra rules to cover it instead of the quick and dirty patch job they used.

[Chronos]

Quoth Palanan:

Why is it so important to you that animals should never overlap with human intelligence?
It's not particularly important to me. I was only correcting the misconception because you brought it up. Why is it important to you?

And how does it damage the game if we give an ocelot a 4 or a bonobo a 7?
It damages the simulation, by making the game behave in a way that the real world doesn't, in one of the situations where one would expect them to behave the same. It's minor damage, to be sure, but it doesn't have any benefit, either.

[Milo v3]

Is there any reason an animal with 2 intelligence wouldn't spend it's ability increases on intelligence to turn itself into a magic beast? I mean, better BAB and HD and lose vulnerability to stuff like Animal Trance.

[Divide by Zero]

Is there any reason an animal with 2 intelligence wouldn't spend it's ability increases on intelligence to turn itself into a magic beast? I mean, better BAB and HD and lose vulnerability to stuff like Animal Trance.

Racial hit dice don't give stat boosts.

[Milo v3]

Racial hit dice don't give stat boosts.

That's not true:

Ability Score Improvement
Treat monster Hit Dice the same as character level for determining ability score increases. This only applies to Hit Dice increases, monsters do not gain ability score increases for levels they “already reached” with their racial Hit Dice, since these adjustments are included in their basic ability scores.

[Coidzor]

Is there any reason an animal with 2 intelligence wouldn't spend it's ability increases on intelligence to turn itself into a magic beast? I mean, better BAB and HD and lose vulnerability to stuff like Animal Trance.

Because an Animal gaining 3 int makes the game hang, crash, and burn by RAW. It's only DM fiat that resolves that critical existence failure as "they become magical beasts."

Also probably because an Int 2 creature is so dumb it probably can't metagame enough to realize what it'll unlock with Int 3.

[Killer Angel]

All characters know how to speak Common, and possibly an additional language depending on race, and any character that does not have illiteracy from some source (e.g. from the Barbarian or Totemist classes) can read and write all languages he or she speaks. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#intelligenceInt) (PHB, p. 12).

That's one of the most clear examples of "RAW have nothing to do with common sense"

[nyjastul69]

That's one of the most clear examples of "RAW have nothing to do with common sense"

How so? Speaking/reading/writing are commonly connected. Even if there is no real world connection between the three, does D&D really need to make the system that granular?

[Milo v3]

How so? Speaking/reading/writing are commonly connected. Even if there is no real world connection between the three, does D&D really need to make the system that granular?

Well, it lets animals speak common for one.

[nyjastul69]

Well, it lets animals speak common for one.

How does it do so?

ETA: Animals per the SRD don't have the capacity for language or culture. PC's cannot normally play characters with animal intelligence. Yeah sure, shenanigans can allow for such silly things, but it ain't typical.

[Milo v3]

How does it do so?

Any animal you meet is going to be an Non-Player Character, which is a type of character, and all characters can speak and understand common.

[nyjastul69]

Any animal you meet is going to be an Non-Player Character, which is a type of character, and all characters can speak and understand common.

Animals, by definition, cannot.

[Milo v3]

Animals, by definition, cannot.

Technically, the part that says they don't possess the ability of language starts with usually. So they could, "technically".

[Necroticplague]

How so? Speaking/reading/writing are commonly connected. Even if there is no real world connection between the three, does D&D really need to make the system that granular?

Ummm...Those three are connected, but only very weakly. You have to read before you can write, but its perfectly possible to write in a language you can't speak(I do so in spanish once you get beyond the basics), and illiteracy (speaking without being able to write) used to be more common than not, and still is in some parts of the world.

[Ettina]

Different forms of exercise will develop different muscles, it's true. However, any prolonged vigorous exercise will build up cardiovascular endurance, which will improve endurance across the board.

Most animals simply don't perform as well as humans in this respect. I'll admit my evidence is largely anecdotal (with a few scientific papers thrown in, which I can't reference because I don't remember where or when I read them), but there are countless references throughout history to pack animals dropping dead in huge numbers during forced marches. These include animals like horses which have evolved and been bred for long-distance travel. By comparison, most predators are sprinters, without much long-range stamina. Humans are also highly resistant to poison and injury compared to most animals, I've heard. (Again, anecdotal; if you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, please do.)

Since CON is the stat for resisting fatigue, poison, and injury, I would suggest that D&D humans have an unrealistically low CON compared to animals.

There are animals that beat us in all of those facets of CON.

Canid species (wolves, dogs, coyotes, etc) have amazing endurance. They can run nonstop for several days without seriously damaging themselves. (Think of sled dog races.) Also, pretty much any migratory flying species has to have amazing endurance, because they often can't stop and rest (eg if they're crossing the sea and aren't seabirds).

Lions are pretty amazing at resisting injury. Scientists who observe lions often see badly beat up lions bounce back to mostly normal within a day or two. There's an example of that in the Big Cat Diaries tv show, with Solo's mother.

When it comes to poison, both meerkats and honey badgers have us beat. They're not immune to poisons, like mongoose are with cobra venom, but most poisons that would kill a human only make them sick, despite them being much smaller than us. Meerkats actually tend to suffer more from the physical injury of a snake's fangs, rather than their venom. And in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPKlryXwmXk), a honey badger gets bitten by a puff adder, kills the puff adder, starts eating the puff adder, passes out from the venom, and then wakes up and resumes eating.

I'd say humans are high-average in Constitution, relative to most animals. It's certainly a strength of ours, but there are animals that are much better at it.

[Ettina]

Based on the rubric of Int 3 being ability to use language, apes at least should have Int 3, since all four species (chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans) have successfully learnt sign language or symbol communication systems. Sure, they can't talk, but that's because they can't move their speech organs like we can, not because they're not smart enough to talk.

[nyjastul69]

Technically, the part that says they don't possess the ability of language starts with usually. So they could, "technically".

The SRD states they are usually vertebrates and have zero innate capacity for language and culture.

[Killer Angel]

How so? Speaking/reading/writing are commonly connected. Even if there is no real world connection between the three, does D&D really need to make the system that granular?

Harry the child knows its own language, but to read or write it, it's another matter, before going to school.
Tom the farmer, in a world without public instruction, will live its whole life without knowing how to read and write.
So no, Speaking/reading/writing are not commonly connected, especially in a fantasy world without schools for peasants, unless you're using a very peculiar background.

We can agree that it's a complication that isn't needed for D&D, but it's also a suspension of disbelief.

[atemu1234]

Well, even if I've seen smart animals, I don't think I've seen classically intelligent ones.

[Broken Crown]

There are animals that beat us in all of those facets of CON.

...

I'd say humans are high-average in Constitution, relative to most animals. It's certainly a strength of ours, but there are animals that are much better at it.

Oh, no doubt; there are definitely species which have humans solidly beat. On the whole, though, I'd be inclined to place humans near (though probably not at) the top of the scale, CON-wise, whereas in the 3.5 MM, there are few large animals with a CON of 10, and none with lower than 10.

Regarding dogs: I've often read that one of the main reasons dogs were domesticated so early was because they were one of the few species that could keep up with nomadic human communities. In my own personal experience, I was never able to take my dogs with me when I went for a walk, because they always tired out too quickly. (One of them was half-husky.) The cats ran out of steam before I reached the end of the driveway.

[atemu1234]

Oh, no doubt; there are definitely species which have humans solidly beat. On the whole, though, I'd be inclined to place humans near (though probably not at) the top of the scale, CON-wise, whereas in the 3.5 MM, there are few large animals with a CON of 10, and none with lower than 10.

Regarding dogs: I've often read that one of the main reasons dogs were domesticated so early was because they were one of the few species that could keep up with nomadic human communities. In my own personal experience, I was never able to take my dogs with me when I went for a walk, because they always tired out too quickly. (One of them was half-husky.) The cats ran out of steam before I reached the end of the driveway.

That was before we made them inbred weaklings :smallbiggrin:.

[Curmudgeon]

You can also give them class levels, a couple lvl's of barbarian will ...
You can't give an Animal class levels, because it doesn't permit that in any Animal Advancement entry. For example:
Advancement: 3–5 HD (Medium), 6–10 HD (Large), or by character class The "or by character class" allowance that the Sahuagin specification includes is not present in any Animal creature entry.

[Phelix-Mu]

While I agree with the sentiment that animal (lower case) intelligence is undervalued in the rules, I believe that there is much conflation between intelligence and Intelligence in the minds of players.

Almost every function that we think of as cognition requires what are mechanically represented as Intelligence and Wisdom. Memory is key, but it's not everything. And Wisdom can be construed to represent memory as well; there is no "check to remember recent event" in D&D that I know of. I typically allow either Intelligence (info retrieval) or Wisdom (self-awareness in relation to environment) checks to remember recent stuff.

The problem is broadly that Wis and Int are abstractions given broad definitions with no concrete irl meaning, and then attached to a mechanical device that has what are largely explicitly enumerated uses.

So, to Palanan, whom I respect in many areas, I would suggest that what animals lack in Int they simply compensate for in their use of their Wis, much as a blind person is far from stereotypically "blind," as other senses fill in for their deficits (sometimes resulting in capabilities well-beyond those of the sighted in some areas). The abstraction the game uses is hardly all-encompassing, and if you want the animals to act intelligently, just have them use Wisdom to do so, and role play them as smarter (since the mechanic can't cover actual intelligence anyway, most of it is down to non-mechanical representation in play).

That said, homebrew away if you want to make the ability scores system more coherent (because it's not very much so at all, and occasionally fails pretty hard, especially from a simulationist perspective). My appreciation of well-conceived homebrew only increases as the years pass.

Also, to maintain realism, animals should probably gain age categories as well and have their stats modified throughout their lives accordingly. That would likely mean their baseline stats would need to be rejiggered, since you want them to not fall off of certain performance benchmarks immediately.

[ShurikVch]

You can't give an Animal class levels, because it doesn't permit that in any Animal Advancement entry. For example: The "or by character class" allowance that the Sahuagin specification includes is not present in any Animal creature entry.
AFAIK, Sahuagin is the only creature in the game who have such entry
Hint: dragons doesn't :smallwink:


Most animals simply don't perform as well as humans in this respect. I'll admit my evidence is largely anecdotal (with a few scientific papers thrown in, which I can't reference because I don't remember where or when I read them), but there are countless references throughout history to pack animals dropping dead in huge numbers during forced marches. These include animals like horses which have evolved and been bred for long-distance travel. By comparison, most predators are sprinters, without much long-range stamina. Humans are also highly resistant to poison and injury compared to most animals, I've heard. (Again, anecdotal; if you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, please do.) How healthy and/or old were those animals? How heavy was their load? In which environment it's happened?


Also, to maintain realism, animals should probably gain age categories as well and have their stats modified throughout their lives accordingly. That would likely mean their baseline stats would need to be rejiggered, since you want them to not fall off of certain performance benchmarks immediately. It's kinda already was done, in the Dragon #108 (it was 1E time)

[Heliomance]

There are animals that beat us in all of those facets of CON.

Canid species (wolves, dogs, coyotes, etc) have amazing endurance. They can run nonstop for several days without seriously damaging themselves. (Think of sled dog races.) Also, pretty much any migratory flying species has to have amazing endurance, because they often can't stop and rest (eg if they're crossing the sea and aren't seabirds).

Lions are pretty amazing at resisting injury. Scientists who observe lions often see badly beat up lions bounce back to mostly normal within a day or two. There's an example of that in the Big Cat Diaries tv show, with Solo's mother.

When it comes to poison, both meerkats and honey badgers have us beat. They're not immune to poisons, like mongoose are with cobra venom, but most poisons that would kill a human only make them sick, despite them being much smaller than us. Meerkats actually tend to suffer more from the physical injury of a snake's fangs, rather than their venom. And in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPKlryXwmXk), a honey badger gets bitten by a puff adder, kills the puff adder, starts eating the puff adder, passes out from the venom, and then wakes up and resumes eating.

I'd say humans are high-average in Constitution, relative to most animals. It's certainly a strength of ours, but there are animals that are much better at it.

Humans evolved as endurance hunters. There are still a few scattered tribes in Africa that hunt that way, I believe - by following prey constantly for days on end, on foot, never letting it rest, until it drops of exhaustion. Humans are built for stamina.

[ShurikVch]

Humans evolved as endurance hunters. There are still a few scattered tribes in Africa that hunt that way, I believe - by following prey constantly for days on end, on foot, never letting it rest, until it drops of exhaustion. Humans are built for stamina.

Criticisms against persistence hunting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis#Criticisms)

Archaeological evidence reveals that ungulates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulates) were the main prey of early man. Given their great speed, they would have easily been able to outrun early hominins. Ungulate speed, coupled with the variable visibility of the savanna-woodland, meant that hunting by endurance running required the ability to track prey, which would have been difficult given the lack of penetrating projectile technology at the time.
...buck was still standing... (http://praguestepchild.blogspot.ru/2011/05/myth-of-persistence-hunting.html)

[Curmudgeon]

AFAIK, Sahuagin is the only creature in the game who have such entry
No, there are a few others, like the Briarvex (Monster Manual IV). But it's true, most monster entries are strictly advancement by HD, or advancement by character class; very few allow both.

[ShurikVch]

No, there are a few others, like the Briarvex (Monster Manual IV). But it's true, most monster entries are strictly advancement by HD, or advancement by character class; very few allow both. Really?! Where? :smallconfused:
IIRR, starting from the MM IV, string "Advancement" disappeared altogether...

Also, LeShay from ELH have astonishing
Advancement: None but, also, ECL 50

Also, my list of creatures with "Advancement:—" and playable LA
Baneguard
Chosen One
Darkenbeast
Ghaunadan
Gibberling
Nyth
Spider, Subterranean, Hairy Spider
Spider, Subterranean, Sword Spider
Beast of Xvim (Hell Hound)
Yuan-Ti, Broodguard
Zin-Carla
Zin-Carla is from the F&P, all other are from the Monsters of Faerûn

[Killer Angel]

Humans evolved as endurance hunters. There are still a few scattered tribes in Africa that hunt that way, I believe - by following prey constantly for days on end, on foot, never letting it rest, until it drops of exhaustion. Humans are built for stamina.

Humans must train, to reach those levels. The fact that there are marathon runners, doesn't negate that the rest of the population will be in serious difficult to run for a mile. In game terms, this means you have to spend resources in skills and feats.
Cojotes are built that way.

[atemu1234]

On the Sahuagin issue, all creatures that can be played as player characters without DM fiat have an LA other than LA -. Therein, creatures with LA -, such as animals, cannot gain class levels.

[Milo v3]

Therein, creatures with LA -, such as animals, cannot gain class levels.
Incorrect, they cannot gain class levels because they lack the correct advacement entry, intelligence, and (generally) body shape:

Class Levels
Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of “By character class” in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

[ShurikVch]

Therein, creatures with LA -, such as animals, cannot gain class levels.

Incorrect, they cannot gain class levels because they lack the correct advacement entry, intelligence, and (generally) body shape:
Shrieking Hag (Unapproachable East)
Int 11
Level Adjustment: —
Advancement: By character class

[atemu1234]

Shrieking Hag (Unapproachable East)
Int 11
Level Adjustment: —
Advancement: By character class

Typo, maybe?

[Milo v3]

Typo, maybe?

Why would it be a typo? Level adjustment has nothing to do with granting monsters character levels.

[ShurikVch]

Typo, maybe?Same book:
Fell Troll
Int 7
Level Adjustment: —
Advancement: By character class

[atemu1234]

Why would it be a typo? Level adjustment has nothing to do with granting monsters character levels.

It doesn't really, but generally things capable of gaining class levels have a level adjustment, because they can then gain character levels. At the very least it's a recommendation, that this being should have class levels and other things shouldn't. It seems strange to advise it in one segment and not in another.

[Milo v3]

It doesn't really, but generally things capable of gaining class levels have a level adjustment, because they can then gain character levels. At the very least it's a recommendation, that this being should have class levels and other things shouldn't. It seems strange to advise it in one segment and not in another.
Where are you getting the bolded bit from? And it's suggesting that it gains character levels after this point, but isn't suitable for being a playable race, how is that strange?

[atemu1234]

Where are you getting the bolded bit from? And it's suggesting that it gains character levels after this point, but isn't suitable for being a playable race, how is that strange?

Because they're no more strange than pit fiends and mariltiths, which are advanced by hit dice, can take class levels and have level adjustments

[ericgrau]

Humans must train, to reach those levels. The fact that there are marathon runners, doesn't negate that the rest of the population will be in serious difficult to run for a mile. In game terms, this means you have to spend resources in skills and feats.
Cojotes are built that way.
I've read something along the lines of human > animal endurance. The article claimed it had to do with sweat glands. Dogs and many animals have to pant to cool down, and circulating blood in the tongue takes it from elsewhere. So they don't tend to run and cool at the same time. I've also read articles about differences in muscle and so forth.

Regardless of how true that is, I've noticed that my dog ran at 25 mph but couldn't keep up with me near the end of a 20 minute jog. Especially not on a hot day.

And it is not at all hard to jog a mile or three for any hunter or anyone who exercises even a small amount. Maybe D&D nerds are out of shape, but any kid in P.E. can go a mile. But anyway you don't need to be a super athlete to out-endure an animal. What we take for granted they have surprisingly little of. Maybe wild animals are tougher, but so is any pre-1800 rural human who hunts or works on a farm all day.

[Gwendol]

We are on the top of the food chain, and have been for generations. Humans are extremly durable and hardy.

In relation to the OP, my answer would be no, they are not underpowered. In my view, there are some that are overpowered: riding dogs are a typical example.

[Pan151]

It doesn't really, but generally things capable of gaining class levels have a level adjustment, because they can then gain character levels. At the very least it's a recommendation, that this being should have class levels and other things shouldn't. It seems strange to advise it in one segment and not in another.

It's the other way round. If a creature has a level adjustment that means it can be used as a PC, which means it should be able to gain class levels (or advance in some way) as any other PC.

If a creature can advance in class levels, that doesn't mean it is suitable for a PC. Dryads, for example, can gain class levels just like any humanoid-shaped creature can, but you can't make a PC out of them because they die within a few hours of leaving their tree.

[Milo v3]

Because they're no more strange than pit fiends and mariltiths, which are advanced by hit dice, can take class levels and have level adjustments

Those don't have level adjustments, not even Bone Devils have level adjustments.

[ericgrau]

In relation to the OP, my answer would be no, they are not underpowered. In my view, there are some that are overpowered: riding dogs are a typical example.
Well that's a bit of a tangent. They're fine at level 1 as long as you don't give away a 150 gp animal for free to a druid instead of a normal one. Namely that the handle animal rules say the druid can't actually ride them nor can they trip without a DC 20 handle animal check and 6 weeks. You could only teach them to attack, and would need more time to teach them anything else. If anyone got a free 6 weeks of DC 20 profession checks or craft checks then that 60-120 gp in gear would make any level 1 character much stronger.

Still animals do tend to have reasonable hp, AC, attack bonus and damage for their CR.

[Endarire]

Magebred Warbeast Animals, Go!

[Rubik]

Magebred Warbeast Animals, Go!Buy a titanic one for about 2,000 gp.

[Gwendol]

I'm totally with you there, Eldariel. I was more looking at the riding dog vs wolf match-up which the dog appears to win, statistically. I just don't think big dogs are that strong IRL.
Wolves vary in size and weight, but the larger breeds can reach some 80 kg, which I think is the upper limit for the types of dogs imagined to be riding dogs (mastiff or similar sized). In an equal weight match-up, my money is on the wolf.

[Zrak]

I think it's important to distinguish between pure intelligence and metrics we commonly use to measure intelligence, like tool use and language acquisition, which are, to various extents, dependent on aspects of the animal's physiology unrelated to its reasoning ability. For example, some recent studies indicate that hyenas may be as intelligent as many primates, yet no hyena will ever learn to communicate with sign language, simply because their paws don't really lend themselves to it. Even something as basic as vision can profoundly impact our views of an animal's cognition. Until very recently, we mostly tested animal cognition in the same ways we tested human cognition, and we are only now beginning to learn that some of the assumptions backgrounding this method may be baseless; animals that are not, for various physiological reasons, "smart" like we are "smart," may still be deeply intelligent.

We have universities and enough social science disciplines for a dozen doctorates now after millenia of a specific type of interaction with each other and with our environment; the knowledge of electricity and aerospace engineering are not hard-wired into our brains, they're something we learned through a long series of events for which we not merely mentally but also uniquely physically suited. This isn't to say that I think any given animal is as smart as or smarter than humans — or even that I think that is a tenable framing of the issue — just that the issue is more complex than "we're smarter because we have microwave ovens and they don't."

[Rubik]

I'm totally with you there, Eldariel. I was more looking at the riding dog vs wolf match-up which the dog appears to win, statistically. I just don't think big dogs are that strong IRL.
Wolves vary in size and weight, but the larger breeds can reach some 80 kg, which I think is the upper limit for the types of dogs imagined to be riding dogs (mastiff or similar sized). In an equal weight match-up, my money is on the wolf.A number of breeds of dogs were bred specifically to kill wolves. Irish wolfhounds, for instance.

[Gwendol]

Aren't they more to scare them away from sheep or other livestock? In my experience the dogs help lock down the prey while the humans do the actual killing.
Edit: checked them out and you're right. Not sure they were used in single combat since they would be clearly lighter than a wolf (northern europe/russia/america).

[Rubik]

Aren't they more to scare them away from sheep or other livestock? In my experience the dogs help lock down the prey while the humans do the actual killing.
Edit: checked them out and you're right. Not sure they were used in single combat since they would be clearly lighter than a wolf (northern europe/russia/america).Irish wolfhounds were bred to be strong and fast, and, yes, are able to kill wolves in solitary combat. Packs of wolves require packs of dogs, but that's a given.

[Gwendol]

They are certainly fast but aren't really built for strength. My point is that I don't see how large dogs can have that much of an advantage over an equally sized (or even larger) cousin. They could have settled on giving the dog greater strength or better NA, but both?

[Rubik]

They are certainly fast but aren't really built for strength. My point is that I don't see how large dogs can have that much of an advantage over an equally sized (or even larger) cousin. They could have settled on giving the dog greater strength or better NA, but both?Irish wolfhounds are one of the largest (but not heaviest) breeds of dogs in the world, larger even than a great Dane. They may not be the heaviest, but they're extremely fast and agile, with enough power to get the job done. According to the Wikipedia article:

'The Irish wolfhound was bred for long solitary hunts based solely off of the dog's ability to visualize its landscape and perceive, unlike scent hounds (such as Bloodhounds and Beagles) who rely on scent rather than sight. For this reason, the neck of an Irish wolfhound should be long with the head held high the majority of the time. The Irish wolfhound should also appear to be longer than it is tall. Once used to hunt wolves, an Irish wolfhound’s structure should appear as if it is “fast enough to catch a wolf, and strong enough to kill it."'

[Broken Crown]

They are certainly fast but aren't really built for strength. My point is that I don't see how large dogs can have that much of an advantage over an equally sized (or even larger) cousin.

Barring outliers, an Irish Wolfhound (minimum male adult weight, as per the American Kennel Club: 55 kg) is considerably taller and heavier than a grey wolf (average male: 44 kg). Have you met an Irish Wolfhound up close? They're fairly enormous.

[Chronos]

Any creature with an Int of 3 or greater can gain class levels. An advancement entry of "by class level" means that the creature routinely advances in that way. Any creature with an LA other than -- can be a PC. This set is smaller than the set of creatures that can take class levels, because not all characters are PCs. It's perfectly legal, for instance, for an NPC dragon to have sorcerer levels.

On the topic of endurance, dogs are very good endurance runners, but humans are better. We're still not the best endurance runners in the animal kingdom, since pronghorns kick our butts, but we're definitely well above most animals.

And on the topic of intelligence, no non-human ape has ever actually demonstrated the ability to communicate in sign language without the help of a human "interpreter". This raises the question of just how much of the thinking is being done by the ape, and how much by the human.

[Rubik]

And on the topic of intelligence, no non-human ape has ever actually demonstrated the ability to communicate in sign language without the help of a human "interpreter". This raises the question of just how much of the thinking is being done by the ape, and how much by the human.That's...extremely odd, since sign language-speaking apes are frequently captured on video. One would think that, by now, someone who speaks sign language would've stepped forward to debunk the idea.

I don't speak it myself, so I can't say one way or the other, but I'd think that if it were a hoax, nobody would allow such an ape to be videotaped, due to how ridiculously easy the hoax would be to debunk.

If it's not, it seems natural that they'd use an interpreter, since sign language is a language that most people can't speak.

[Endarire]

But if you can speak sign language, how does it sound?

[Rubik]

But if you can speak sign language, how does it sound?It sounds like "cl," since that's the sound of one hand clapping.

[Zrak]

All words sound like different tones of "logocentrism." :smalltongue:

Anyway, yeah, ape sign language is pretty well documented. The extent to which they understand it, rather than just produce conditioned responses, is debated, I think most of that is a mix of bad faith resistance to the idea and/or academic inertia. While not every "suggestive anecdote" has been rigorously documented, enough have been documented well enough to strongly indicate that ape language does represent authentic, if basic, syntactical communication. That said, I think the lexigram board results are more convincing than the sign language results, since they are more grammatically demanding, insofar as the tests of which I'm aware are concerned.

[Judge_Worm]

I feel like an Int score of 3 or greater represents sapience, something no non-human animal has ever been able to consistently demonstrate. While a Cha score of at least 1 represents sentience, something all brain having animals have. Wis represents actual intelligence better. I'm inclined to agree with animals not having an Int above 2, because although they can be smarter and "know" more than a human child, they lack said child's inborn problem solving ability.

[Rubik]

I'm inclined to agree with animals not having an Int above 2, because although they can be smarter and "know" more than a human child, they lack said child's inborn problem solving ability.You may want to take a closer look at African grays, ravens, magpies, dolphins, and the great apes. Many (though not all) individuals among those species have shown definite problem solving skills, on par with young humans.

And several of them have shown remarkable behavior highly reminiscent of sapience.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Chronos
It damages the simulation, by making the game behave in a way that the real world doesn't, in one of the situations where one would expect them to behave the same.

I think this is the crux of where we differ--because my point is that in the "real world," animal cognition overlaps far more with our own than a lot of people want to give them credit for. The game per RAW isn't simulating animal behavior in the real world; it's simulating the cartoonish version the game designers have chosen to use.

"Quick and dirty patch job," in Coidzor's phrase, is about the size of it. I prefer something more nuanced.


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
So, to Palanan, whom I respect in many areas, I would suggest that what animals lack in Int they simply compensate for in their use of their Wis….

I appreciate the compliment, and right back atcha.

I would have to respectfully disagree on the substitution of Wis, though, since I think animals should be better represented within Int alone, in the sense that it's defined in the PHB as learning and reasoning. Entire multispecies mimic-model systems (including both Batesian and Müllerian mimicry) are ultimately predicated on the ability of young predators to learn and associate a terrible experience with a particular color pattern. In other words, monarch butterflies (to use a common example) have coevolved not only with predators, but with the learning ability of their predators. The traplining behavior of hummingbirds is another good example of learning and memory in vertebrates.

This is also a good time to point out an excellent paper by Christophe Boesch on tool use in the chimpanzees of Côte d'Ivoire, in which he documents (http://www.eva.mpg.de/primat/staff/boesch/pdf/anim_behav_teach_chimps.pdf) how chimpanzee mothers carefully teach their young not only how to use simple tools, but how best to use them, correcting mistakes in tool grip and positioning before they cause problems. Boesch has also documented (http://www.eva.mpg.de/primat/staff/boesch/pdf/prim_mental_map_chimps.pdf) the detailed mental maps chimpanzees use to navigate their territory, including keeping track of favorite tools over a period of years.

As for Wis, it's defined (loosely) as being perceptive and in tune with one's surroundings, which certainly applies very well to animals; and there is certainly a case that the intuitive aspect of Wis could be used as a stand-in for some aspects of cognition. But to me, this still doesn't give full credit to the planning and analytical abilities that some animals clearly demonstrate. (The delegation of individual tasks during a chimpanzee hunt is another example that comes to mind.)


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
The problem is broadly that Wis and Int are abstractions given broad definitions with no concrete irl meaning, and then attached to a mechanical device that has what are largely explicitly enumerated uses.

This I agree with entirely.


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
That said, homebrew away if you want to make the ability scores system more coherent….

Since you mentioned homebrew, you might take a look at the cuttlefish (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?301826-The-Cuttlefish-3-5-Creature-WIP-PEACH) I did a while ago, inspired by a fascinating documentary on NOVA. You'll see the direction I was thinking, although I haven't worked up anything overarching since then.




Originally Posted by Hand_of_Vecna
Let me know if this and the previous quotes didn't answer your query.

Thanks--both you and Karnith quoted the RAW you were referencing, so that was a double dose of helpful.


Originally Posted by Killer Angel
That's one of the most clear examples of "RAW have nothing to do with common sense"

Thank you, yes.

I disagree with the RAW assumption that a person whose intelligence is barely above an animal's (as narrowly defined by RAW) is somehow fully literate.

It's the designers' artificial distinction, and they're not consistent about it. If someone's intelligence is just the other side of "animal," as the game defines it--unable to consider moral issues or reason in any way--then that person will not be able to read or write, much less operate with the same fluency as someone who's highly educated.


Originally Posted by Broken Crown
…there are countless references throughout history to pack animals dropping dead in huge numbers during forced marches.

Forced marches, while carrying huge loads. None of those pack animals evolved to carry more than their own body weight, so they were stressed past their limits from the outset.


Originally Posted by atemu1234
That was before we made [dogs] inbred weaklings.

I saw a woman with a dog in her purse last weekend. I live in an area where that's not common, and I don't think I'd ever seen it in person before.

It was so utterly, painfully wrong. Somewhere, an ancestral spirit-wolf howled in lament.

[Judge_Worm]

Delete this post.

[Rubik]

I'll wait until they discover stoneworking, math, or abstract concepts. And birds are cheaters, they've better built brains. As far as sapience goes, only machines have prooven to have true sapience outside of humans, and they aren't sentient(yet). Besides let's not compare a 5 year old human with a 15 year old orangutan, compare them with the same level of maturity. It's no contest.
That being said, humans might not be truly sapient either...
Which is absolutely horrifying if you compare the behavior of humans and lesser primates.

And I dislike dolphins as a species.What do any of those have to do with anything in this discussion, aside from showcasing an intense disregard and dislike of non-human animals?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Judge_Worm
I'll wait until they discover stoneworking, math, or abstract concepts.

You should read the Boesch papers I linked above. Here's a quote from the abstract on mental maps:


The chimpanzees seem to possess an Euclidian space, which allows them to somehow measure and remember distances; to compare several such distances so as to choose the stone with the shortest distance to a goal tree; to correctly locate a new stone location with reference to different trees; and to change their reference point so as to measure the distance to each [nut] tree from any stone location.

This is for stone tools they use to crack heavy nuts in the forest; they remember the positions of the stones for years at a time. Not too bad, considering I can't even remember where I left my hat from yesterday.

[Phelix-Mu]

You should read the Boesch papers I linked above. Here's a quote from the abstract on mental maps:


The chimpanzees seem to possess an Euclidian space, which allows them to somehow measure and remember distances; to compare several such distances so as to choose the stone with the shortest distance to a goal tree; to correctly locate a new stone location with reference to different trees; and to change their reference point so as to measure the distance to each [nut] tree from any stone location.

This is for stone tools they use to crack heavy nuts in the forest; they remember the positions of the stones for years at a time. Not too bad, considering I can't even remember where I left my hat from yesterday.

I love learning about stuff like this while otherwise burning time reading internet forums.

So here is my new analysis:

- Mindless isn't mindless: Int-- have a whole spectrum of abilities, from zombies that can't act except on a command (but they do remember a command...), to giant ants, that act like ants, which totally aren't "mindless." Rather the opposite, actually.

- Animals have a range of Intelligence away from Int 2. Aside from just changing their Int score (which causes some problems with the way types are organized), I'd probably just create an Animal Intelligence trait for the animal type, and give each species a variable +1 to +5 bonus to Int checks related to behaviors that their species are known for. This achieves two things:

1.) Avoids throwing the whole Handle Animal thing into question. Animals are smart at what they are smart at; other behaviors need to be learned. Now, that being said, some animals should be much, much easier to train, to the extent of being able to learn on their own with reasonable speed and acuity. This should be part of that species' Animal Intelligence trait.

2.) Avoids distorting the already tortured distribution curve for Intelligence, which is already artificially propped up and which is rather devoid of examples below 2, from what I recall.

In short, animals are smart, but I think we can represent that in a way that doesn't necessitate altering their ability scores. This is basically personal preference, as I'd like to avoid having it possible that a character in a game is stupider than an ape, even if that is entirely plausible, because that is one step from "I want to play an ape!" And that's a headache I don't need.

[Chronos]

To be more clear about what I said about ape signs: They're definitely communicating. They're making signs, and the signs have meaning, and the meaning is relevant to what they're trying to communicate. But the actual signs they're making tend to be a jumbled word salad, and are only arranged into something coherent by their "interpreters".

And animals of many species can certainly make and use tools, and break down problems into smaller sub-problems, and recognize patterns, and so on. But that isn't evidence in an overlap between the range of animal intelligence and human intelligence, because all humans can do those things, too. If a human (for instance) cut a string that was holding a box closed, to get a key out of the box, to open a door, we wouldn't proclaim that human to be a genius on that basis, but when a parrot or a crow does it, we do.

[Necroticplague]

In short, animals are smart, but I think we can represent that in a way that doesn't necessitate altering their ability scores. This is basically personal preference, as I'd like to avoid having it possible that a character in a game is stupider than an ape, even if that is entirely plausible, because that is one step from "I want to play an ape!" And that's a headache I don't need.

Technically, using templates, its already entirely possible to have this occur. Not all templates that reduce int have the "Minimum 3" clause. Off the top of my head, Mineral Warrior has minimum 2 int, so a fairly dim Mineral Warrior could be INT 2.

Actually, I've personally played that. Died after getting hit by Ray of Stupidity.

[Wardog]

Regardless of if/how much animal intelligence overlaps with human intelligence in the real world...

It definitelly does, often to a very large degree, in a lot of fantasy literature, and even more so in traditonal folklore, mythology, etc.



Also, while this might not be RAW, I expect the best way to deal with the "re-roll stats that are lower than x / all characters are literate in language they can speak" issues / unrealisticness would be to assume it only applies to player characters. The world might contain plenty of people with 3 int (1 in 216, if using a 3d6 bell curve), and illiterate peasants (regardless of int) - they just don't become PCs.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
…I'd probably just create an Animal Intelligence trait for the animal type, and give each species a variable +1 to +5 bonus to Int checks related to behaviors that their species are known for.

Very interesting, not an approach I'd thought of. How exactly would this trait work? What would be the basis for determining which numerical bonus to receive? And which behaviors would qualify for the bonus?


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
Now, that being said, some animals should be much, much easier to train, to the extent of being able to learn on their own with reasonable speed and acuity.

I hadn't been looking at it from the training angle. Keep in mind that some of this would depend on an animal species' innate cognitive ability, but the length of association with human cultures should also be taken into account. This becomes a characteristic not just of the species being trained, but of the human culture doing the training. Species which have been affiliated longer with human cultures are, to a degree, coevolved to facilitate training--and the culture in turn develops a vocabulary and traditions, and even specialized subcultures, to perpetuate the relationship.


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
In short, animals are smart, but I think we can represent that in a way that doesn't necessitate altering their ability scores. This is basically personal preference, as I'd like to avoid having it possible that a character in a game is stupider than an ape, even if that is entirely plausible….

Very much personal preference, although I see where you're coming from.

I would be less worried about that myself…maybe because, as was pointed out earlier, point-buy starts at 8 and most players wouldn't want any ability score lower than that. I'm sure there could be exceptions for a very fringe sort of roleplaying, but my sense is that would be incredibly rare.


Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu
…from zombies that can't act except on a command (but they do remember a command...)

I tend to think of zombies as undead tape recorders.

:smalltongue:

[Phelix-Mu]

Very interesting, not an approach I'd thought of. How exactly would this trait work? What would be the basis for determining which numerical bonus to receive? And which behaviors would qualify for the bonus?

So, here's a brief example, with me totally eyeballing the stuff without much research. The trait would be a trait of animals, and basically imply a species-specific level of intelligence that transcends Int 2 without necessarily implying literacy, language, or a change of creature type (from Animal to Magical Beast). The mechanic is a bonus to Int-checks that is species-specific, with the intent of cancelling out all or some of the penalty for an Intelligence below 10.

+1: Salamander.
+2: Lizard.
+3: Snake/less-intelligent birds.
+4: Dog/more-intelligent birds.
+5: Ape.

What behavior is appropriate for a species is basically a DM call, and probably can't avoid some controversy (due to the very complicated real-world field which this draws on for understanding).


I would be less worried about that myself…maybe because, as was pointed out earlier, point-buy starts at 8 and most players wouldn't want any ability score lower than that. I'm sure there could be exceptions for a very fringe sort of roleplaying, but my sense is that would be incredibly rare.

But if, let's say apes can scrape by at a 6, that's not terribly stupider than some of the monsters that are playable. And I'd like to avoid having to justify why animals can't take the standard array plus racial adjustments, why they can't roll dice for stats and use the normal formulas for racial adjustments, and so forth. There are plenty of people that want to play an animal already, but generally need something more than just an animal to make it playable. Improved Int may seem to change this, but all-around, animals would still be a pretty weak choice.

[Gwendol]

Barring outliers, an Irish Wolfhound (minimum male adult weight, as per the American Kennel Club: 55 kg) is considerably taller and heavier than a grey wolf (average male: 44 kg). Have you met an Irish Wolfhound up close? They're fairly enormous.

Many times. They are very tall, but not heavy for their size.
As I stated earlier in this thread, wolf sizes vary a lot across the world. I have no doubt the average may lie around 50 kg, but that says nothing about the average weight of a specific population. The northern wolf is significantly larger and heavier with males weighing in at around 80 kg. Maybe the Irish wolf was of a smaller variety?

[Heliomance]

I'll wait until they discover stoneworking, math, or abstract concepts. And birds are cheaters, they've better built brains. As far as sapience goes, only machines have prooven to have true sapience outside of humans, and they aren't sentient(yet). Besides let's not compare a 5 year old human with a 15 year old orangutan, compare them with the same level of maturity. It's no contest.
That being said, humans might not be truly sapient either...
Which is absolutely horrifying if you compare the behavior of humans and lesser primates.

And I dislike dolphins as a species.

Uh... what? No, we haven't come up with any sapient OR sentient machines. And you do realise that sapience is a higher bar to clear than sentience, right?

Also, how is having a better built brain cheating?

[Broken Crown]

Many times. They are very tall, but not heavy for their size.
As I stated earlier in this thread, wolf sizes vary a lot across the world. I have no doubt the average may lie around 50 kg, but that says nothing about the average weight of a specific population. The northern wolf is significantly larger and heavier with males weighing in at around 80 kg. Maybe the Irish wolf was of a smaller variety?

As far as I can tell, 80 kg is not the average weight for any population of wolves, it's the record. The heaviest North American wolf recorded was 79 kg, while the heaviest wolf ever documented (in Ukraine) was 86 kg. The Canadian/Alaskan and North European grey wolf populations have the largest average size, and they both average under 40 kg, with males being a bit larger than females. Other populations are, as you said, much smaller, with Arabian wolves averaging around 25 kg.

[Rubik]

As far as I can tell, 80 kg is not the average weight for any population of wolves, it's the record. The heaviest North American wolf recorded was 79 kg, while the heaviest wolf ever documented (in Ukraine) was 86 kg.They were probably werewolves.

[prufock]

Why does a D&D animal need higher than 2 intelligence? In D&D, Intelligence reflects your skills, languages, spells, and some class features. I'm hard pressed to think of a lot of 3.5 RAW skills needed to properly model animals - one skill point per hit die is probably enough, and they have racial bonuses for skills they use most often. They don't speak a language, at least not in the "creative syntax" sense. They don't have spells and don't take class levels. What purpose would it serve changing their Int score from 1 to 3 or 2 to 8?