Speak With Animals

[firelistener]

The Speak With Animals spell reads as such from the Player's Handbook:

You gain the ability to comprehend and verbally communicate with beasts for the duration. The knowledge and awareness of many beasts is limited by their intelligence, but at minimum, beasts can give you information about nearby locations and monsters, including whatever they can perceive or have perceived within the past day. You might be able to persuade a beast to perform a small favor for you, at the DM's discretion.
but how do you play it? Or how have you seen it played out by other DMs?

Earlier tonight, I had a ranger use it to try communicating with a giant elk, and I told the ranger that the giant elk would nod and that impressions of places and creatures appeared in their mind as indications of things the elk had seen and was trying to show them in response to their own words. It got me wondering what the intent of the "verbally communicate" part is though. Should a DM just role play the animals speaking back in normal words? Or is it supposed to be something more similar to what I did?

[Teaguethebean]

In everything I have ever seen about this spell from dnd podcasts to home games the spell has always had the animals just speak normally like any other human.

[Zhorn]

I've DM'd it as a different type of challenge to the players.

First: The spell does not confer any higher understanding of the world to the animals you are communicating with. Their understanding of things is limited to how they interact with and perceive the world.

Second: The spell does no alter the disposition of the animals or the perceptions they would have of the speaker from what they would normally.

The challenge for players is to try to communicate with the animal on terms that the animal is going to understand.
A predator is going to see you as food if it is hungry.
A deer is not going to trust any promise that you mean it no harm.
Animals that don't communicate through vocalisation are going to be confused that they are able to comprehend what you are saying.

[viaFAMILIAR]

Whether the beast assumes some hip attitude or not, the gist is communicated nonetheless.

[hymer]

"verbally communicate"

"Verbally" comes from the Latin "verbum", shich means "word". Thirty years ago this was pretty clearly the meaning still, but these days it is swinging to mean "oral" - with the mouth, i.e. spoken. Which is pretty annoying, but I digress...

So the intention is pretty clear that the communication is to be in words, and probably spoken words. But I don't think you did anything wrong. Your version explains why others can't hear/understand the animal.

[NNescio]

It basically turns you into Doctor Dolittle. (but only for that specific animal[s])

[Zhorn]

It basically turns you into Doctor Dolittle. (but only for that specific animal[s])

Speak with Animals is actually a cast-on-self spell. While under its effects, you can Doctor Dolittle all creatures with the beast subtype.

[NNescio]

Speak with Animals is actually a cast-on-self spell. While under its effects, you can Doctor Dolittle all creatures with the beast subtype.

Oops, derped and read some other text.

[Zhorn]

Whether the beast assumes some hip attitude or not, the gist is communicated nonetheless.
I'll assume this was directed at my post.

The challenge I mean is getting the animal to engage in the communication instead of running away, attacking, or freaking out at the experience.
It's a bit of a role reversal, but the concept is the same

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAMoTlcf2wI
And if you do get them to engage in a dialogue, you them need to think in terms of what it would understand. Example, asking a dog if they've seen an gnome with a red hat in the area is just going to confuse them if they have no concept of red as a colour.
http://cdn.akc.org/Dog_Vision_Spectrum_1.png

[hymer]

@ Zhorn: Just be wary of penalizing the player for allocating a resource to interacting with the game world.

[Zhorn]

@ Zhorn: Just be wary of penalizing the player for allocating a resource to interacting with the game world.

I understand your concern, but you might be making an false assumption on what I'm doing.

I'm not shutting the player down with "This spell just doesn't work. Goodbye spell slot, have a nice day!", I'm ruling it as a different form of encounter. Just like with talking to NPC's in town, not every single character gives the players everything they want for just showing up and asking for assistance. Same with combat. Rocking up to the BBEG and just saying "I roll to intimidate. Nat 20! Fight over, hand over the loot" is not an engaging encounter.

The player casts Speak with Animals. Cool, they can now speak with animals. They have the toolset to START a social encounter, not automatically win an encounter for casting a 1st level spell.
I also award XP for encounters. If there's no risk of failure or challenge to overcome, then there's no point in awarding XP for it.

[Tanarii]

The player casts Speak with Animals. Cool, they can now speak with animals. They have the toolset to START a social encounter, not automatically win an encounter for casting a 1st level spell.
I also award XP for encounters. If there's no risk of failure or challenge to overcome, then there's no point in awarding XP for it.

There was a risk of failure and a challenge to overcome it. If they had not had speak with animals, they would have failed. If they had chosen not to cast it, or not had the time to use as a ritual, they would have failed. They spent a resource to overcome the challenge. That's fair as a Medium (low level) challenge XP reward.

Not saying that you can't also have them have to utilize it right. Just that expending resources to overcome is the measure of encounter Difficulty. And this qualifies.

[Tawmis]

The Speak With Animals spell reads as such from the Player's Handbook:

but how do you play it? Or how have you seen it played out by other DMs?

Earlier tonight, I had a ranger use it to try communicating with a giant elk, and I told the ranger that the giant elk would nod and that impressions of places and creatures appeared in their mind as indications of things the elk had seen and was trying to show them in response to their own words. It got me wondering what the intent of the "verbally communicate" part is though. Should a DM just role play the animals speaking back in normal words? Or is it supposed to be something more similar to what I did?

So when I've DM'ed this - if it's something that has animal intelligence I break everything into "single words."

For example, in the case of a player using "Speak with Animals" on a Elk, I might do something like...

"Trolls. North. Cave."

I think that gives enough information without the animal suddenly speaking perfect Common. Because to me the person casting isn't granting the animal intelligence; it's basically getting basic thoughts from the animal (and what it's seen or felt).

So if there was, for example a dragon in the woods, I might do:

"Ancient. Evil. North."

Because the Elk (in my mind) wouldn't have a word for Dragon (but it might, and that'd be up to you - I wouldn't as a DM, to spice up the mystery!) - it would just sense it's ancient, that it's evil, and the direction it was sensed. The Elk also wouldn't know directional words (like North, South, East, West) but I've yet to figure out a better way to describe how an animal might say where it sensed/saw something, unless there are landmarks it could use.

So it might say, "Ancient. Evil. Tall Tree."

And if the players climb to the top of the trees, they might see an "Elder Tree" that sticks out above the rest and assume that's the "Tall Tree."

[Zhorn]

There was a risk of failure and a challenge to overcome it. If they had not had speak with animals, they would have failed. If they had chosen not to cast it, or not had the time to use as a ritual, they would have failed.

Difference of perspective.
If that was the encounter I had set up, then I'd agree.
This is not an encounter I would plan. Too specific win condition. It's incredibly unfair of me to assume the players will ask that one owl the exact question they need answered to track down Slippery Bob before he makes it back to the Cult of the Reptile God.

For my games; talking to an animal is a player deciding to initiate a random encounter. And me trying to work out how to roleplay a hummingbird or a squirrel on the spot is going to feel pretty random :smalltongue:
Speak with Animals I treat as a tool the players have access to (like a language), not a requirement that they whip out to fulfil a "push button, receive bacon" event sequence.
Just like having the ability to speak goblin doesn't mean all encounters with goblinoids automatically become peaceful chats with all information being honest and forthright.

[Tanarii]

Ah. Well I'm generally a fan of the theoretical idea that random encounters probably shouldn't provide any XP, despite the fact I don't actually do that. So I get what you mean.

(I'm talking about randomly generated encounters specifically. But the idea that non-required or intentionally option side-quest encounters might be considered differently for XP makes sense to me, is what I'm getting at.)

[hymer]

I understand your concern, but you might be making an false assumption on what I'm doing.
I think we are in agreement. I just wanted this to be part of the conversation. :smallsmile:

[viaFAMILIAR]

Speak with Animals I treat as a tool the players have access to (like a language), not a requirement that they whip out to fulfil a "push button, receive bacon" event sequence.
Just like having the ability to speak goblin doesn't mean all encounters with goblinoids automatically become peaceful chats with all information being honest and forthright.

I'd have to agree with this bit here. Speak with Animals doesn't grant an auto-success on an animal handling check, even less so does it act like the spell Animal Friendship. Think about how Comprehend Languages doesn't grant an auto-success on a pursuasion check, nor does it act like the spell Charm Person.

@Zhorn, that clip of the Doctor Dolittle freak out is hilarious. "Get away from me or I'll kill you!" sounds like a fair reaction. As for my first post, it was directed @OP. However the fluff is stuffed, you still get a teddy bear.

[Chronos]

On the one hand, yes, you still have to succeed at the social encounter.

On the other hand, animals are really easy to bribe, especially if they can understand you, and also especially if you have the magical ability (from Prestidigitation) to make something taste like something they really like. Like the time the bard was talking with a horse to find out where all the people in a recently-abandoned town went, and my warlock gathered up a bunch of grass and made it taste like dandelions.

[Bobthewizard]

Like with most spells, I try to let it work well enough that the player is happy they cast it but not so well that it ends the suspense.

For Speak with Animals, I think it's fun to role-play a conversation with the animal, having them speak in full sentences, with a basic, stereotypical personality (mostly, they want snacks) and a funny voice like Dug from Up. Then just play it like any other NPC, with persuasion or intimidation checks. I let animals be bribed easily by food.

But I usually make it so the animal doesn't understand everything that is going on. You can get basic information from them, but not complicated plot details. They would know that they saw the bad guy but couldn't guess where he went or which way he was going, and wouldn't be sure how long ago they saw him. Maybe describing the enemy doesn't work terribly well, since an owl wouldn't know what armor or cloaks are.

The goal is funny and memorable, but not frustrating. I've found that the more memorable you can make it, the less information you have to give the players.

[Quoxis]

The "divinity: original sin" games are a good inspiration: a character that can speak with animals can talk to and understand them as any normal NPC, others can't. The animal speaks according to its intelligence (short sentences, easy language mostly, but that can be inverted for comedic effect) and interests - a dog in the streets may tell you about a nasty guy that kicked him once just as likely as he could tell you where and when you can most easily steal food from the butcher, and only sometimes you can get them to tell you information you deem important, but they don't, like a rat in a (literal) dungeon telling you one of the guards has something on his belt that sounds like tiny bells (= the keyring) and describing to you which one it is, for example.
Giving animals personalities can be fun too - a GM of mine rp'd a draft horse as a total stereotypical stoner, complete with slow speech, excessive use of "duuuude" and absent-mindedly muttering where it could get the best grass.
The "other characters without the spell can't understand it" can either be played as you speaking common and the animal magically understanding you while you magically understand it, or you magically sounding like a moose/animal of choice on demand (which could technically be used in other situations to mimic animal sounds as distraction or whatever, maybe tell the players that won't work if they try, on the other hand it's not like i could imagine it to be op in any way).

[LtPowers]

Earlier tonight, I had a ranger use it to try communicating with a giant elk, and I told the ranger that the giant elk would nod and that impressions of places and creatures appeared in their mind as indications of things the elk had seen and was trying to show them in response to their own words. It got me wondering what the intent of the "verbally communicate" part is though. Should a DM just role play the animals speaking back in normal words? Or is it supposed to be something more similar to what I did?

This is an odd example to use, because Giant Elk have an INT of 7 and understand Common (and Elven and Sylvan) just fine, without speak with animals. They can only speak Giant Elk, though, so the Ranger would need comprehend languages, tongues, or speak with animals to understand any reply. But the Giant Elk has language and can communicate in words even if you're ignoring the "verbally" part of speak with animals. It would be able to describe complex concepts and understand complicated instructions, same as a slightly below-average Orc or an average 10-year-old human.


Powers &8^]

[Chronos]

Even aside from intelligence differences, though, animals might still have a very different view of the world than you'd expect from humans. An Int-7 elk, for instance, might view a tame dog as a potentially serious threat, because to the elk, there's no distinction between a dog and a wolf. It might know in great detail, greater than a non-ranger human would, about different kinds of trees (which ones have tasty bark, which ones are good for rubbing itchy antlers against, etc.), but not care at all about different sorts of mineral matter (none of which is edible, and none of which ever tries to eat venison). All humanoids probably look the same to it (the logical extension of "all of those people" to "all people"), but it could instantly tell different elk apart. It might recognize different sorts of weapons used by humans (at least, those typically used for hunting-- It might not recognize non-hunting weapons at all, or mistake a sword for a large knife), but it might not recognize armor, because even with an impressive pointy rack and strong hooves, an elk's plan A and plan B for combat are "hide" and "run".

[JackPhoenix]

Even aside from intelligence differences, though, animals might still have a very different view of the world than you'd expect from humans. An Int-7 elk, for instance, might view a tame dog as a potentially serious threat, because to the elk, there's no distinction between a dog and a wolf. It might know in great detail, greater than a non-ranger human would, about different kinds of trees (which ones have tasty bark, which ones are good for rubbing itchy antlers against, etc.), but not care at all about different sorts of mineral matter (none of which is edible, and none of which ever tries to eat venison). All humanoids probably look the same to it (the logical extension of "all of those people" to "all people"), but it could instantly tell different elk apart. It might recognize different sorts of weapons used by humans (at least, those typically used for hunting-- It might not recognize non-hunting weapons at all, or mistake a sword for a large knife), but it might not recognize armor, because even with an impressive pointy rack and strong hooves, an elk's plan A and plan B for combat are "hide" and "run".

Considering it can understand 4 languages, and it's got higher Int than your average ogre or a troll, I wouldn't exactly treat giant elk as "just animal". It's certainly a sapient being, despite its creature type and MM location.

[firelistener]

This is an odd example to use, because Giant Elk have an INT of 7 and understand Common (and Elven and Sylvan) just fine, without speak with animals. They can only speak Giant Elk, though, so the Ranger would need comprehend languages, tongues, or speak with animals to understand any reply. But the Giant Elk has language and can communicate in words even if you're ignoring the "verbally" part of speak with animals. It would be able to describe complex concepts and understand complicated instructions, same as a slightly below-average Orc or an average 10-year-old human.


Powers &8^]

Yeah, the giant elk intelligence and language understanding was what made me reevaluate how I was running Speak With Animals. If the player had not cast the spell at all, it probably would've played out the exact same way. I guess I just misunderstood the "verbally" part to mean only the caster can talk, rather than the animals can suddenly speak as well. I'll probably do the voices from now on.

[GlenSmash!]

The way I see it the spell takes how each animal would communicate like through sound, body language, and scent and translates it to speech in the mind of the Caster.

[Chronos]

Yes, a giant elk is certainly a sapient being, and will know as much overall as a low-int humanoid. But its priorities are different from a humanoid's, and so it'll know more about some things, and less about others.

[Maelynn]

I've DM'ed this with a player who has so far tried it on a donkey and a goat.

The donkey was a purchase to pull the cart, and he PC wanted to talk to it to make friends. I made a bit of a joke about using hey/hay the same way, and when he asked the donkey their name I acted like it had no idea what he meant. As in, a donkey wouldn't be aware of any naming conventions.

The goat was hired for a cart race, and the PC wanted to persuade it to run faster so he'd win. I told him the goat loved apples, which he then used to bribe the goat. Unfortunately, the goats involved in the race would already be fed apples afterwards - but the goat did take a liking to the PC and did her best.

I let the behaviour depend on the creature's intelligence and what I imagine the animal's perspective to be. For example, I doubt a dog knows what the term 'bandit' means, but might recognise a group of men all wearing the same colour bandana. When asked, a squirrel might think a wolf is the biggest threat in the area and not the skeleton army.

Oh, and if you just want to have some fun: this list (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/240611/100-Inane-Comments-and-Useless-Answers-from-Speaking-to-Animals) is entertaining.