Animal Companion Leveling

Sekhmet said:

In the 3.5 ELH update(which makes it a valid 3.5e book), the use of Handle Animal was not addressed - which means that it was carried over into 3.5e as written.

Click to expand...

Bah. "The purpose of this booklet is not to provide a comprehensive list of everything that has changed with the 3.5 revision. The changes are too large in number and varied in scope to be able to provide an all-inclusive inventory."

Sekmet said:

However, you're suggesting that any animal raised above 2 intelligence in any even semipermanent fashion would be unable to learn a new trick (rather than having it's available tricks known increased by three, as the formula given provides for).

Click to expand...

I'm saying that a creature with Intelligence above 2 doesn't need to learn "tricks," because it can actually think and reason (if only poorly). The terminology simply doesn't apply to them; it's like asking "what does the color blue sound like?"

Your Intelligence is above 2; how many "tricks" do you know (or could I teach you)? Can I make you perform them by whistling, snapping my fingers, or giving you verbal commands ("Sit! Beg! Roll over! Good boy!")? No, because you're smarter than that. If I want you to do something, I have to "use my words" and persuade you to do it. (Remember, any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language.)

Actually, positive reinforcement works perfectly well on humans (average intelligence 10). You can train people the same way that you train animals - treats are for good behaviour.
Over the course of several weeks, modification of their behaviour is evident.
Everything from teaching them to fetch your slippers when you shiver and rub your feet together to speaking in a lower register at all times.

Pavlovian behavioural modification works on just about everything with a brain and pleasure centers.

Sekhmet said:

Actually, positive reinforcement works perfectly well on humans (average intelligence 10). You can train people the same way that you train animals - treats are for good behaviour.

Click to expand...

Then I'll ask it again: how many "tricks" could I teach you?

Vegepygmy said:

Then I'll ask it again: how many "tricks" could I teach you?

Click to expand...

Not all magical beasts are capable of understanding all languages even if they have a score of 3. And not all magical beasts have an intelligence score of 3 or higher either. (Such as the basilisk for example. Which also has no language even in it's abyssal form).

So there would have to be some other form of communication. This would be done in a series of oriented commands known as 'tricks'.

It's also been noted in several books (especially for rearing) that Handle Animal is not just for the 'animal' base. If you are trying to raise or rear a dragon for instance, Handle Animal is required despite their intelligence, which is clearly noted in the Draconomicon. Now if one of the smartest creatures in the game is affected by the Handle Animal skill in some fashion, lower ones especially would fall under this category.

All 3.5 material.

Vegepygmy said:

Then I'll ask it again: how many "tricks" could I teach you?

Click to expand...

I'm sure my old Drill Sergeant would say "not too damn many."

Talonblaze said:

Not all magical beasts are capable of understanding all languages even if they have a score of 3.

Click to expand...

The ability to understand all languages is irrelevant. I have no idea why you're even bringing it up.

Talonblaze said:

And not all magical beasts have an intelligence score of 3 or higher either. (Such as the basilisk for example. Which also has no language even in it's abyssal form).

Click to expand...

I hope I've made it clear that such magical beasts would be valid subjects for the Handle Animal skill. You know, non-animals with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 and all that...?

Talonblaze said:

So there would have to be some other form of communication. This would be done in a series of oriented commands known as 'tricks'.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the Handle Animal skill a "form of communication." I imagine it working just like me training my dog (in real life) to come when I call his name, or whistle in a certain way, etc. If you think me whistling and my dog coming to me is us "communicating," okay. Maybe it is. But what's your point?

Talonblaze said:

It's also been noted in several books (especially for rearing) that Handle Animal is not just for the 'animal' base. If you are trying to raise or rear a dragon for instance, Handle Animal is required despite their intelligence, which is clearly noted in the Draconomicon. Now if one of the smartest creatures in the game is affected by the Handle Animal skill in some fashion, lower ones especially would fall under this category.

All 3.5 material.

Click to expand...

The Draconomicon helps prove my case, actually.

Note that before any kind of Handle Animal check can be made, you must first succeed on a Diplomacy check. That alone makes it clear that what is happening is something different than simply training some poor, dumb beast to do what you want. There is (as I alluded to above) some kind of persuasion that has to occur; the dragon has to agree to be trained.

More importantly, the fact that the Draconomicon says the Handle Animal skill should be used even though dragons are intelligent actually acknowledges that you don't normally use Handle Animal that way; it's a specific exception to a general rule.

Vegepygmy said:

The ability to understand all languages is irrelevant. I have no idea why you're even bringing it up.

Click to expand...

Because if there is no common language how can even a smart creature understand? If an Orc in their language told a Commoner to move, do you think they would understand? They would have to most likely use force or body gestures until they understand what it means. Similar is same for animals. The difference is how fast or capable of picking these things up is.

Vegepygmy said:

I hope I've made it clear that such magical beasts would be valid subjects for the Handle Animal skill. You know, non-animals with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 and all that...?

Click to expand...

Just wanted to make it clear that not all magical beasts are intelligent as people think.

Vegepygmy said:

I wouldn't call the Handle Animal skill a "form of communication." I imagine it working just like me training my dog (in real life) to come when I call his name, or whistle in a certain way, etc. If you think me whistling and my dog coming to me is us "communicating," okay. Maybe it is. But what's your point?

Click to expand...

That is exactly my point, as noted above. Despite there being no relevant language between you two, the dog has come to associate what commands are related to what tasks. Body language is a form of communication after all.

Vegepygmy said:

The Draconomicon helps prove my case, actually.

Note that before any kind of Handle Animal check can be made, you must first succeed on a Diplomacy check. That alone makes it clear that what is happening is something different than simply training some poor, dumb beast to do what you want. There is (as I alluded to above) some kind of persuasion that has to occur; the dragon has to agree to be trained.

More importantly, the fact that the Draconomicon says the Handle Animal skill should be used even though dragons are intelligent actually acknowledges that you don't normally use Handle Animal that way; it's a specific exception to a general rule.

Click to expand...

Such would be true if it was the only creature to do so. The Diplomacy is merely to stop the creature from being hostile to you. The Pegasus is another fine example, since it can't even speak back even with understanding. But still requires Handle Animal for training and all that jazz and specifically notes that Diplomacy is only to affect their attitude towards you. But other than that has no bearing on the training process.

If a dog didn't want to be trained (such as negative reinforcement) it will express that and be hostile more likely than not, versus the dog agreeing to such usually with obeying the commands. The difference is as a base animal, the secondary influence is negated with a single Handle Animal check. The actual process isn't different besides that one extra check.

Talonblaze said:

Vegepygmy said:

The ability to understand all languages is irrelevant. I have no idea why you're even bringing it up.

Click to expand...

Because if there is no common language how can even a smart creature understand?

Click to expand...

Not being able to understand all languages is not the same as being unable to understand any language. All creatures with an Intelligence of 3 or greater understand at least one language (usually Common). Monster Manual, page 7. But yeah, if you want to communicate with a creature that understands only Elven (for example), you may have to learn Elven. What's that got to do with anything?

Talonblaze said:

That is exactly my point, as noted above. Despite there being no relevant language between you two, the dog has come to associate what commands are related to what tasks. Body language is a form of communication after all.

Click to expand...

Right. And the Handle Animal skill allows one to train an animal to "communicate" (or at least receive communications) in such crude ways.

Have you understood something I've said as requiring a "relevant language" to be shared by both an animal and its trainer? If so, you've completely misunderstood me.

Talonblaze said:

Such would be true if it was the only creature to do so. The Diplomacy is merely to stop the creature from being hostile to you.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. All mounts with an Intelligence score of 5 or greater must be negotiated with (using Diplomacy) to determine what the mount will and will not do. Dungeon Master's Guide, page 205: "Once the character and mount reach an agreement, they still must train together."*

Talonblaze said:

The Pegasus is another fine example, since it can't even speak back even with understanding. But still requires Handle Animal for training and all that jazz and specifically notes that Diplomacy is only to affect their attitude towards you.

Click to expand...

It specifically notes no such thing. What the Monster Manual says is: "To be trained, a pegasus must have a friendly attitude toward the trainer (this can be achieved through a successful Diplomacy check)." Nowhere does it say that the required Diplomacy check is only to affect the pegasus's attitude; it simply says that a pegasus won't agree to be trained at all if it doesn't like you.

Talonblaze said:

If a dog didn't want to be trained (such as negative reinforcement)...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand what "negative reinforcement" actually is.

Talonblaze said:

...it will express that and be hostile more likely than not, versus the dog agreeing to such usually with obeying the commands.

Click to expand...

No dog wants to be trained; they're too stupid to understand the concept. That's why you have to train them; because you can't persuade them to do what you want.

* It is worth mentioning, however, that this rule could be interpreted to support Sekhmet's position that such a creature can be "war-trained." Of course, that still wouldn't make the creature proficient in any kind of armor, since only animals gain armor proficiencies by virtue of being "trained for war," and any animal whose Intelligence increases above 2 is no longer an animal, but a magical beast.

Vegepygmy said:

Not being able to understand all languages is not the same as being unable to understand any language. All creatures with an Intelligence of 3 or greater understand at least one language (usually Common). Monster Manual, page 7. But yeah, if you want to communicate with a creature that understands only Elven (for example), you may have to learn Elven. What's that got to do with anything?

Click to expand...

Mostly the problem of conveying what is required of the task. Granted the MM assumes its Common as the default with an Int score of 3 or more (which can be helpful or hindering depending on the race). But let's say in the event you don't have 'Elven' in this instance. How are you, going to convince a beast that only knows such to do as you command? Be it in a peaceful manner or not. Diplomacy is almost useless without shared languages.

Vegepygmy said:

Right. And the Handle Animal skill allows one to train an animal to "communicate" (or at least receive communications) in such crude ways.

Have you understood something I've said as requiring a "relevant language" to be shared by both an animal and its trainer? If so, you've completely misunderstood me.

Click to expand...

Ah but magical beasts, dragons and other forms of creatures aren't animals. (By most's definition in terms of creature type), why would one require a Handle Animal to train with them? Why not just use Diplomacy or other social skill to interact with them since they are regarded as a higher form? Just because it all of a sudden CAN speak a language what does that change exactly? A parrot can speak, but its Int remains at 2.

Vegepygmy said:

That is incorrect. All mounts with an Intelligence score of 5 or greater must be negotiated with (using Diplomacy) to determine what the mount will and will not do. Dungeon Master's Guide, page 205: "Once the character and mount reach an agreement, they still must train together."*

Click to expand...

Now I wonder why it notes Int 5 or more instead of 3 or more, since apparently that is the mental capacity to speak or understand a language is it not? Isn't an Int of 3 just as capable? Why would they rule out such capabilities? An Int of 3 should be enough for an animal to understand and agree to what its being asked to do, no?

Vegepygmy said:

It specifically notes no such thing. What the Monster Manual says is: "To be trained, a pegasus must have a friendly attitude toward the trainer (this can be achieved through a successful Diplomacy check)." Nowhere does it say that the required Diplomacy check is only to affect the pegasus's attitude; it simply says that a pegasus won't agree to be trained at all if it doesn't like you.

Click to expand...

That's exactly all Diplomacy does, especially in that RAW situation for the Pegasus. The Diplomacy is to make it friendly, rather than indifferent or hostile. Otherwise training it is pointless. The same is for any hostile creature. It has to be friendly before it can train, regardless of how its done.

Vegepygmy said:

No dog wants to be trained; they're too stupid to understand the concept. That's why you have to train them; because you can't persuade them to do what you want.

* It is worth mentioning, however, that this rule could be interpreted to support Sekhmet's position that such a creature can be "war-trained." Of course, that still wouldn't make the creature proficient in any kind of armor, since only animals gain armor proficiencies by virtue of being "trained for war," and any animal whose Intelligence increases above 2 is no longer an animal, but a magical beast.

Click to expand...

You just have to persuade them in a different manner. Not necessarily the same traditional vocal methods.

As interesting as it is, the MM says magical beasts are 'like' animals but 'can' have an intelligence higher than 2. However, an animal that has an Int of 3 doesn't just suddenly get improved attack, better hit die, abilities and whatnot out of its yahoo for something a parrot can do.

Albiet, the Int score would put them over the known standard limit of 'tricks' I don't necessarily think that all of a sudden puts them out of Animal Companion range due to such. Otherwise every enemy wizard would 'curse' a Druid's companion with intelligence so they lose all their special buffs they no longer qualify for.

Talonblaze said:

Mostly the problem of conveying what is required of the task. Granted the MM assumes its Common as the default with an Int score of 3 or more (which can be helpful or hindering depending on the race). But let's say in the event you don't have 'Elven' in this instance. How are you, going to convince a beast that only knows such to do as you command?

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. That's the question in every "role-play encounter." How are you going to persuade the other person to do what you want them to do? And yes, the difficulty of that task increases if there are barriers to communication.

This has nothing to do with training dumb animals; you're just talking about interacting with "people" (which, in a fantasy world, may include all kinds of "people" it normally wouldn't, like dragons and pegasi).

Talonblaze said:

Ah but magical beasts, dragons and other forms of creatures aren't animals. (By most's definition in terms of creature type), why would one require a Handle Animal to train with them? Why not just use Diplomacy or other social skill to interact with them since they are regarded as a higher form? Just because it all of a sudden CAN speak a language what does that change exactly? A parrot can speak, but its Int remains at 2.

Click to expand...

I'll admit it: I'm completely lost. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, or what question you're really asking me. Parrots (in real life) don't actually speak; they just mimic sounds. If there are stats for parrots in D&D somewhere, point me to them and maybe I'll learn something.

Talonblaze said:

Now I wonder why it notes Int 5 or more instead of 3 or more, since apparently that is the mental capacity to speak or understand a language is it not? Isn't an Int of 3 just as capable? Why would they rule out such capabilities? An Int of 3 should be enough for an animal to understand and agree to what its being asked to do, no?

Click to expand...

Those are all good questions, and I have no idea what the DMG authors were thinking, so I can't answer them.

Talonblaze said:

However, an animal that has an Int of 3 doesn't just suddenly get improved attack, better hit die, abilities and whatnot out of its yahoo for something a parrot can do.

Click to expand...

Its type, however, does change to magical beast.