Animal Intelegence

[D.Shaffer]

Animals don't have intelligence above 3. I'd say it's type changes (even if only temporarily) to magical beast for the duration of the IQ boost.

This always seemed an unneccesary qualification for me. Where do we place near human level intelligent animals, like Chimps and Dolphins?

 

[Klaus]

Int 2, along with dogs, cats and horses.

 

[Bront]

Int 2, along with dogs, cats and horses.

Even though many can understand a language?

 

[Sejs]

Except, by the rules, it does.

Yeah, I know. It's just one of those things that seems to fly in the face of all that makes sense, personally. I don't know. If I had to stretch it, maybe I'd venture to say they start to develop Sylvan or some other 'holy crap, I'm so naturey' language.

Just for my own reference, can you point me to where that particular ruling can be found? I know it says all characters speak Common (and their racial language, if demihuman), but I'm not seeing anything that says all creatures do. Many expressly do not. Help a cube out, Patryn.

What about if it's through a Headband of Intellect? Or just a bog-standard Fox's Cunning?

This sorta harkens back to the single-state change vs unchanged-with-augmentation argument. I have a longsword that I cast Greater Magic Weapon on. Is it then a magical longsword, or a mundane longsword with a spell effect on it?

Anyway, neither would necessarily change the creature's type as neither is a permanent, inherrent change to the creature. Awaken (and becoming a familiar) would seem to be a good guideline as for what changes type and what does not. Both effects are inherrent to the creature once performed, and both stipulate that the type change takes place. If a temporary effect such as a headband or a fox's cunning could change the creature's type, there could be issues arising. Off the top of my head - animals have 3/4ths BAB where as magical beasts have full BAB. If I toss a headband of intellect on my dog, does his BAB go up? His hit die type? Does he gain darkvision?

Even though many can understand a language?

To an extent. The watchword here is 'to an extent'. You can teach a dog to respond to a command word by training it, but the dog doesn't know what the word means, they just know that a particular sound you make is associated with you wanting them to do a particular action. The word itself is irrelevent - you could teach a dog to come when you said the word 'flypaper' and it'd work just as well as if you trained it to respond to 'c'mere boy'.

There are few animals that can actually communicate linguistically both ways - gorillas and sign language, for example, but those are by far the exception rather than the rule. Most animals don't have a proper language, but rather communicate sublinguistically via tone, inflection and body language, but without direct context to the sound itself.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Except, by the rules, it does.

Actually, it doesn't. Just like if a wizard puts on a headband of intellect, he doesn't gain knowledge of two additional languages. That rule from the Monster section does not override this one from the basics on abilities: "The number of languages your character knows at the start of the game." Now, "start of the game" is not clear, but let's assume it means "the creature was created." The stat boosting item was not in place when the creature was created (otherwise it would not be an animal), and thus the creature does not know a language (unless a rule like awaken specifically mentions it).

 

[lukelightning]

Personally I don't care for the "animal intelligence" rule, and have no problem with "high level" magpies with an Int of 5 or a particularly smart fox with an Int of 4 or whatever. They don't have the ability to speak or understand language per se, but can understand the gist of language like a special use of "sense motive."

Even though many can understand a language?

In the real world, no animal understands a language in the way we humans understand language; Dolphins and chimps do have very advanced communication, but it hasn't been conclusively shown that it is a true language. And all those chimps/gorillas that know sign language? Well it turns out that the researchers haven't allowed their data to be scrutinized by independant scientists, so it's all inconclusive.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Just for my own reference, can you point me to where that particular ruling can be found?

Sure.

Intelligence: A creature can speak all the languages mentioned in its description, plus one additional language per point of Intelligence bonus. Any creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher understands at least one language (Common, unless noted otherwise).

That rule from the Monster section does not override this one from the basics on abilities: "The number of languages your character knows at the start of the game."

Since we are not talking about "your character," the rule is inapplicable.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Since we are not talking about "your character," the rule is inapplicable.

So, an orc NPC can drink a potion of fox's cunning and learn 2 additional languages (temporarily), but a human PC cannot?

Just making sure that's what you're claiming.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So, an orc NPC can drink a potion of fox's cunning and learn 2 additional languages (temporarily), but a human PC cannot?

Just making sure that's what you're claiming.

Nope, I take it back.

However, that rule applies to languages acquired via your Intelligence bonus. Since the rule on monster Intelligence does not specify anything about bonuses (and, indeed, is rather more about penalties), the rule still does not apply.

So, there.

 

[ceratitis]

To an extent. The watchword here is 'to an extent'. You can teach a dog to respond to a command word by training it, but the dog doesn't know what the word means, they just know that a particular sound you make is associated with you wanting them to do a particular action. The word itself is irrelevent - you could teach a dog to come when you said the word 'flypaper' and it'd work just as well as if you trained it to respond to 'c'mere boy'.

There are few animals that can actually communicate linguistically both ways - gorillas and sign language, for example, but those are by far the exception rather than the rule. Most animals don't have a proper language, but rather communicate sublinguistically via tone, inflection and body language, but without direct context to the sound itself.

actually many animals use sound to comunicate with the simplest example of bird songs. i feel the critical difference is the ability to comprehend abstracts and in that view chimps,gorillas, and elephants have an int higher then 2. so do octopus by the way and the whole jay bird family.
Z