Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7923159" data-attributes="member: 4937">I'm aware of the limited intelligence typically assigned to animals. In some cases, that's actually lower than animals seem to possess in the real world (which in D&amp;D terms might go up to 5 or even 6). It's certainly lower than the intelligence displayed by intelligence in movies, such as Zorro's horse, Lassie or any number of other animal companions.But I would suggest that at most tables, in practice when &quot;speak with animals&quot; comes up, animals speak in some fashion.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is because it's just not very interesting otherwise, and it's almost always more fun for DM's to make NPCs interesting than to make them boring.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's also actually very difficult to successfully pretend to be stupid.&nbsp; What does &quot;Int 2 or 3&quot; really represent anyway?&nbsp; In D&amp;D terms I suggest it de facto represents little or no ability to learn or analyze.&nbsp;&nbsp; So it's quite possible to run an animal that is loquacious, and yet represent it's low intelligence by a complete inability to understand anything out of context of its normal behaviors.That's really interesting.&nbsp; It seems that the 5e designer has contemplated the problem of plant intelligence and deliberately reduced the sentience implied by earlier editions.&nbsp; Was he or she worried about the problem of screaming broccoli?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7923159, member: 4937"] I'm aware of the limited intelligence typically assigned to animals. In some cases, that's actually lower than animals seem to possess in the real world (which in D&D terms might go up to 5 or even 6). It's certainly lower than the intelligence displayed by intelligence in movies, such as Zorro's horse, Lassie or any number of other animal companions. But I would suggest that at most tables, in practice when "speak with animals" comes up, animals speak in some fashion. This is because it's just not very interesting otherwise, and it's almost always more fun for DM's to make NPCs interesting than to make them boring. It's also actually very difficult to successfully pretend to be stupid. What does "Int 2 or 3" really represent anyway? In D&D terms I suggest it de facto represents little or no ability to learn or analyze. So it's quite possible to run an animal that is loquacious, and yet represent it's low intelligence by a complete inability to understand anything out of context of its normal behaviors. That's really interesting. It seems that the 5e designer has contemplated the problem of plant intelligence and deliberately reduced the sentience implied by earlier editions. Was he or she worried about the problem of screaming broccoli? [/QUOTE]

Verification