I'm sure there are other examples, but the one I was thinking of was Koko the low-land gorilla whose trainers (and numerous independent scholars) confirmed not only mastered American Sign Language and had independently created NEW words, but IRC taught several enclosure-mates to sign -- quite impressive for a "clever" animal and demonstrative of real language use; unless one disqualifies ASL as a "language"??
I was trying to avoid this by saying "aside," but fine: whether these apes use real language is (1) entirely separate from what ASL is and is not, and (2) entirely the question. The last time I looked into the matter, I found the consensus on whether apes can be trained to actually use language, or whether they instead mainly learn a highly complex trick that looks like language to many observers (especially observers who are not linguists, but who are rather primate researchers emotionally and financially invested in the "success" of their subjects), was far from absolute.
In particular, I remember it being noted that ASL users regard ape-sign language as a series of gestures that resembles ASL, but that isn't, really, and that "mastery" of ASL was regarded as probably beyond any of the apes studied to that point. After all, to master a human language one must exhibit abstract thinking, and this has not been shown in an ape, to my knowledge. Overall, I subscribe to the view that while advanced primates run the gamut from clever to astonishingly clever, one must be very forgiving, and slightly flexible, to seriously assert that apes can "speak" or "read." Don't believe everything you read from Koko's publicity.
In any event, we are crossing the "real world" and "fantasy world" streams here, and that always gives me an unpleasant twinge. Suffice to say that even if it were unequivocal that at least some great apes can be trained to use actual language (as opposed to stringing together gestures that have meaning to their handlers, which not even all apes undergoing language studies seem to do), I don't feel it would be thematically appropriate in the first place in a fantasy game. In fantasy, one thing that separates the class of "normal animals" from that of "sapient creatures" is true language (something decidedly more complex than "give banana" style pidgin language, which even the most generous ape-language researchers admit is all apes seem able to manage). Take Narnia as but one example.
So I stand by what I said. My ruling would be that if you awaken the animal it can "upgrade" to "real" language use. (Paladin mounts and arcane familiars are magical beasts, not animals.)
... what seems a reasonable level for a spell specifically granting a permanent +1 inherent bonus given WOTC states a second level spell can grant a temporary +4 enhancement bonus?
9th. There's nothing in the description of
wish or
miracle that makes me think either is limited to lower-level effects. Replicating lower-level effects is only one trick those spells can achieve. Another is provide a +1 permanent inherent ability score bonus -- and
miracle can't even do that unless it's in line with the granting deity's oeuvre. And you spend the same 5,000 XP for the effect, either way.
