D&D General Why can Giant Eagles, Giant Elk, and Giant Owls speak?

[VelvetViolet]

In fairy tales, all animals can talk. Trees and rivers can talk.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well, sure, but that's a circular answer. They 1e authors had to make the decision about why they should speak, too.

Your comment made me think about this topic a bit more and it helped me arrive at a possible answer.

In 5e a Giant Animal is usually just a scaled up version of a Normal Animal. Both have the same template type, and that implies that other than the different stats between the two, they are essentially the same creature at heart.

In 1e a Giant Animal wasn't necessarily just a larger version of a Normal Animal. There was no such thing as "creature type" or keywords used in that edition of the game, so it was up to the text of the creature to explain what it was and how it fit into the world. This way a Giant Eagle isn't just some alternate species of Normal Eagle, but instead a completely different creature (which may be able to speak somehow).

The disconnect is that it really doesn't make sense in 5e for any "Beast" subtype of animal to "speak common" if beast is used to echo a real world animal. In the real world most corvids and parrots can mimic speech, and even show a limited capacity for conversation, however they wouldn't be considered to actually be speaking a language as it is understood in game terms "speaks common", but rather mimicking noises they have heard and sometimes using those noised to get an expected response from a person. There are many other real world examples of animals who can communicate with humans (apes, dolphins, dogs) but you wouldn't say that they can "speak common".

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

(I don't have my 5e MM in front of me, so I'm just iirc'ing here...)

It seems odd to me that a talking warg is in the 5e Beasts appendix, but a talking unicorn is not. To me it just feels like certain "beast-ish" monsters got shunted off into the appendix because of editorial constraints rather than any conscious differentiation between beasts and "real" monsters.

Also too: The lack of a "Snake, Talking" has long seemed a little strange to me, for some reason. I suppose there are already enough talking snake monsters that a separate "ordinary" talking snake isn't really necessary. It's easy enough to add a few INT points and a language to a statblock!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

(I don't have my 5e MM in front of me, so I'm just iirc'ing here...)

It seems odd to me that a talking warg is in the 5e Beasts appendix, but a talking unicorn is not. To me it just feels like certain "beast-ish" monsters got shunted off into the appendix because of editorial constraints rather than any conscious differentiation between beasts and "real" monsters.

Also too: The lack of a "Snake, Talking" has long seemed a little strange to me, for some reason. I suppose there are already enough talking snake monsters that a separate "ordinary" talking snake isn't really necessary. It's easy enough to add a few INT points and a language to a statblock!

Snakes seem to be left behind in monsters, just as snakes in general. There's flying snakes, poisonous snakes, giant poisonous snakes, and giant constrictor snakes. I don't think there's any other straight snake creatures. Sure, there are a lot of snake-human hybrids, like Mariliths, Yuan-Ti, and other creatures, but general snakes, there's not a ton.

Why do birds get more love than snakes?

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Snakes seem to be left behind in monsters, just as snakes in general. There's flying snakes, poisonous snakes, giant poisonous snakes, and giant constrictor snakes. I don't think there's any other straight snake creatures. Sure, there are a lot of snake-human hybrids, like Mariliths, Yuan-Ti, and other creatures, but general snakes, there's not a ton.

Why do birds get more love than snakes?

Well, to be fair to the snakes, if you take a big snake and give it wings, you've got a couatl.
And blow it up even bigger and give it some epic halitosis, then you've basically got a dragon.
So snakes have that going for them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Coatls also don't get the love they deserve.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Coatls also don't get the love they deserve.

In 5e, they're missing a ton of abilities from previous editions. Also, they are only CR 4, and are absolutely no official variants of them, though there really should be (Quezalcoatls not existing is a sin, and D&D needs to answer for it).

Back on topic, I think the general consensus is that it has to do with magic and Tolkein that makes giant owls and other birds be able to speak.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In 5e, they're missing a ton of abilities from previous editions. Also, they are only CR 4, and are absolutely no official variants of them, though there really should be (Quezalcoatls not existing is a sin, and D&D needs to answer for it).

Back on topic, I think the general consensus is that it has to do with magic and Tolkein that makes giant owls and other birds be able to speak.

THe thought of argentavis magnificens being able to talk to me before it eats me is pretty scary, I'll admit.

 

[Tonguez]

That said, having your own language doesn't necessarily make you that intelligent. In fact, bumblebees are considered to have their own language (they dance to communicate, much like how sign language functions for the deaf), but bees are not extremely intelligent as individuals..

that’s because individual bees don’t exist as Individuals. There is only the hive and each member exist within the dance. Outside the hive is only suffering and death.
Serve the Queen

 

[dave2008]

Have you seen "Princess Mononoke?" I think that is your answer.