[D&D] Animal Intelligence

[zachol]

I am moderately confused about the 'animals have a maximum int of 2' part of D&D.

It seems like, given the scale of the D&D stats, 2 seems awfully low, even for animals.
A strength of two would reflect an absolutely pathetic creature that could hardly move, a wisdom of two would reflect an oblivious idiot - it doesn't really seem like animals are as stupid as the scale reflects.


I have a feeling that this has been discussed before, but as far as I can tell I have never seen a good explanation for why there is an inherent 'line' of int 2/3, where animals cannot be above and other things cannot be below.

[Mercutio]

The line is that at Int 3, creatures can speak in a rudimentary language. While I think it's an arbitrary distinction to couch intelligence with the ability to speak, that is why the line is drawn where it is.

I think my cat is diabolically intelligent, but he can't speak. I'm sure that if he could, he'd be like INT 15 at least.

[zachol]

Actually, I'm annoyed in general at the feeling that abilities in D&D are way too cheap.

Having a score of even 14 in any ability should be something very special, while something like 4 or even 6 a severe handicap.
Similarily, some animals should probably be able to breach the 'int 2' barrier - lots of animals have language, and the only reason they can't speak english is they don't have the vocal cords to do it.
Even an extremely basic language is still a language - many social animals have distinct sounds, different in varying 'tribes' for things like danger, even down to the specific kind of danger, well beyond simply screaming.


Then again, animals do have moderately average wis scores, and wisdom could be considered a sort of 'intelligence.'
Hmm.

[Mercutio]

Actually, I'm annoyed in general at the feeling that abilities in D&D are way too cheap.

Having a score of even 14 in any ability should be something very special, while something like 4 or even 6 a severe handicap. That would be why the PHB suggests 3d6 for stat generation, and DMG default is 25 point buy, so that scores of 14 are viewed as special.

[zachol]

Hmm... thought it suggests 4d6 drop lowest.


Though I'm saying even a single score of 14.
Although, PCs are supposed to be unusual anyway.

But it does feel like there's not much margin for 'low scores' - this may be partially why animals have such a low intelligence.

[BigRedRod]

The default is 4d6 drop lowest. The thing is that players are controlling heroes not ordinary folk.

[Mercutio]

You're right, 4d6 drop the lowest is the suggested method. Regardless, the potential for lower scores is much higher if you use the standard rules vice modifications like higher point buy, or 5d6 drop the lowest two (which is what I generally use).

[LynMars]

What people tend to forget, though, is that with any stat mod, you're already fairly exceptional; even a +1 is better than the average. It just ends up being that people want the higher mods for obvious reasons, and no blame for it. 3.X was designed to be somewhat more powerful than previous editions as well, from my understanding (as I never really got to play much AD&D). People want to play heroic characters, so truely exceptional stats are more desireable than "Just better than average", which is what the +1 and +2 are seen as.

That said, yeah; some animals are way smarter than many folks give them credit for. If you don't like the 2 Int rule, fix it however you like, and don't make language ability dependent on Int score. Not sure what you'd base it on then instead, but...

[zachol]

That's sort of the point - many animals have 'language,' but they cannot have our language because they can't vocalize it.

Actually, I don't think animals should go past 4ish on int.
My main point is I was just annoyed at what felt like a very artificial 'rule' for what an animal was, compared to other things - the majority of animals probably are at or lower than 2, but it's not because they're 'animals.'

[Mercutio]

But you just picked an arbitrary number of 4. What makes your arbitrary 4 better than the system's arbitrary 2?

As for language - you're both wrong and right. Most animals can communicate, but they do not have language, as defined by linguists. Language means individual sounds that break down to specific, static definitions. Some animals have that (dolphins, ravens), but most don't. Some can learn (Koko the gorilla), but most can't.

[zachol]

The point is that there's no steadfast rule of four - it's just that, I suspect I wouldn't put any animals higher than four.
The 'arbitrary number of four' is similar to the 'arbitrary limit of 18' for stats - it's not actually in the definition of humanoid, but in practice it's the general 'limit.'
There's nothing that says an animal couldn't have an int of 5, but I just suspect that, after consideration, none really would.

Additionally, it would also be possible for some humans to be lower than four, or even have an int of 2 or 1 - just as a human can have a str or wis of 2 or 1.
The point isn't so much that I think animals need to have (much) higher int stats, it's that I'm sort of annoyed at the hard limit of 2 - while very few animals would go beyond that, a few still seem like they should.

Also, I know that the majority of animals cannot speak any sort of language, but, again, some can, regardless of how rudimentary the language is, so even there it seems like they should have an int higher than 2.

[LeadPal]

I've thought of the same thing before. After all, porpoises actually have more complex brains than humans do. They just don't have the opposable thumbs necessary to rule the world. I'm sure there are many other animals that are quite intelligent as well.

I agree that they should have higher intelligence scores. Again, usually not higher than 4 but for some special cases, but still higher than current rules. The implications could be pretty interesting.

[zachol]

Plus this could get rid of some 'magical beasts' that are only known for theiir intelligence.


Off hand I don't know of any, but I remember some things that only got the 'magical beast' note from having an int higher than 2.

Then again, this could be a problem, as there're a few beast like things that have definite sentience at int 3... hm.

[AbusePuppy]

Similarily, some animals should probably be able to breach the 'int 2' barrier - lots of animals have language, and the only reason they can't speak english is they don't have the vocal cords to do it.
Even an extremely basic language is still a language - many social animals have distinct sounds, different in varying 'tribes' for things like danger, even down to the specific kind of danger, well beyond simply screaming.

Err... no. Language and communication are very different things. Even chimps and other great apes, who can reportedly "speak" in sign language are, in truth, without the capacity for language. Animal "languages" lack the defining feature that makes language useful: the ability to express new concepts. A cat's sounds can communicate varying degrees of fear, anger, sorrow, want, etc, but a cat cannot- even were it to be granted some human-like vocal capacity- convey complex concepts or form sentances. Linguists and other scientists have been playing with this one for years now. The so-called "talking" from chimps is just repetition of a few sounds strung together in specific ways and often over-interpreted by loving trainers. Even the slowest of two year olds far outperforms the best of the animal kingdom and all our lingual computers. (For those interested in the subject you may try The Language Instinct and Words and Rules, both by Stephen Pinker.)
</rant>

D&D 3.x overcompensated for the old 2Ed "high/low stats are the best thing in the world", unfortunately. Since the modifiers are a linear scale towards the bottom it just stops mattering whether you lose another point or three of modifer; you're either so good it's irrelevant or so bad you'll auto-fail anyways.

And yes, the Int 3 barrier is somewhat arbitrary but I think it's a nescessary abstraction for the system and not at all uncommon. (White Wolf, Shadowrun and BESM similarly cap animal stats at low values.) Wisdom much better represents the "cunning" many animals possess- a very limited kind of problem solving applied to a few simple tasks. The Intelligence attribute, I think, represents more generalized thinking, abstract memory, etc.

NotEdit: Zachol, how many engineers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
__________________
"<Oh no! It's Godzilla!>"
"<We must run!!>"
"Pardon me, can you direct me to the train station?"
"<And he only speaks English! Run faster!>"

[zachol]

I'm not refering to chimps in captivity - I wouldn't even call their sign language 'language,' even.
It's more of a 'do this, get this' pavlov thing.

I'm refering to dolphins and whales and their language, and to a few wild primates who have some differentiated 'words.'
I would need to look it up.


Also, I don't especially value human thought - it seems to be mostly qualitative, not quantitative, and there's not that much special about being 'human' - there's just nothing along the curve between us and other animals.


Also, select the area after the question. Invisitext. It's nonsense humor anyway (one).
And my name is zachol, not Zachol.

[Linklegacy77]

zachol, how many computer programmers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

And I believe that there needs to be a number selected for the intelligence. Since 4d6 drop lowest means the lowest you can have is 3, and all playable races are sentient, and animals aren't, then the animals intelligence must be less. I think 2 makes sense, even if there are exceptions.

Remember, D&D makes use of very abstract systems for simplicity.

[zachol]

My point is, even if most animals are at 2 (they would be), I don't get the idea of a solid border.

It feels like there's an invisible wall between 2 and 3 in intelligence, while there is no solid wall anywhere else.


(and with the computer programmers: none - programmers don't deal with hardware)

[akiko]

Actually after mentioning the 3d6 thing, it doesn't seem so arbitrary to me anymore.

[zachol]

Half-Orcs?

[LynMars]

Unless you're in a game where the GM also has you reroll 1's. Mine do. ;)

[zachol]

Personally, I think that the 3d6 thing is just because that's the most convenient way to get a bellcurve of numbers around 10-11, and that it's generally arbitrary.

[Linklegacy77]

Well, the exact phrase I was looking for was: "That's a hardware problem," but you got it close enough.

3d6 seems to be a good total for stats.

[akiko]

I agree that 3d6 is arbitrary too, but the line had to be drawn somewhere so why not there. Then of course comes the discussion of everything else in the game is based on this assumption of power by the PCs. Sure a good DM can and often does tailor it to his players, but out the book this is an assumption. And I agree that a different way of rolling scores will not break the game, but it doesn't help.

[Xaden]

I actually don't think 3d6 is a good total for stats, that creates some very strange numbers, but it is good for a bell curve, but considering that your bonuses from stats can range from -5 to +5 as a typical beginning adventurer, a good total for stats should probably be somthing like 0-11, 'cause then the typical range would be 1-10 for most starting stats and you'd only get a 0 for somthing like an elf having a 1 in Con, then dropped to 0, and you'd only get an 11 for somthing like a dwarf with a 10 in Con. This way you get a more typical scale of 1-10 and each point of increase would be worth one more point of "ability modifier" starting at -4 for a 1, -3 for a 2, -2 for a 3, etc. until +3 for a 9 and +4 for a 10, etc. But yeah, 3d6 gives you a nice bell-curve and that's about the only advantage I see for it otherwise it's fairly random. Just thought I'd voice my opinion.