Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ivellius 12-01-07, 05:15 PM	One of the players in our gaming group created a level 4 Druid and wanted an ape as his animal companion. Well, when he looked in the MM, he saw that it was listed as a Large animal. The text indicates that it falls squarely within the range of a Medium creature (5 1/2 to 6 ft tall and 300-400 lbs.). Also, a Dire Ape is Large, and most dire animals are at least one size larger than the "base." I just looked at the SRD, and it repeats this information. It's not in the errata, either. Should we just write this off as another WotC blunder?
Kain_Darkwind 12-01-07, 05:41 PM	One of the players in our gaming group created a level 4 Druid and wanted an ape as his animal companion. Well, when he looked in the MM, he saw that it was listed as a Large animal. The text indicates that it falls squarely within the range of a Medium creature (5 1/2 to 6 ft tall and 300-400 lbs.). Also, a Dire Ape is Large, and most dire animals are at least one size larger than the "base." I just looked at the SRD, and it repeats this information. It's not in the errata, either. Should we just write this off as another WotC blunder? It's a total blunder, right along with its claw attacks. Gorillas and chimps would use slams and bites. Also, their strength is way low for their actual demonstrated power. A 130 lb chimp can tear a man twice his size in half. I redid the gorilla as such (http://projectdf.phpbbnow.com/viewtopic.php?p=16062#16062). Note that I don't buy into the 2 Int Animal B.S., so you might need to reduce the guy back to 2 Int for your games.
Amaril 12-01-07, 09:42 PM	One of the players in our gaming group created a level 4 Druid and wanted an ape as his animal companion. Well, when he looked in the MM, he saw that it was listed as a Large animal. The text indicates that it falls squarely within the range of a Medium creature (5 1/2 to 6 ft tall and 300-400 lbs.). Also, a Dire Ape is Large, and most dire animals are at least one size larger than the "base." I just looked at the SRD, and it repeats this information. It's not in the errata, either. Should we just write this off as another WotC blunder? Dwarves are as short as Tallfellow halflings but are still considered Medium creatures. It's their bulk that makes Apes big, not their height.
Kain_Darkwind 12-01-07, 10:33 PM	Dwarves are as short as Tallfellow halflings but are still considered Medium creatures. It's their bulk that makes Apes big, not their height. Dwarves weigh as much as medium creatures. Apes....weigh as much as medium creatures. And don't have claws. So I'd have to say you're wrong.
Ivellius 12-02-07, 12:31 AM	But the weight categories for Medium creatures go up to 500 lbs., which apes fall into.
Kain_Darkwind 12-02-07, 12:45 AM	But the weight categories for Medium creatures go up to 500 lbs., which apes fall into. I assume you are responding to Amaril, not myself?
Amaril 12-02-07, 07:34 AM	Dwarves weigh as much as medium creatures. Apes....weigh as much as medium creatures. And don't have claws. So I'd have to say you're wrong. Yeah, you're probably right. I was trying to justify it as I have a player playing an awakened dir ape and enjoying his reach.
Ivellius 12-02-07, 09:48 AM	I assume you are responding to Amaril, not myself? Yeah, I was just quoting the exact limit from the SRD. Yeah, you're probably right. I was trying to justify it as I have a player playing an awakened dir ape and enjoying his reach. But a Dire Ape should be considered Large, so that goes with the rules (text and stats). Most dire animals are larger than their "base" anyway. Enjoy the reach.
Kain_Darkwind 12-02-07, 11:22 AM	Yeah, you're probably right. I was trying to justify it as I have a player playing an awakened dir ape and enjoying his reach. Yeah, a dire ape is golden for Large size. (Although I'd still give it 2 slams and a bite rather than 2 claws) Dire animals are supposed to be larger than regular ones.
Amaril 12-02-07, 11:25 AM	I didn't mean to say dire. He's just an awakened ape.
Kain_Darkwind 12-02-07, 01:29 PM	I didn't mean to say dire. He's just an awakened ape. Well, luckily for you, the official WotC ape has reach. ;) It just doesn't happen to be stats indicative of their own description.
Space_Dragon 12-03-07, 12:53 AM	Kain...you gave 14 intelligence to a rat? Having raised them, I can testify that rats are some pretty smart critters, but I somehow have a hard time seeing them casting fourth level arcane spells.
Kain_Darkwind 12-03-07, 04:47 AM	Kain...you gave 14 intelligence to a rat? Having raised them, I can testify that rats are some pretty smart critters, but I somehow have a hard time seeing them casting fourth level arcane spells. Ah, if you'd gone down further in that thread, you'd've seen my explanation. The rat and the dolphin's Int scores are based on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy rather than Zoobooks. (Humans are the third smartest animals, after rats and dolphins.) If I was doing them as per an actual rat and dolphin, they'd both probably be right around there with gorillas.
ADHadh 12-03-07, 01:26 PM	Ah, if you'd gone down further in that thread, you'd've seen my explanation. The rat and the dolphin's Int scores are based on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy rather than Zoobooks. (Humans are the third smartest animals, after rats and dolphins.) If I was doing them as per an actual rat and dolphin, they'd both probably be right around there with gorillas. It was mice and dolphins... Give them Int score of 42.
Kain_Darkwind 12-03-07, 02:15 PM	It was mice and dolphins... Give them Int score of 42. Rats and mice....rats are smarter than mice, but I'm willing to be they'd have the same DnD stats. 42 Int, hmm? Perhaps they have 42HD as well.
mvincent 12-03-07, 02:26 PM	It's a total blunder, right along with its claw attacks. Actually, WotC did all of this purposefully. Although D&D apes are only about 6' tall, this is because apes don't (normally) stand upright. If they stood completely upright, they would be pretty tall. Also, they have long arms (and normally walk with their hands on the ground) and so have good reach. As for the claws: D&D apes are different from Gorillas. Yes, Gorillas in our own world don't have claws, but they also don't eat meat. Conversely, D&D apes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ape.htm) "resemble gorillas but are far more aggressive". They eat meat, and are patterned after the man-eating apes in the Conan stories. In earlier editions of D&D they were called "carnivorous apes". Links to previous threads that discuss this are available on request.
mvincent 12-03-07, 02:33 PM	Dire animals are supposed to be larger than regular ones.That is not always the case. I recall the dire template does often not increase the size if the base creature is already large. Examples from the MM: Dire Lion, Dire Shark, Dire Tiger and Dire Bear are all the same size category as their base critter.
Space_Dragon 12-03-07, 03:36 PM	"resemble gorillas but are far more aggressive". They eat meat, and are patterned after the man-eating apes in the Conan stories. In earlier editions of D&D they were called "carnivorous apes". Aye. I always assumed the MM ape was based off of the apes in the Tarzan books, which were distinct from gorillas and much more agressive and predatorial. I didn't know that similar apes were in Conan, but I'm not surprised. My one complaint in this regard is that they did not provide stats for a plain old gorilla. According to Tarzan, gorillas are heavier and more muscular than apes (higher strength), but lack claws and are less vicious. Tarzan got into a fight with one, once, and had much more trouble with it than he did with his own type of ape.
mvincent 12-03-07, 03:57 PM	According to Tarzan, gorillas are heavier and more muscular than apes (higher strength), but lack claws and are less vicious.Note that (technically) Gorillas are Apes (but not all Apes are Gorillas), and in common use, the gorilla is often the creature people are refering to when using the term "ape". However, I had been curious about the Tarzan Gorillas, especially since reading this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3861282#post3861282), and this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangani). Thank you for the info.
Space_Dragon 12-03-07, 04:45 PM	Note that (technically) Gorillas are Apes (but not all Apes are Gorillas), and in common use, the gorilla is often the creature people are refering to when using the term "ape". I know. In Tarzan, however, the word "ape" was usually used to refer to a fictional species of agressive primate, wheras "gorilla" meant a plain old gorilla. Gorillas in Tarzan were identical to those in real life. The ape species that raised Tarzan is totally different. Since "ape" in real life refers to a number of different species, wheras the word was used to denote only a single species in Tarzan, I suggest a new name be made up for the fictional species. "Carnivorous ape" is a little clumsy. Anyone have a better idea? Edit: never mind, I just checked Wikipedia, and E.R. Burroughs did make up a name for them. They are called mangani. Unless there is a cooler sounding name in Conan, I move that we use mangani to refer to the MM apes.
Kain_Darkwind 12-03-07, 06:11 PM	I know. In Tarzan, however, the word "ape" was usually used to refer to a fictional species of agressive primate, wheras "gorilla" meant a plain old gorilla. Gorillas in Tarzan were identical to those in real life. The ape species that raised Tarzan is totally different. Since "ape" in real life refers to a number of different species, wheras the word was used to denote only a single species in Tarzan, I suggest a new name be made up for the fictional species. "Carnivorous ape" is a little clumsy. Anyone have a better idea? Edit: never mind, I just checked Wikipedia, and E.R. Burroughs did make up a name for them. They are called mangani. Unless there is a cooler sounding name in Conan, I move that we use mangani to refer to the MM apes. Mangani is the ape's own name for their race in their tongue. It means 'people' to them. There is also bolgani (gorilla), gomangani (black people) and tarmangani (white people). And of course, Numa and Sheeta and Tantor and many other creatures. Bili apes are thought to be what Burroughs was talking about. However, the size is still absolutely wrong. Standing straight up, no ape nor gorilla is going to be 7 feet, let alone the 8 feet required for Large size. And if they eat meat, how come they lack a bite attack?
mvincent 12-03-07, 06:44 PM	I move that we use mangani to refer to the MM apes.I had actually suggested that the mangani and D&D apes were similar in the other thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3861282#post3861282), but another poster stated: "Actually it was the Bolgani (ranslated as Gorilla) who were potrayed as more ferocious 'killers' than were the Mangani. The Mangani were portrayed fierce short tempered creatures but no more than any other beasts and in fact had temprements and lifestyles more reminiscent of chimps."
mvincent 12-03-07, 07:02 PM	no ape nor gorilla is going to be 7 feet, let alone the 8 feet required for Large size.Well, lions and tigers are large, yet are no more than 3' to 4' high. And don't get me started on Manta rays :). Also, it's been established that D&D apes are patterned after the man eating apes in Conan. Look here (http://www.needcoffee.com/2005/05/) at a model of one and tell me that ain't large size. if they eat meat, how come they lack a bite attack?I eat meat. Should I have a bite attack?
Kain_Darkwind 12-03-07, 07:10 PM	Well, lions and tigers are large, yet are no more than 3' to 4' high. And don't get me started on Manta rays :). Also, it's been established that D&D apes are patterned after the man eating apes in Conan. Look here (http://www.needcoffee.com/2005/05/) at a model of one and tell me that ain't large size. I eat meat. Should I have a bite attack? You can't have it both ways. If they are the Conan apes (and thus large sized, thank you for bringing them to my attention), they need a bite attack. Lions and tigers, I believe, fall between Medium and Large sized, certainly the larger specimens are Large, in weight even if not in length.
mvincent 12-03-07, 07:29 PM	If they are the Conan apes (and thus large sized, thank you for bringing them to my attention), they need a bite attack.Good point. You talked me into it. I've just now added a bite attack to the Ape in the D&D SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ape.htm). We cool?
Ivellius 12-03-07, 11:52 PM	I'll just add that if they are the Conan apes and supposed to be Large size, their statistics should be reflective of it. Currently, Dire Apes are, and regular Apes are not, so I'm going with Dire Apes are the Conan ones and regular apes are essentially gorilla-sized. What about that doesn't make sense? Lions and Tigers fall into the low boundary for Large because of their length, which is also why they only have 5 ft. of reach. Thanks for the input, though. As an additional note: if apes are treated as Medium creatures, shouldn't their claw attack be downgraded to 1d4?
Kain_Darkwind 12-04-07, 08:15 AM	Good point. You talked me into it. I've just now added a bite attack to the Ape in the D&D SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/direApe.htm). We cool? As long as I can keep my 6 Int, slam and bite attacking gorilla. :)
Bahumut 12-05-07, 03:38 AM	Rats and mice....rats are smarter than mice, but I'm willing to be they'd have the same DnD stats. i'd give mice an Int of 1, compared to the D&D rat's 2 Int. i have pet rats, and i can say that they are MUCH smarter than pet mice that i have interacted with.
Kain_Darkwind 12-05-07, 08:55 AM	i'd give mice an Int of 1, compared to the D&D rat's 2 Int. i have pet rats, and i can say that they are MUCH smarter than pet mice that i have interacted with. You would be wrong according to WotC's animal stats. Mammals get Int 2, lower order animals like fish get Int 1. However, on my scale, if I were really doing rat int rather than Hitchhiker's Guide Int, I'd probably drop mice at 3-4. They are about as smart as a dog.
Awesome_Dude 12-05-07, 11:18 AM	As long as I can keep my 6 Int, slam and bite attacking gorilla. :) I see your 6 Int and raise you a vacuum cleaner. 6 Int means borderline mentally retarded for humans (retards can still be reasoned with, gorillas cannot). 3 is the limit where you become able to communicate complex concepts in a specific manner (albeit you will have some serious trouble). Last time I checked, gorillas could not explain what anarchism or other complex notions mean. Animal intelligence is explained through the tricks you can teach them. Linking a simple cause to a simple effect is about as smart as most animals can get. Imitation doesn't count.
Space_Dragon 12-05-07, 11:37 AM	Last time I checked, gorillas could not explain what anarchism or other complex notions mean. Neither can retards.
Awesome_Dude 12-05-07, 12:10 PM	Neither can retards. But retards can learn to add and subtract, even muliply and divide. A gorilla would just think "What the hell is a plus?" And it sure as hell can't explain this to anybody else.
Kain_Darkwind 12-05-07, 04:49 PM	But retards can learn to add and subtract, even muliply and divide. A gorilla would just think "What the hell is a plus?" And it sure as hell can't explain this to anybody else. Dolphins have names for other dolphins and talk about them even when they are not present. That damn parrot whose name escapes me can do some pretty incredible math, rather than just imitation. Gorillas have learned sign language. And lets keep in mind...animals have learned to communicate with us, but we can't speak a single sentence in dog, monkey or cat. Who's stupid again? The entire '3 Int = lowest possible human' and the entire spectrum of animal intelligence fitting in 1-2 is humanocentric B.S. Or just unimportant to your average DnD game. It doesn't fly in mine though.
mvincent 12-05-07, 04:51 PM	we can't speak a single sentence in dog, monkey or cat.Neither can dogs, monkeys or cats.
Kain_Darkwind 12-05-07, 06:56 PM	Neither can dogs, monkeys or cats. Dolphin then, since I'm not prepared to argue the language capability of those races.
Toki_Wartooth 12-05-07, 07:07 PM	Dolphin then, since I'm not prepared to argue the language capability of those races.Fine, fine. The next time we get a dolphin on the message boards, I'll make an effort to switch to [FONT="Dolphin" ] and converse with him (or her) in their native language. Fair enough? You can't ask for one to be more egalitarian than that. (barring of course, using [FONT="eagle" ])
Kain_Darkwind 12-05-07, 08:53 PM	Fine, fine. The next time we get a dolphin on the message boards, I'll make an effort to switch to [FONT="Dolphin" ] and converse with him (or her) in their native language. Fair enough? You can't ask for one to be more egalitarian than that. (barring of course, using [FONT="eagle" ]) You know, plenty of human cultures lacked the written language you seem to be mocking the dolphin for not developing. The breadth of animal intelligence can be captured in 2 Int points while humans can range from 3 to 26 (assuming 20 HD and venerable age)? I really don't think so.
mvincent 12-05-07, 09:33 PM	plenty of human cultures lacked the written language you seem to be mocking the dolphin for not developing.I did not get the impression that he was mocking the dolphins.
ArcTan 12-05-07, 10:13 PM	Ah, if you'd gone down further in that thread, you'd've seen my explanation. The rat and the dolphin's Int scores are based on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy rather than Zoobooks. (Humans are the third smartest animals, after rats and dolphins.) If I was doing them as per an actual rat and dolphin, they'd both probably be right around there with gorillas. Dolphins, maybe. A real rat is hardly as smart as a gorilla -- hell, it's hardly as smart as the cats and dogs that eat rats (and yes, sorry pet lovers, but Koko is a lot smarter than All Ball).
ArcTan 12-05-07, 10:17 PM	Rats and mice....rats are smarter than mice, but I'm willing to be they'd have the same DnD stats. For Intelligence, maybe, but rats are definitely a lot bigger and stronger than mice. An advanced-HD rat (i.e. one of the big mothers you get from the sewers) can kill a small child. Whereas a single mouse can't possibly get big enough to pose a threat to any human (unless it, I dunno, crawls into your throat and chokes you in your sleep).
Space_Dragon 12-06-07, 01:34 AM	Kain has explained that his rat and dolphin stats were meant as a joke, so I don't think there's any more use in arguing about it. That said, I disagree that cats are smarter than rats; having raised both, I always got the impression that rats were smarter, if only by a little. I think Kain is right in broadening the spectrum of animal intelligence. I'd widen it to 1-5, with 6 being the "sentient" (ie: playable) mark. I don't think vermin should be mindless either, as some (spiders, cockroaches, and bees in particular) have demonstrated complex communication and problem solving ability. I'd peg those three at int 2-3 or so.
ArcTan 12-06-07, 01:57 AM	"Mindless" means more like "doesn't think anything like a human" than "can't think at all". Just like things with Con (-) aren't dead and inanimate -- they're things that exhibit life-like qualities but at the basic level aren't the same kind of life as true living things. Constructs, for instance, are Int (-) despite being able to reliably and correctly interpret natural-language verbal instructions, something cats and dogs can't do. (Can you actually simply speak to a dog and say "Stay here until you see me come out that other door, then come follow me. Until then, attack anyone who approaches this archway unless they're wearing the same uniform as me or they say the password 'trebuchet'."? No. You can easily do that with a Golem or Shield Guardian, though.)
Kain_Darkwind 12-06-07, 10:18 AM	Dolphins, maybe. A real rat is hardly as smart as a gorilla -- hell, it's hardly as smart as the cats and dogs that eat rats (and yes, sorry pet lovers, but Koko is a lot smarter than All Ball). I'd disagree with you based on what I've read regarding animal intelligence, but I will gladly admit the issue is up for debate even among the science community. So either side will be capable of fielding evidence for their argument. However, whether or not a rat is preyed upon by a cat/dog is sort of immaterial. A bear can prey upon everything in its habitat, does that make it smarter than all of them? For Intelligence, maybe, but rats are definitely a lot bigger and stronger than mice. An advanced-HD rat (i.e. one of the big mothers you get from the sewers) can kill a small child. Whereas a single mouse can't possibly get big enough to pose a threat to any human (unless it, I dunno, crawls into your throat and chokes you in your sleep). Yeah, the system doesn't handle damage very effectively at the lowest levels. Technically, the average commoner can suffer 2-3 rat bites before falling unconscious and bleeding to death. A rat has 1 Str. A mouse...1 Str. An amoeba, by the rules, 1 Str. But that would simply be a case of not allowing mice to advance in HD. And having looked into it, rats are smarter than mice. That's probably because they are predators (omnivore) where as mice are typically herbivores. However, by your feelings elsewhere, fleshing out a full and functional mouse vs rat stat block would be sort of a waste, wouldn't it? Not really pertinent for actually playing the game. If your players shrink down to fight rats, I'd advance the rats and mice and cats in size to simulate the effect.
ArcTan 12-06-07, 08:19 PM	You're reminding me of an idea I once had for a Lilliput/Brobdingnag campaign. I.e. the players go planehopping or whatever (you know, convenient plot excuse for going to unlikely bizarre fantasy worlds) and end up in a place where everything is giant and/or everything is small. Having people fight Medium swarms of tiny armored, mounted knights would be hilarious. Almost as hilarious as having them war against a squad of Small ants and Gargantuan mice.
Kain_Darkwind 12-06-07, 09:39 PM	It worked for Tarzan (Book 10, Tarzan and the Ant-Men), it can work for you.
BigGus 12-07-07, 07:16 PM	Dolphins have names for other dolphins and talk about them even when they are not present. That damn parrot whose name escapes me can do some pretty incredible math, rather than just imitation. Gorillas have learned sign language. And lets keep in mind...animals have learned to communicate with us, but we can't speak a single sentence in dog, monkey or cat. Who's stupid again? The entire '3 Int = lowest possible human' and the entire spectrum of animal intelligence fitting in 1-2 is humanocentric B.S. Or just unimportant to your average DnD game. It doesn't fly in mine though. You know, plenty of human cultures lacked the written language you seem to be mocking the dolphin for not developing. The breadth of animal intelligence can be captured in 2 Int points while humans can range from 3 to 26 (assuming 20 HD and venerable age)? I really don't think so. As you note with damage, the system doesn't work very well at lower levels, as it's based around simulating creatures of human-like size and ability. So the human range is wide, while the sub-human range is very small, because it's not designed to differentiate between animal levels of intelligence. (As you say, I don't think the designers considered it important). That said, I certainly agree that the most intelligent animals should have more than Int 2, although I think Int 6 is pushing it; I'd say the limit is probably about Int 4. But this is a very difficult question, because there are so many definitions of intelligence about; I doubt any two psychologists would give the same answer. The SRD's rather vague "how well your character learns and reasons" isn't much help here; learning can take many forms, and you could argue forever how much is instinctive and how much is actual "intelligence". I think the place where human intelligence differs from all other animals is our ability to think in the abstract; while apes and dolphins have shown some minimal ability to do this, being able to conceive past and future, use sign language, and to understand questions from someone not physically present (over the telephone), no animal can use symbols in remotely the same degree that even an average human can. For example, no animal (as far as I know) can form sentences, which humans can usually do at a young age; the best they can do is string two or three words together to form concept-combinations. So while I agree that 0-2 is too limiting for animals, I certainly think there's a case to be made that human intelligence (or at least some aspects of it) is genuinely superior to all other known animals by a significant amount. One other thing; I don't think Int 3 is supposed to be lowest possible human, just lowest playable human. "Mindless" means more like "doesn't think anything like a human" than "can't think at all". Just like things with Con (-) aren't dead and inanimate -- they're things that exhibit life-like qualities but at the basic level aren't the same kind of life as true living things. Constructs, for instance, are Int (-) despite being able to reliably and correctly interpret natural-language verbal instructions, something cats and dogs can't do. (Can you actually simply speak to a dog and say "Stay here until you see me come out that other door, then come follow me. Until then, attack anyone who approaches this archway unless they're wearing the same uniform as me or they say the password 'trebuchet'."? No. You can easily do that with a Golem or Shield Guardian, though.) I think of golems as being rather like expert systems in computing; they can be "programmed" to perform complex tasks, but there's no actual thinking involved at all.
Nilbog 12-07-07, 09:54 PM	<snip> So while I agree that 0-2 is too limiting for animals, I certainly think there's a case to be made that human intelligence (or at least some aspects of it) is genuinely superior to all other known animals by a significant amount. <snip> Definitely; apes are smart, but I don't think they exceed the level of a toddler at the very most. Dolphins are pretty much an unknown, but they may not be that much above apes.
Kain_Darkwind 12-07-07, 11:00 PM	Definitely; apes are smart, but I don't think they exceed the level of a toddler at the very most. Dolphins are pretty much an unknown, but they may not be that much above apes. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/03/chimp.memory.ap/index.html http://www.hellofelix.com/childhood-social-learning/overimitation/when-are-chimps-smarter-than-kids.html
Nilbog 12-08-07, 12:20 PM	There are many definitions of intelligence, so I should have been more clear. Personally, I subscribe to the belief that abstraction and, even more so, grammatical language are the real measure of 'sentience', 'rationality', or whatever you want to call it. The memory stuff is no surprise - living in a tropical rainforest (a spatially complex environment) apes have to be good at that kind of thing. But then, acorn woodpeckers have truly amazing memories of where they stored nuts - but no one would say they're even ape-level 'intelligent'.
Kain_Darkwind 12-08-07, 04:27 PM	There are many definitions of intelligence, so I should have been more clear. Personally, I subscribe to the belief that abstraction and, even more so, grammatical language are the real measure of 'sentience', 'rationality', or whatever you want to call it. The memory stuff is no surprise - living in a tropical rainforest (a spatially complex environment) apes have to be good at that kind of thing. But then, acorn woodpeckers have truly amazing memories of where they stored nuts - but no one would say they're even ape-level 'intelligent'. Well, you have a good point. I suppose it depends on what you think the lower levels of Int are capable of accomplishing AND whether you feel that access to that Int means you can accomplish ALL of those actions. For instance, you might declare 5 Int the minimum at which a person can read. Does that mean all people of 5 Int and above can read? No. It means they are capable of it. That goes double for animals. Human speech might be possible at Int 3, but even if you have Int 30, with no mouth or vocal chords capable of human speech, you ain't talkin'. For me, I consider the highest animals around Int 6 (in RL) and go down from there. But in my DnD world, dolphins and rats are smarter than people. YMMV.
BigGus 12-09-07, 02:13 PM	http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/03/chimp.memory.ap/index.html http://www.hellofelix.com/childhood-social-learning/overimitation/when-are-chimps-smarter-than-kids.html Interesting that in the second experiment, the kids failed due to overimitation. Meme theorists (eg Susan Blackmore) have suggested that the source of human culture is our excellence in imitating each other. It appears that the tendency to imitate has become so strong in us that it overrides other ways of thinking (a cursory look at the world around us would seem to support this view).
BigGus 12-10-07, 06:53 PM	It's a total blunder, right along with its claw attacks. Gorillas and chimps would use slams and bites. Also, their strength is way low for their actual demonstrated power. A 130 lb chimp can tear a man twice his size in half. I redid the gorilla as such (http://projectdf.phpbbnow.com/viewtopic.php?p=16062#16062). Note that I don't buy into the 2 Int Animal B.S., so you might need to reduce the guy back to 2 Int for your games. Actually, I think even your estimate for the strength of a gorilla is too low. According to a book I read years ago (can't remember what it was called), a gorilla can deadlift 2000lbs. The sixth post on this page http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/m_417165/printable.htm has it even higher (if D&D estimates of average strength are about right) at 25x an average human. The human world record is about 900lbs, (or about 1000lbs; there seem to be two different records, not sure why). Human world-record strength, according to the 2nd edition to 3rd edition conversion manual http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a is 23, and the gorilla is at least twice that, so they're at least a 28. (If you follow the 25x average human estimate, it comes out at 34!). As for chimps, the book said they could deadlift 600lbs, and the muscletalk post has it at 4x average human, which line up neatly at Str 20. Strong enough to rip a man in half for sure.
Nilbog 12-10-07, 08:31 PM	Apes are SCARY strong. A female chimp (135 lbs!) was measured with 1,100 lbs. pull force, but she was on an 'adrenaline rush' or the equivalent. More normally, a 160 lb. chimp had well over 800 lbs. pull force. This is especially amazing because most of the human record-setters are huge, well into the 200s of pounds.
Kain_Darkwind 12-10-07, 08:43 PM	Apes are SCARY strong. A female chimp (135 lbs!) was measured with 1,100 lbs. pull force, but she was on an 'adrenaline rush' or the equivalent. More normally, a 160 lb. chimp had well over 800 lbs. pull force. This is especially amazing because most of the human record-setters are huge, well into the 200s of pounds. Keep in mind, that was a one hand pull. I know the Strength is too low. But I figure apes are not supposed to be any stronger than ogres. I let the upper end of potential strength (+8, as if they had rolled an 18 for their score) reach around those numbers.
Nilbog 12-10-07, 10:58 PM	I always figured an ogre shouldn't be as strong as a gorilla - ogres, in my mind, are more humanlike in build, so most of the increased strength is taken up supporting their greater weight.
BigGus 12-11-07, 06:48 AM	Keep in mind, that was a one hand pull. I know the Strength is too low. But I figure apes are not supposed to be any stronger than ogres. I let the upper end of potential strength (+8, as if they had rolled an 18 for their score) reach around those numbers. Ah, so a really strong gorilla could have Str 32? Makes sense.