Animals

Xathan · September 18, 2006, 02:01:19 PM

One thing that always has interested me Ã¢,¬' for the majority of settings, animals are creatures that do or did exist on real world earth. Anything else falls into a different creature types Ã¢,¬' give a horse wings and nothing else new, and it becomes a magical beast. Make an insect big and give it dog-level intellect, it becomes an aberration.

So, my question is what everyoneÃ¢,¬,,¢s thought is on variant animals. Do you like the idea of a new kingdom of animals comprised of decendants of insects that are similar in size to most mammals bother you or interest you? Would a world where dragon-looking creatures with no magical abilities that were animals be interesting to you or dull? What about a lizard species that evolved the ability to spit a highly vitriolic liquid that ignites in the air? How about eels that migrated onto land and can electrocute their prey with a touch?

(I am going to be using new kingdoms of animals in my new setting, so this question is rather pressing to me.)

Another question about animals I have is intelligence. I have been thinking of breaking animal intelligence into a new quasi-ability score called Ã¢,¬Å"cunning.Ã¢,¬Â An animal (or other intelligence 2 or lower creature would loose intelligence and instead gain Ã¢,¬Å"cunningÃ¢,¬Â or something under a new name. The score would function like any other ability, but allow animals to have a decent amount of skills (though they would be limited in what skills they could spend their points on) and would also affect their ability to learn through the Handel Animal skill. An animal awakened would gain intelligence equal to its cunning, as well as the usual effects. Is this a good idea, or should I just instead assign animal skills to wisdom and not bother with Ã¢,¬Å"cunning?Ã¢,¬Â

beejazz · September 18, 2006, 02:20:54 PM

New kingdoms is nice...

Cunning=Wisdom

Xathan · September 18, 2006, 02:23:33 PM

So, by saying cunning=wisdom, are you saying that I should change animal skill points to be wisdom based as opposed to Int based, and limit their selection of skills?

SilvercatMoonpaw · September 18, 2006, 02:25:20 PM

I agree that if something isn't inherantly magical than it can still be considered an animal. Giant insects, winged horses, etc. unless they have some sort of magicalness to them are still animals.

Poseptune · September 18, 2006, 02:36:14 PM

I've always thought that regular animals get the short end of the stick when it comes to worldbuilding. I think new creature types that have nothing magical about them would be interesting. The first system I looked at, well before I knew about the CBG, was Rael's setting. I was making a character for a PbP he was running, and since he had all new races, none of which human, I asked him if there were any changes in the regular animals. Unfortunately the answer was no, but I could see a few animals evolving defense mechanism to combat magical creatures.

As for cunning, I don't think it should be linked to wisdom. It is representing the animals ability to learn tricks and solve problems(how to lose a predator, how to get a drink of water out of a deep pitcher, etc..). If the creature has a INT of 2 (or 1) what do you plan on making the equivilant cunning? Is it going to be based on the animal, for example chimps vs donkeys? It is an interesting concept, I would just like to know more, before saying whether or not it is good.

Xathan · September 18, 2006, 02:59:54 PM

Quote from: PoseidotuneI've always thought that regular animals get the short end of the stick when it comes to worldbuilding. I think new creature types that have nothing magical about them would be interesting. The first system I looked at, well before I knew about the CBG, was Rael's setting. I was making a character for a PbP he was running, and since he had all new races, none of which human, I asked him if there were any changes in the regular animals. Unfortunately the answer was no, but I could see a few animals evolving defense mechanism to combat magical creatures.

I agree. IÃ¢,¬,,¢ll be working on the ecology for my new world soon, IÃ¢,¬,,¢d love to hear what you think when I get around to posting it. :)

Quote from: PoseidotuneAs for cunning, I don't think it should be linked to wisdom. It is representing the animals ability to learn tricks and solve problems(how to lose a predator, how to get a drink of water out of a deep pitcher, etc..). If the creature has a INT of 2 (or 1) what do you plan on making the equivilant cunning? Is it going to be based on the animal, for example chimps vs donkeys? It is an interesting concept, I would just like to know more, before saying whether or not it is good.

It is going to be based on the individual animal, but as a general rule of thumb, a creature with an int of 1 is going to have a cunning between 1 and 10, and a creature with an int of 2 is going to have a cunning between 11 and 18. 18 cunning animals would be chimps, dolphins, and animals of similar intelligence, while 1 cunning animals would mainly be creatures of goldfish intelligence. The big question is what to set as the baseline for cunning - in other words, what creature would make a good average cunning. My inital thought is a horse, which seems to fit given the basic thought I have given it.

Epic Meepo · September 18, 2006, 03:00:24 PM

Sword and Sorcery Studios put some new animals in their monster books, and if I'm not mistaken, the 3.5 Dark Sun revamp had several new lizards and insects that counted as animals. In each case, I thought it was a good idea.

And I'm behind cunning 100%. As a matter of fact, I already do exactly what you're proposing as a house rule. (Except I merely redefine Intelligence to mean cunning instead of smarts. Originally, I had planned on replacing the Intelligence stat with a Cunning stat as you are proposing, but then I realized that Cunning would have the unfortunate abbreviation: Cun. So I kept Int, but changed its definition; no more Int 2 limit for animals.)

Incidentally, did you ever notice that the Core defines animals as vertabrates and vermin as invertebrates, yet calls a squid an animal?

Xathan · September 18, 2006, 03:11:29 PM

Quote from: Epic MeepoSword and Sorcery Studios put some new animals in their monster books, and if I'm not mistaken, the 3.5 Dark Sun revamp had several new lizards and insects that counted as animals. In each case, I thought it was a good idea.

And I'm behind cunning 100%. As a matter of fact, I already do exactly what you're proposing as a house rule. (Except I merely redefine Intelligence to mean cunning instead of smarts. Originally, I had planned on replacing the Intelligence stat with a Cunning stat as you are proposing, but then I realized that Cunning would have the unfortunate abbreviation: Cun. So I kept Int, but changed its definition; no more Int 2 limit for animals.)[/quote]Incidentally, did you ever notice that the Core defines animals as vertabrates and vermin as invertebrates, yet calls a squid an animal?[/quote]

Yeah, I did. The vermin/animal line seems to be rather arbitrary, and I really am not a big fan of it.

Poseptune · September 18, 2006, 03:23:00 PM

A horse would probably be a good enough base.

Epic Meepo · September 18, 2006, 03:46:00 PM

Quote from: Xathan, The ReturnedOk, so Cunning needs a new name. I can't have creatures with a cun score. :P

That's one letter "t" away from turning the " :P " smiley into a dirty joke, by the way.

Why not just use Intelligence, but divorce Int from language and magic-use in creatures that don't have languages? I see nothing wrong with a wolf or other clever predator having a higher Int than your average peasant, so long as it can't also talk or cast wizard spells.

Xeviat · September 18, 2006, 03:51:05 PM

A horse with wings should be an animal, unless the horse with wings has an intelligence higher than 2. I believe the vast majority of magical beasts don't have 2 or 1 intelligences.

There's a difference between animal intelligence and animal wisdom though. Intelligence is the ability score for reason, Wisdom is the ability score for instinct. Many animals appear to be very cunning, laying complex traps and what not, but that is all programmed instinct. Animals like dogs, apes, and dolphins have been recorded "inventing" new tasks; heck, I've even seen my pet rats do some complex things.

I do think that you're all on to something though; there's possibly room for some type condencing. I don't like vermin being a separate type from animals; a (mindless) subtype could be added to vermin if one finds it necessary.

If you keep vermin, where do you draw the line? Are all invertibrates vermin; I don't think that works because octopuses are suposidly quite intelligent. Is it arthropods only; I'm not sure what the intelligence of crabs and the like are.

I do think one interesting thing to do would be to increase the Animal HD skill points to 6 per HD; that way animals with a 1 Int will get 1 sp per level and animals with a 2 Int will get 2 sp per level.

I'd like to see more fantastic animals that are actually animals. I think it boils down to suspension of disbelief though. But heck, humans are intelligent animals scientifically, so why would an intelligent dog be any different?

Magical beasts should have inherrent magical powers.

Poseptune · September 18, 2006, 03:53:41 PM

Quote from: Epic Meepo
Quote from: Xathan, The ReturnedOk, so Cunning needs a new name. I can't have creatures with a cun score. :P
That's one letter "t" away from turning the " :P " smiley into a dirty joke, by the way.

Why not just use Intelligence, but divorce Int from language and magic-use in creatures that don't have languages? I see nothing wrong with a wolf or other clever predator having a higher Int than your average peasant, so long as it can't also talk or cast wizard spells.

Or use Cleverness (Cle). I doubt Int would confuse people, but it could happen. Someone might miss the line that explains why animals have high Int scores and think that they can talk and take classes. Confusing it with a Narnia-like setting.

brainface · September 18, 2006, 03:54:48 PM

QuoteAnother question about animals I have is intelligence. I have been thinking of breaking animal intelligence into a new quasi-ability score called Ã¢,¬Å"cunning.Ã¢,¬Â An animal (or other intelligence 2 or lower creature would loose intelligence and instead gain Ã¢,¬Å"cunningÃ¢,¬Â or something under a new name. The score would function like any other ability, but allow animals to have a decent amount of skills (though they would be limited in what skills they could spend their points on) and would also affect their ability to learn through the Handel Animal skill. An animal awakened would gain intelligence equal to its cunning, as well as the usual effects. Is this a good idea, or should I just instead assign animal skills to wisdom and not bother with Ã¢,¬Å"cunning?Ã¢,¬Â

really[/i] make sense.

Maybe you could just expand the 'animal' intelligence range from 1 thru 2 into 1 thru 4/6 or so. Maybe a wolf has 4 intelligence, a dolphin 5, the oh-so-cunning dire wolves 6?

That would be expanding animal intelligence well into the human range, possibly resulting in philosphical quandries, but really--have you ever seen an npc, much less a pc, with less than 6 intelligence?

Addendum: you'd also have to increase animal skill points to 4 or 6+int, because 2+int just equals 1/level when you have a negative modifier... maybe that's not so simple...

snakefing · September 19, 2006, 09:51:05 AM

I've always felt that a change in the animals can help to establish flavor and locality.

In one world that I worked on for a while, I had the peasants of one country using giant lizard-like creatures for draft animals instead of oxen. To me, little touches like that seem to help cement the mood and character of a place as being different.

As far as animal skills go: Is there a reason you want to put some crunch behind this? I mean, as DM, couldn't you just say that certain animals just naturally have certain skills or abilities, without having to invent a whole new set of rules for it?

It might make some sense if you were trying to create an alternate set of rules for animal companions, or animal trainers, or something like that. But otherwise it seems like a needless complication. Just say that "natural cunning" gives certain animals their skills. It's not like they have to spend skill points - they aren't characters.

Raelifin · September 19, 2006, 11:47:28 AM

I'm going to agree with snakefing. The addition of rules to handle monster skills (animals) is a bit odd. Why not just give them the skills you want and up the CR if they become imbalanced?

Anyway, I'm very interested in the results of this thread. For years I've been interested in adding fantasy ecologies to my campaign, but like Nepty said, I haven't found a way to implement such a complex system of interwoven organisms.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Animals

Xathan

beejazz

Xathan

SilvercatMoonpaw

Poseptune

Xathan

Epic Meepo

Xathan

Poseptune

Epic Meepo

Xeviat

Poseptune

brainface

snakefing

Raelifin