[3.5] Animal Companion - Speak Language

When an animal companion gains hit dice, that includes skill points that the player can assign for the companion. If a player puts two skill points into Speak Language for the animal, as a DM, how much would you say the animal understands when it hears the new language it knows? Would it only be that the animal understands the commands for the tricks it knows in that language? Like a dog trainer teaching an attack dog to only respond to German commands to make it more difficult for a foe to command the dog? Or would it be able to pick up the gist of conversations, so if the druid uses the animal as a spy, then later uses Speak with Animals, they can get the gist of conversations the animal may have overheard?

My thinking is that if an animal can learn a language well enough to remember details of a conversation, does it understand the language well enough to be told complex commands in that language? Doesn't that completely obviate the need for tricks that the animal is supposed to learn? I do not want to quash creativity among my players, though.

Edit to clarify: this thread is about understanding a language only. It has nothing to do with an animal's physical capability to speak the language back. Animals have ears. They can hear words spoken in a language. The question that is at the core of this thread: can an animal spend skill points to gain an understanding of a language (on whatever basic level an animal is capable of understanding language)?

Idr where it's stated atm, but iirc you may not understand language nor take speak language without at least 3 intelligence. An animal with 3 intelligence becomes a magical beast. An animal companion may not be a magical beast usually, and therefore may not take speak language. A paladin's special mount on the other hand, is a completely different problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Falontani

Idr where it's stated atm, but iirc you may not understand language nor take speak language without at least 3 intelligence. An animal with 3 intelligence becomes a magical beast. An animal companion may not be a magical beast usually, and therefore may not take speak language. A paladin's special mount on the other hand, is a completely different problem.

---

That may be the case, I'll check around to see what I can find. So far, I've checked the Monster Manual, PHB, FAQ, and all four Rules of the Game articles on Animals. Any suggestions on where to look would be excellent.

The closest I found was page 7 of the Monster Manual. When describing intelligence, it says a creature with Int 3 or higher knows at least one language. But, I have not seen anything about teaching a language to an animal companion (either for or against it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallerSpine

When an animal companion gains hit dice, that includes skill points that the player can assign for the companion. If a player puts two skill points into Speak Language for the animal, as a DM, how much would you say the animal understands when it hears the new language it knows? Would it only be that the animal understands the commands for the tricks it knows in that language? Like a dog trainer teaching an attack dog to only respond to German commands to make it more difficult for a foe to command the dog? Or would it be able to pick up the gist of conversations, so if the druid uses the animal as a spy, then later uses Speak with Animals, they can get the gist of conversations the animal may have overheard?

---

This can never come up, because Speak Language isn't a class skill for animals (not being listed in any of their stat blocks), and because animals have such low intelligence scores that they always get the minimum of one skill point per level. To take a cross class skill, they would need two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallerSpine

My thinking is that if an animal can learn a language well enough to remember details of a conversation, does it understand the language well enough to be told complex commands in that language? Doesn't that completely obviate the need for tricks that the animal is supposed to learn? I do not want to quash creativity among my players, though.

---

This does get confusing when a druid casts 'speak with animals'. How smart is it when you're interacting with it with the spell? It's all up to the DM at that point. (Same with plants and 'speak with plants', really.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bronk

This can never come up, because Speak Language isn't a class skill for animals (not being listed in any of their stat blocks), and because animals have such low intelligence scores that they always get the minimum of one skill point per level. To take a cross class skill, they would need two.

---

That is not quite how cross-class skills are described in the PHB or the SRD. Here is the description of what happens when you spend one skill point on a cross- class skill:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SRD

If you buy a class skill, your character gets 1 rank (equal to a +1 bonus on checks with that skill) for each skill point. If you buy other classes’ skills (cross-class skills), you get ½ rank per skill point.

---

It does not say you cannot have half a rank. Nor does it say you can. That is a DM decision not specifically addressed in the rules. My first DM played it that you are still practicing the skill, and you are half way towards getting the rank. If it is a trained skill, it remains untrained until you have at least one rank. That is how i have played it ever since. It works because fractions for bonuses are always rounded down unless told otherwise in 3.5. This also comes up when a character wants to keep a cross-class skill maxed out.

But, I definitely understand the restriction that you must buy full ranks, and I have played with DMs who ruled that way, as well.

The feat Open Minded has no prerequisites and would provide enough skill points to buy a full rank.

So, my friends brought up a good point. A forest gnome knows a language spoken by forest animals and allows them to communicate on a "very basic level". I'm thinking that the animal companion putting two skill points into Speak Language to be able to have a "very basic" understanding of human speech might be ok. It depends on what a DM rules to be a "very basic" understanding.

Had this exact question come up in an FB group literally yesterday.

Turns out that in the initial printing of the 3.5 PHB, animal companions were 'treated as magical beasts' but they changed that in the errata. By the original rule, increasing the animal's int via HD would be no problem, thus language would be no problem.


As it stands, they are animals and so apparently become magical beasts if they reach int=3. I say apparently because the reason people say that is this text from the Animal entry on Types:
" (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal)."


Note that it doesn't specifically say what happens to an animal that starts at 2 int and then gains HD and then increases its int.

It also doesn't specifically say under animal companion rules that an animal that does gain int and becomes magical beast has to *stop* being an animal companion. It just says that a magical beast can't be selected to *become* one.

Both of those points leave you firmly in the territory of DM decision, since unless I'm missing something else, there's a slight hole in the intersection of the rules regarding advancing animals by HD and animal companions that gain int.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

Had this exact question come up in an FB group literally yesterday.

---

:eek:
Yeah, that was me. Taller Spine is an anagram of my RL name. I usually go by SlipEternal, but I had used that on this forum with an email address whose password I forgot, so I am not able to log in as SlipEternal :(. So, I found another anagram of my name, but it was inappropriate for a forum name (see what happens if you rearrange the letters of 'Spine'). Hence, TallerSpine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

Turns out that in the initial printing of the 3.5 PHB, animal companions were 'treated as magical beasts' but they changed that in the errata. By the original rule, increasing the animal's int via HD would be no problem, thus language would be no problem.


As it stands, they are animals and so apparently become magical beasts if they reach int=3. I say apparently because the reason people say that is this text from the Animal entry on Types:
" (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal)."


Note that it doesn't specifically say what happens to an animal that starts at 2 int and then gains HD and then increases its int.

It also doesn't specifically say under animal companion rules that an animal that does gain int and becomes magical beast has to *stop* being an animal companion. It just says that a magical beast can't be selected to *become* one.

Both of those points leave you firmly in the territory of DM decision, since unless I'm missing something else, there's a slight hole in the intersection of the rules regarding advancing animals by HD and animal companions that gain int.

---

Very true. Definitely best to leave to a DM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallerSpine

That is not quite how cross-class skills are described in the PHB or the SRD. Here is the description of what happens when you spend one skill point on a cross- class skill:

---

Hmm, I think playing Neverwinter so much affected my memories of that!

Looking into it more, this might be what you're looking for: the section in the Monster Manual concerning 'Natural Tendencies'. A shortened version can be found in the SRD here, although there are more examples in the MM:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm

Basically, if an animal aren't suited to a physical activity, they either take a big penalty or can't do it at all. Examples from the MM include horses not being able to walk tightropes and dolphins not being able to climb. I would say being able to talk is a physical activity no animal is able to do, either because of their tiny brains or because they can't make the noises. You'd think parrots would be an exception because they can mimic those noises, but they're called out as not being able to talk even after getting an intelligence boost after becoming a familiar.

Another reason would be that the only way to teach animals anything is by training them to do tricks, and there's no 'speaking' trick.

A third reason would be that animals, even animal companions, are NPCs, and are completely controlled by the DM, not the player, and that includes leveling. The DM could nix taking the speak language skill easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallerSpine

So, my friends brought up a good point. A forest gnome knows a language spoken by forest animals and allows them to communicate on a "very basic level". I'm thinking that the animal companion putting two skill points into Speak Language to be able to have a "very basic" understanding of human speech might be ok. It depends on what a DM rules to be a "very basic" understanding.

---

As far as I can tell, forest gnomes speak with animals using the spell as an at will SLA, not as a regular language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bronk

Hmm, I think playing Neverwinter so much affected my memories of that!

Looking into it more, this might be what you're looking for: the section in the Monster Manual concerning 'Natural Tendencies'. A shortened version can be found in the SRD here, although there are more examples in the MM:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm

Basically, if an animal aren't suited to a physical activity, they either take a big penalty or can't do it at all. Examples from the MM include horses not being able to walk tightropes and dolphins not being able to climb. I would say being able to talk is a physical activity no animal is able to do, either because of their tiny brains or because they can't make the noises. You'd think parrots would be an exception because they can mimic those noises, but they're called out as not being able to talk even after getting an intelligence boost after becoming a familiar.

Another reason would be that the only way to teach animals anything is by training them to do tricks, and there's no 'speaking' trick.

A third reason would be that animals, even animal companions, are NPCs, and are completely controlled by the DM, not the player, and that includes leveling. The DM could nix taking the speak language skill easily.

As far as I can tell, forest gnomes speak with animals using the spell as an at will SLA, not as a regular language.

---

Rock gnomes have a spell-like ability to speak with animals. Forest gnomes very specifically replace the SLA with a non-magical language. So, you may want to reread that part.

I am not suggesting that an animal without the vocal capability all of a sudden starts speaking fluent common. I am saying they can hear a language and understand it (on a very basic level). Then, a player can communicate with their companion through a Speak with Animals spell, or if they are a forest gnome and their companion is a forest animal, they can converse in the language of forest animals (again, on a very basic level).

You bring up familiars. All familiars are capable of understanding every language their master speaks, just not speaking back. This is because familiars use their master's ranks, so every language the master knows has a "rank" in it that the familiar gets, and therefore understands. I agree that no familiar (other than a raven) has the supernatural ability to speak a language back. But, all of the examples I gave in the initial post involved an animal companion understanding a language, not speaking it back. That is the topic of this thread. Can an animal companion understand a language by spending two skill points? I recognize that the animal companion will never be capable of speaking the language without magic involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bronk

animals, even animal companions, are NPCs, and are completely controlled by the DM, not the player, and that includes leveling. The DM could nix taking the speak language skill easily.

---

I think I'm gonna need a citation for that. Animal Companions are a part of a Druid/Ranger's class features, and as such, I would think fall under the purview of the PC whose character they belong to. Same goes for Familiars, Paladin's Mounts, and Psion's Psicrystals.

Definitely don't see any language in the Animal Companion description in the rules that would function to make them controlled in any way by the DM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

I think I'm gonna need a citation for that. Animal Companions are a part of a Druid/Ranger's class features, and as such, I would think fall under the purview of the PC whose character they belong to. Same goes for Familiars, Paladin's Mounts, and Psion's Psicrystals.

Definitely don't see any language in the Animal Companion description in the rules that would function to make them controlled in any way by the DM.

---

DMG page 200 discusses familiars, and does, indeed, specify that familiars are DM controlled. It does not, however, say that Animal Companions are DM controlled. It seems unlikely that ONLY familiars are DM-controlled, though.

There are a number of creatures in the monster manuals that can understand, but not speak, various languages. So just knowing a language doesn't automatically convey the ability to express oneself in it. Now, due to a quirk of D&D rules, being illiterate is a class feature restricted to a very few classes, and not a general condition, so if you can understand a language and lack the class feature, you can read, and presumably arrange symbols to write (given enough resolution) in it.

An interesting question arises given temporary stat boosts. If you put a Bridle of Intellect on your 2-int horse, giving him a total of 4, 6, or even 8 int, does he become a magical beast, or is he an animal with enhanced intelligence? Either way, he can now potentially learn to understand language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallerSpine

DMG page 200 discusses familiars, and does, indeed, specify that familiars are DM controlled. It does not, however, say that Animal Companions are DM controlled. It seems unlikely that ONLY familiars are DM-controlled, though.

---

Are you referring to this line on that page?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMG pg200

Changes to the rules on familiars in the Player’s Handbook are completely under the DM’s control.

---

That says that the DM has control of changing the rules about familiars, not that DMs have control of familiars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

Are you referring to this line on that page?




That says that the DM has control of changing the rules about familiars, not that DMs have control of familiars.

---

You are correct. In that case page 104 describes animals as NPCs (controlled by the DM). Animal companions would fall under that bucket. I have seen sage advice advising that if you let players control their animal companion, be wary they do not attribute too much intelligence to them. Tactics would be beyond an animal companion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallerSpine

You are correct. In that case page 104 describes animals as NPCs (controlled by the DM). Animal companions would fall under that bucket. I have seen sage advice advising that if you let players control their animal companion, be wary they do not attribute too much intelligence to them. Tactics would be beyond an animal companion.

---

Given that the section you refer to is a description of how a DM is to populate the world with various npcs and the section on animals there lays out how npc animals fit into the world, I'm pretty sure it's overstepping to apply that to mean that an animal companion is merely an npc under the complete control of the DM.

The very first line in the animal companion section is "A druid’s animal companion is different from a normal animal of its kind in many ways."

The animal companion rules then go on to list a bunch of ways they are different from normal npc animals in the world, most notable the feature Link, which looks to me like it states pretty clearly that it's the druid (or other character with a companion) that controls the animal, via their special free action use of the Handle Animal skill.

I think it's a pretty big leap to go from that to saying the DM has control of the companion, including their behavior *and* the choices made regarding their advancement. Never mind that a companion is technically just part of a class feature, putting it under control of the player.


As for your mention of tactics, the Handle Animal skill lines out fairly clearly what they can do or not do, and Handle Animal is a free action for the character, with a bonus as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

I think I'm gonna need a citation for that. Animal Companions are a part of a Druid/Ranger's class features, and as such, I would think fall under the purview of the PC whose character they belong to. Same goes for Familiars, Paladin's Mounts, and Psion's Psicrystals.

Definitely don't see any language in the Animal Companion description in the rules that would function to make them controlled in any way by the DM.

---

DMG, p103: "It’s your job to portray everyone in the world who isn’t a player character."

Aside from that, there's a whole section on pages 205 and 206 that, summed up, says that they're like cohorts, will desert you if you treat them poorly, and are still regular animals with their normal bestial instincts that can't follow complex orders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bronk

DMG, p103: "It’s your job to portray everyone in the world who isn’t a player character."

---

As a creature who is technically just a part of a PCs class feature, I'd argue that those words don't apply. That section is the chapter in the DMG that specifically deals with populating the world with NPCs, and I don't think it's fair to equate a druid's class feature with an NPC like a merchant, or an enemy, or other such NPCs. It's a different thing entirely. I'm also not seeing the words 'animal companion' anywhere in that NPC chapter. There's a subsection titled 'animals and other monsters' but it seems clear reading it that it isn't referring to animal companions, but rather animals as foes and set dressing. That idea is further backed up by the first line of the description in the druid's animal companion section: 'A druid’s animal companion is different from a normal animal of its kind in many ways.'

Quote:

---

Aside from that, there's a whole section on 205 and 206 that, summed up, says that they're like cohorts, will desert you if you treat them poorly, and are still regular animals with their normal bestial instincts that can't follow complex orders.

---

That section lays out the circumstances in which an animal companion may not be happy and would leave, which would be DM territory, or at least joint territory. It also lats out what simple combat actions and animal companion can take, when not using the actions defined in the Handle Animal skill.


What I'm not seeing in that section, either, is wordage that would indicate the animal companion is a DM controlled NPC. It's even found in the chapter named 'Characters' rather than the one named 'Non Player Characters'

It is part of a PC's class feature, it belongs to the PC, and while the rules put some specific boundaries around its behavior, it is ultimately an extension of the the player's character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

What I'm not seeing in that section, either, is wordage that would indicate the animal companion is a DM controlled NPC. It's even found in the chapter named 'Characters' rather than the one named 'Non Player Characters'

---

NPCs are everyone else in the world other than the PCs. An animal companion is not a PC. All NPCs are DM controlled.

As a DM, however, I agree that it would be a huge pain to do this for everything, and offloading control of animal companions and familiars in combat situations - and relaxing the rules about using handle animal tricks - helps quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bronk

NPCs are everyone else in the world other than the PCs. An animal companion is not a PC.

---

And again, I would claim, based on A) the rules text in the animal companion section of the Druid entry, B) the lack of mention of animal companions in the NPC chapter of the DMG, and C) the very specific way the animal companion section in the Characters chapter of the DMG refers only to circumstances regarding the loss of a companion and the limitations in combat of commanding the animal via the Handle Animal skill, that the animal companion is not an NPC, but is an extension of the Druid's class features.

Nowhere in the PHB does it say the animal companion is a DM controlled NPC, and nowhere in the DMG does it say the animal companion is a DM controlled NPC, but in both it's outlined that the Druid can control the animal as a free action via the Handle Animal skill, with all the limitations that entails.

Quote:

---

All NPCs are DM controlled.

---

That's not always true when it comes to animals. A purchased horse or other mundane mount that's being ridden by a PC is controlled by the PC, not the DM (via the Ride skill and Mounted Combat rules, so there are limitations to its behavior). Given this common exception, is it really such a leap that a special animal that's called out as being different to normal animals, and that comes from a player's class feature, is also an exception? Especially given a total lack of any text directly saying the companion is an NPC, and thus is DM controlled?

Quote:

---

and relaxing the rules about using handle animal tricks - helps quite a bit.

---

I don't know that you need any relaxing of the HA rules. It spells out pretty clearly precisely what the animal companion is capable of and what it's not, which is all the limitation and freedom they need. Plus the Druid gets it as a free action with a bonus already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

And again, I would claim,

---

If you're the DM, it's okay to ignore the rules in your own game, but they're there. I've listed them out for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

A) the rules text in the animal companion section of the Druid entry,

---

It gives you the ability to call an animal, which then gets empowered by your class ability. You don't control it directly, RAW you have to train it, and use your skills to get it to do what you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

B) the lack of mention of animal companions in the NPC chapter of the DMG,

---

It's part of the 'everyone' other than PCs... it's covered. If it helps, that section does directly cover cohorts, and the later section equates animal companions to cohorts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

C) the very specific way the animal companion section in the Characters chapter of the DMG refers only to circumstances regarding the loss of a companion and the limitations in combat of commanding the animal via the Handle Animal skill, that the animal companion is not an NPC, but is an extension of the Druid's class features.

Nowhere in the PHB does it say the animal companion is a DM controlled NPC, and nowhere in the DMG does it say the animal companion is a DM controlled NPC, but in both it's outlined that the Druid can control the animal as a free action via the Handle Animal skill, with all the limitations that entails.

---

If the animal companion were part of your character, you would be able to control its actions directly, you wouldn't need to use skills to get it to do what you want it to do. The animal is doing what the DM wants it to do, the rules are there so that it does what the player wants it to do instead.

Also, an animal companion only gains abilities listed in it's section, and that doesn't include not being an NPC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

That's not always true when it comes to animals. A purchased horse or other mundane mount that's being ridden by a PC is controlled by the PC, not the DM (via the Ride skill and Mounted Combat rules, so there are limitations to its behavior). Given this common exception, is it really such a leap that a special animal that's called out as being different to normal animals, and that comes from a player's class feature, is also an exception? Especially given a total lack of any text directly saying the companion is an NPC, and thus is DM controlled?

---

The horse or mount is still an NPC, under the control of the DM. You need the ride skill to interact with that horse or mount... that's not an exception either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drysdan

I don't know that you need any relaxing of the HA rules. It spells out pretty clearly precisely what the animal companion is capable of and what it's not, which is all the limitation and freedom they need. Plus the Druid gets it as a free action with a bonus already.

---

It's much easier to treat the animal companion/familiar/summoned creature as part the player who's using it/them. In my games, I do let players directly control their critters (as if they were a dvati). That way, they decide exactly where they move, what they attack, and how, instead of hashing out 'okay, I have them use the attack trick' and making me handle the details. I don't have time for that, and it's fun for them.

To bring this around to the original topic, I allow animal companions to speak if they're both smart enough somehow (via magic items, feats, and so on) and using the 'pearl of speech'.

Technically, the PCs are potentially DM-controlled, as well. Bad DMs will overtly do this in a form of railroading. "Your PC wouldn't do that; he'd do this instead, so he does it." "You get up and do this thing because it's boxed text." "Your alignment compells you to do this." Not-bad DMs will sometimes encourage different choices, and may also overtly control the PC through various mechanics, such as charm person or dominate monster. They may even engage in heavy-handed "no, you don't do that" dictates when a player tries to have a PC do something that is either impossible ("You don't have the ability to fly.") or so grossly applying metaknowledge that it's simply not acceptable (this gets fuzzy fast, but, "I don't care if you, the player, have precise knowledge of how to make gunpowder; your character doesn't perform the actions you just described because he has no reason to think to do so, and therefore doesn't invent it.")

Conversely, PCs often impose controls through mechanics on NPCs, from Diplomacy checks to charm/dominate effects to feats and class features which dictate their loyalty (Leadership, Familiars, Animal Companions, Thrallherds' Believers, minionmancy, golem-creation, etc.) and thus put them under the PC's direct and player's indirect control. A level 1 PC with Handle Animal who passes certain checks absolutely does dictate the behavior of his trained pets, companions, and (with Ride) mounts. A necromancer who casts animate dead dictates his skeletal warriors' behavior absolutly. Even a simple hireling can be expected to do what the player paying his wage says he will, within reason.

Unless it comes down to RPing where you need two different people's perspectives to properly play both roles, a lot of NPCs that fall under the umbrella of "party minions" can be assumed to be controlled by the players who "own" them, if only for simplicity's sake. Can you imagine if you had to tell the DM that your PC orders such-and-such, and then the DM has to actually make the declaration of the action? Every time?

DMs already have the longest turns in combat, for example, if only due to having so many turns in combat due to multiple NPCs not under the players' control. When an NPC is part of a character's "kit," it makes sense to turn control of that character over to the player unless and until the player abuses it in a way the DM really feels is outside the NPC's motivations and abilities. At which point it starts to fall into similar categories as, "No, you don't have the ability to shatter a stone door with an arrow; stop saying you do. You hit it with the arrow, and it bounced off."

"But animals can't do tactics!" is spurious; DMs likely have their animal monsters play somewhat optimally, as well, and trained animals under the guidance of their master are perfectly believable if they choose targets and take actions wisely, as the player of their master would want them to.