LL

One of my players has a cleric that has attracted a stray dog and regularly communicates with it using Speak With Animals. It's a dumb mongrel, ecstatic that someone is buying it steak rather than kicking it for the first time in it's life.  It's helped out in some combats and the spell has allowed some extremely specific commands (ie "There's a thing humans use called a mirror, and it looks like this, now go and get me one")

Now this is the type of player that's going argue that because the dog knows her and respects her character, it can still be commanded without use of the spell, when she doesn't want to use a spell slot for SWA (or has used SWA for non-dog animals in that instance).  What kind of leniency (if any) would you allow when issuing commands? I'm leaning towards it being almost totally disobedient/random.

A dog can form a bond very quickly if its treated right, even a stray.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18218878

If the dog can understand what its being told it will usually try to obey, unless its young or a particularly strong willed breed like huskies, who have been bred for their independence (no good plunging the sled over an ice cliff just because the master can't see it).

She needs to put in the time to train the dog in verbal obedience seperate from the spell if she wants results though. If the dog doesn't understand what its being asked to do, it won't do it of course, and its not going to understand unless its been trained to certain cues. Communication, not a bond, is the problem here.

I can see the spell being a huge help in speeding up the training process though, what might ordinarily take three months might only take a week.

Quote from: AndrewSFTSN;567330LL

One of my players has a cleric that has attracted a stray dog and regularly communicates with it using Speak With Animals. It's a dumb mongrel, ecstatic that someone is buying it steak rather than kicking it for the first time in it's life.  It's helped out in some combats and the spell has allowed some extremely specific commands (ie "There's a thing humans use called a mirror, and it looks like this, now go and get me one")

Now this is the type of player that's going argue that because the dog knows her and respects her character, it can still be commanded without use of the spell, when she doesn't want to use a spell slot for SWA (or has used SWA for non-dog animals in that instance).  What kind of leniency (if any) would you allow when issuing commands? I'm leaning towards it being almost totally disobedient/random.

Dogs are creatures of habit. If treated well, they want to please. Sometimes it can get you into situations you did not foresee with consequences you did not want (a dog being overprotective, for instance), so the dog also needs discipline and leadership to know what pleases you and what doesn't.

Now. Taking your example, if the character uses Speak with Animals to describe a mirror and the dog brings back a mirror, sometimes later, the dog looking at the master asking to go fetch something without the help of the spells might misinterpret the command and just assume she wants another mirror, which he will go search for, while she wanted the dog to say, get some help or something.

A dog needs to be trained and shown what to do before it knows in effect what he's expected to do in any given situation. Sometimes (oft-times) dogs pick up on behavior that was not expressly meant as training, so being a good model is important as well, because you never know what the dog will pick up on and use later at a habit. If you are a shit to people you don't know, the dog might pick up on that and think that he's expected to attack strangers. And so on.

The bottom line is that dogs need leadership, discipline and love, in that order.

Use common sense from there.

I would just let the player spend a little bit of XP to make the spell permanent for that specific animal. The occasional awesome rule-bending for player benefit buys a lot of goodwill and encourages character development.

How many hit points does this stray dog have? I don't think things are going to end well...

I think the spell should make it pretty easy to train the animal, since it understands mostly what she wants, in its terms.

I'd probably let her give it some tricks/knowledge, and let it away. Hell, I'd probably level the dog up with her over time so the HP stuff wouldn't be an issue, after all, she's teaching it how to do things, so it probably can take a defensive cue from her.

Training/commanding an animal is separate from the effects of Speak with Animals. A close reading of the spell and comparison with Speak with Plants or Stone Tell suggests the spell bestows temporary human intelligence on the subject. However, that goes away when the spell ends.

Proof? One of the side effects (at least for the OD&D version) is that it prevents the animal from attacking the cleric or the cleric's party. When the spell ends, should the animal continue to treat the party as friends? Most people would answer "no, it's a temporary benefit." Likewise, detailed human-style memories should be temporary, too.

You could maybe speed up training, but you can't basically plant post-hypnotic suggestions for the animal to carry out later.

Quote from: talysman;567419Training/commanding an animal is separate from the effects of Speak with Animals. A close reading of the spell and comparison with Speak with Plants or Stone Tell suggests the spell bestows temporary human intelligence on the subject. However, that goes away when the spell ends.

Proof? One of the side effects (at least for the OD&D version) is that it prevents the animal from attacking the cleric or the cleric's party.

I think you're misreading the spell. The spell reads: "There is a possibility that the animal(s) spoken with will perform services for the Cleric, and they will never attack the party the Cleric is in. (The manner of handling the probabilities of action by animals is discussed in the next volume.)"

The parenthetical statement is difficult to parse because no such discussion occurs in Volume 2. In Volume 3, there is a discussion of "random actions by monsters", but this only applies to "the more intelligent monsters".

The most logical explanation of the passage is pretty simple, however: It's referring to the reaction tables that you're supposed to use when PCs are trying to "lure" monsters into their service. One of the potential outcomes on that table is "attempts to attack". What the spell is saying is, "Because you can speak to the animal, you can attempt to lure it into your service just like any other monster you can talk to. Due to the spell, however, ignore the 'attempts to attack' result on that table."

It has nothing to do with granting temporary intelligence. (It might, but nothing in the spell requires it.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;567460I think you're misreading the spell. The spell reads: "There is a possibility that the animal(s) spoken with will perform services for the Cleric, and they will never attack the party the Cleric is in. (The manner of handling the probabilities of action by animals is discussed in the next volume.)"

The parenthetical statement is difficult to parse because no such discussion occurs in Volume 2. In Volume 3, there is a discussion of "random actions by monsters", but this only applies to "the more intelligent monsters".

The most logical explanation of the passage is pretty simple, however: It's referring to the reaction tables that you're supposed to use when PCs are trying to "lure" monsters into their service. One of the potential outcomes on that table is "attempts to attack". What the spell is saying is, "Because you can speak to the animal, you can attempt to lure it into your service just like any other monster you can talk to. Due to the spell, however, ignore the 'attempts to attack' result on that table."

It has nothing to do with granting temporary intelligence. (It might, but nothing in the spell requires it.)

I don't base the idea of temporary intelligence on the part you quote. The first sentence in the description, plus the comparison with the other two spells I mentioned, are what I'm basing that conclusion on.

The part you quote includes an immunity to attacks by animals. The only conclusion about intelligence that I draw from that bit is that it's temporary; in other words, if you assumed that the animal can still interpret human speech in an intelligent manner after the spell ends, you have to ask whether the immunity from attack will also persist after the spell ends. I think both are out of the question; you just get an immunity from attack while conversing with the animal.

Honestly? Stop worrying about the rules, and do what makes sense for the story.

If the rules are getting in the way of producing a fun and interesting experience for you and your players, just ignore them.

Thanks for the thoughts, everyone.

Quote from: Benoist;567339Dogs are creatures of habit. If treated well, they want to please. Sometimes it can get you into situations you did not foresee with consequences you did not want ....

Now. Taking your example, if the character uses Speak with Animals to describe a mirror and the dog brings back a mirror, sometimes later, the dog looking at the master asking to go fetch something without the help of the spells might misinterpret the command and just assume she wants another mirror, which he will go search for, while she wanted the dog to say, get some help or something.


...The bottom line is that dogs need leadership, discipline and love, in that order.

Hadn't even considered misinterpreted commands like this when the spell isn't active, thanks!  Could get messy.  Maybe I'll start keeping a list of requests the animal has been asked to pull out at the wrong moment.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;567460It has nothing to do with granting temporary intelligence. (It might, but nothing in the spell requires it.)

It's definitely been played as a very dumb, enthusiastic dog so far, it just happens to be able to communicate in sentences.  We rolled it a temporary "dog intelligence" to see if it can understand human concepts while under the influence or the spell.

Quote from: Vegetable Protein;567352I would just let the player spend a little bit of XP to make the spell permanent for that specific animal. The occasional awesome rule-bending for player benefit buys a lot of goodwill and encourages character development.

Interesting thought, but this player and a couple of the others are pretty new to fantasy RPG's and I wouldn't want to give the impression that they could always 'cash in' their XP/benefits for such things.  She already occasionally (half-jokingly) asks things like "can't I just GIVE party member X some of my hit points?"

Quote from: talysman;567419You could maybe speed up training, but you can't basically plant post-hypnotic suggestions for the animal to carry out later.

The Labyrinth Lord description actually goes as far as to specify that the spell won't necessarily make it "any more friendly or cooperative than normal".  I find it interesting how different the OD&D version with immunity from attacks is-definitely runs counter to my intuitive ideas of how this kind of spell would work.  

Quote from: The Traveller;567338A dog can form a bond very quickly if its treated right, even a stray.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-18218878
.

This guy rules.

Quote from: Planet Algol;567400How many hit points does this stray dog have? I don't think things are going to end well...

4.  With an investigation into a leper colony swarming with fish-people planned for next session, what could possibly go wrong?

Quote from: AndrewSFTSN;567514Interesting thought, but this player and a couple of the others are pretty new to fantasy RPG's and I wouldn't want to give the impression that they could always 'cash in' their XP/benefits for such things.  She already occasionally (half-jokingly) asks things like "can't I just GIVE party member X some of my hit points?"

"Why yes, there's a strange witch who lives by the crossroad who supposedly has the ability to transfer heartiness from one person to another, among other things. All it would cost you is a modest sum and some experience. Interested enough to visit her?"

or

"Oh look, one of the spells described on this ancient ritual tablet gives you the ability to transfer hit points to a companion!"

The great thing about older editions of the game is how easy it is to add things like that.

Damn it VP, now I look like a miser DM!

I do always forget to offer up things like this. Not sure they'd go for it though, they'd probably just assume it was a trap (I wonder why...)

Quote from: AndrewSFTSN;567521Damn it VP, now I look like a miser DM!

I do always forget to offer up things like this. Not sure they'd go for it though, they'd probably just assume it was a trap (I wonder why...)

Sid Meier said, "A game is a series of interesting choices." If your players respond to such an offer by choosing paranoia then a choice was still made, and they still get the satisfaction of play. Doesn't bother me if they don't grab any hooks or juicy leads, as long as they are doing something.

Now if they assume everything you offer is a trap, then they might see you as an adversary instead of a referee. This lack of trust can be problematic if you want to take full advantage of the possibilities RPGs offer. I would suggest you rebalance this by presenting them with some minor giveaways, like the dog thing for example, so that that way they know you are merely an impartial arbitrator of the game world rather than a guy trying to kill them.

Its funny to me how often I have to remind players that trained animals are not magical supercreatures at their command, though.   There's too many players for whom having an "animal companion" is really just an attempt to power-up their PC with a creature that gives them extra attacks or they think should flawlessly be able to detect intruders or traps.

Of course, fantasy fiction can be to blame for a lot of this.  And naturally, there have been exceptions with quite a few of my players too, where they did the whole thing right.

RPGPundit