Giving a Pearl of Speech to a creature with Int too low for language?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












12














What happens if you give a pearl of speech to a creature with low intelligence? Say you give a pearl of speech to an owlbear with an intelligence of 2.



The pearl states that:




While absorbed, the pearl grants you the ability to speak and understand a specific language, such as Dwarven or Draconic. Each pearl is created for a specific language, and you can have only one pearl of speech active at a time.




So is the owlbear magically now able to speak and understand languages even though its intelligence score is only a 2? Or does the intelligence score override the magic ability of the item?










share|improve this question




























    12














    What happens if you give a pearl of speech to a creature with low intelligence? Say you give a pearl of speech to an owlbear with an intelligence of 2.



    The pearl states that:




    While absorbed, the pearl grants you the ability to speak and understand a specific language, such as Dwarven or Draconic. Each pearl is created for a specific language, and you can have only one pearl of speech active at a time.




    So is the owlbear magically now able to speak and understand languages even though its intelligence score is only a 2? Or does the intelligence score override the magic ability of the item?










    share|improve this question


























      12












      12








      12


      2





      What happens if you give a pearl of speech to a creature with low intelligence? Say you give a pearl of speech to an owlbear with an intelligence of 2.



      The pearl states that:




      While absorbed, the pearl grants you the ability to speak and understand a specific language, such as Dwarven or Draconic. Each pearl is created for a specific language, and you can have only one pearl of speech active at a time.




      So is the owlbear magically now able to speak and understand languages even though its intelligence score is only a 2? Or does the intelligence score override the magic ability of the item?










      share|improve this question















      What happens if you give a pearl of speech to a creature with low intelligence? Say you give a pearl of speech to an owlbear with an intelligence of 2.



      The pearl states that:




      While absorbed, the pearl grants you the ability to speak and understand a specific language, such as Dwarven or Draconic. Each pearl is created for a specific language, and you can have only one pearl of speech active at a time.




      So is the owlbear magically now able to speak and understand languages even though its intelligence score is only a 2? Or does the intelligence score override the magic ability of the item?







      dnd-3.5e magic-items ability-scores languages






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Dec 19 '18 at 16:11









      Sdjz

      11k45196




      11k45196










      asked Dec 19 '18 at 14:40









      Critical Crafting

      2,746427




      2,746427




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          17














          Typically, without using trickery, magic, or violence, a creature can't make another creature absorb a pearl of speech (Magic Item Compendium 118) (600 gp; 0 lbs.) as its description says




          When you place a pearl of speech upon your tongue (a standard action), it is absorbed into your mouth until you speak the proper command word to release it.




          (Emphasis mine.) So an owlbear (Monster Manual 206) must itself—for whatever reason—place the pearl of speech upon its own tongue for the pearl to be absorbed. This isn't an impossible thing to convince an owlbear to do, but doing so usually entails some risk. For instance, a low-level ranger probably must be fairly optimized for the wild empathy special ability to get an owlbear to do this.



          That said, once the owlbear does absorb the pearl, the owlbear can then communicate in the language the pearl provides… to the best of its ability, anyway. That is, this reader suspects that the owlbear's physiology sadly still limits it to mostly hooting and growling. See, while the pearl "grants [the creature] the ability to speak and understand a specific language," it doesn't also change the creature's underlying (albeit admittedly magical) biology. The pearl's description says that pearls were "created by drow and used to command their slaves without stooping to learn their foul languages," not that they were, for instance, created by druids to give animals the gift of speech!



          Thus this reader believes that, as written, an absorbed pearl essentially grants the creature 1 rank in skill Speak Language as if it had picked Common, Elven, Slaad, Clockwork Horror, or whatever language the pearl contains, but that virtual skill rank doesn't, in turn, permit an owlbear—like a disturbing combination of Yogi Bear and Woodsy Owl—to actually and for-reals talk.



          However, this player and this DM knows that's no fun. Like, at all.



          Thus, in this DM's campaigns, when a normally noncommunicative creature absorbs a pearl of speech, that creature gains the full capacity to communicate in the language the pearl provides out loud and for-reals using actual speech, just as if every listener were affected by the 1st-level druid spell speak with animals (Player's Handbook 281). Further, like that spell, the pearl's presence "doesn't make [a creature] any more friendly or cooperative than normal[, and] wary and cunning [creatures] are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones make inane comments." So, in this DM's campaigns, that owlbear will be making a lot of inane comments. All the time. And this DM says, sincerely, thank you for paying 600 gp to give me that role-playing opportunity.



          Similarly, this player would try to convince a DM who was reluctant to rule likewise that the pearl should work this way in that DM's campaigns, too, if for no other reason than because the pearl is a lot of fun for the DM.




          Note: In this DM's campaigns, pearls of speech are frequently used by druids, paladins, wizards and others so that their animal companions, familiars, and special mounts can talk. My campaigns have only improved as a result.






          share|improve this answer




























            5














            By RAW, I believe it would. Specific trumps general, and the general effect of not being able to speak due to a low int is trumped by the specific rule that the pearl allows this specific language.



            By RAI, I don't really know. The intention (or existence thereof) of the designers for animals and the pearl interacting is not clear.



            In the end, it probably boils down to GM fiat. I'd be inclined to allow it, depending of course on player intention and its ramifications, since it can enable fun and probably not too disrupting options.






            share|improve this answer




























              -2














              Well, just on pure logic: the owlbear should be able to understand the language itself. It might just not understand the meaning once things go beyond its primal thoughts. I can talk to you -in perfect english- about advanced quantum stuff, but that doesnt mean you are really understanding what i say.






              share|improve this answer











              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.









              • 1




                Could you back this up with any citation of game text? Pure logic requires establishing your base assumptions are true, which here would be done through citing game text or rules.
                – doppelgreener
                Dec 19 '18 at 15:43











              • Yeah, i dont really have a authority-source. The anwser is more based on real life (there are a lot of animals that can understand some degree of language), and the fact i couldnt find anything for a while that suggested otherwise
                – Honore Shadeshield
                Dec 19 '18 at 15:54










              • If there's indication that in-game language works just like learning real-life language that way, then that would be worth citing as an indication it would indeed work that way.
                – doppelgreener
                Dec 19 '18 at 15:56











              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "122"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137634%2fgiving-a-pearl-of-speech-to-a-creature-with-int-too-low-for-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              17














              Typically, without using trickery, magic, or violence, a creature can't make another creature absorb a pearl of speech (Magic Item Compendium 118) (600 gp; 0 lbs.) as its description says




              When you place a pearl of speech upon your tongue (a standard action), it is absorbed into your mouth until you speak the proper command word to release it.




              (Emphasis mine.) So an owlbear (Monster Manual 206) must itself—for whatever reason—place the pearl of speech upon its own tongue for the pearl to be absorbed. This isn't an impossible thing to convince an owlbear to do, but doing so usually entails some risk. For instance, a low-level ranger probably must be fairly optimized for the wild empathy special ability to get an owlbear to do this.



              That said, once the owlbear does absorb the pearl, the owlbear can then communicate in the language the pearl provides… to the best of its ability, anyway. That is, this reader suspects that the owlbear's physiology sadly still limits it to mostly hooting and growling. See, while the pearl "grants [the creature] the ability to speak and understand a specific language," it doesn't also change the creature's underlying (albeit admittedly magical) biology. The pearl's description says that pearls were "created by drow and used to command their slaves without stooping to learn their foul languages," not that they were, for instance, created by druids to give animals the gift of speech!



              Thus this reader believes that, as written, an absorbed pearl essentially grants the creature 1 rank in skill Speak Language as if it had picked Common, Elven, Slaad, Clockwork Horror, or whatever language the pearl contains, but that virtual skill rank doesn't, in turn, permit an owlbear—like a disturbing combination of Yogi Bear and Woodsy Owl—to actually and for-reals talk.



              However, this player and this DM knows that's no fun. Like, at all.



              Thus, in this DM's campaigns, when a normally noncommunicative creature absorbs a pearl of speech, that creature gains the full capacity to communicate in the language the pearl provides out loud and for-reals using actual speech, just as if every listener were affected by the 1st-level druid spell speak with animals (Player's Handbook 281). Further, like that spell, the pearl's presence "doesn't make [a creature] any more friendly or cooperative than normal[, and] wary and cunning [creatures] are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones make inane comments." So, in this DM's campaigns, that owlbear will be making a lot of inane comments. All the time. And this DM says, sincerely, thank you for paying 600 gp to give me that role-playing opportunity.



              Similarly, this player would try to convince a DM who was reluctant to rule likewise that the pearl should work this way in that DM's campaigns, too, if for no other reason than because the pearl is a lot of fun for the DM.




              Note: In this DM's campaigns, pearls of speech are frequently used by druids, paladins, wizards and others so that their animal companions, familiars, and special mounts can talk. My campaigns have only improved as a result.






              share|improve this answer

























                17














                Typically, without using trickery, magic, or violence, a creature can't make another creature absorb a pearl of speech (Magic Item Compendium 118) (600 gp; 0 lbs.) as its description says




                When you place a pearl of speech upon your tongue (a standard action), it is absorbed into your mouth until you speak the proper command word to release it.




                (Emphasis mine.) So an owlbear (Monster Manual 206) must itself—for whatever reason—place the pearl of speech upon its own tongue for the pearl to be absorbed. This isn't an impossible thing to convince an owlbear to do, but doing so usually entails some risk. For instance, a low-level ranger probably must be fairly optimized for the wild empathy special ability to get an owlbear to do this.



                That said, once the owlbear does absorb the pearl, the owlbear can then communicate in the language the pearl provides… to the best of its ability, anyway. That is, this reader suspects that the owlbear's physiology sadly still limits it to mostly hooting and growling. See, while the pearl "grants [the creature] the ability to speak and understand a specific language," it doesn't also change the creature's underlying (albeit admittedly magical) biology. The pearl's description says that pearls were "created by drow and used to command their slaves without stooping to learn their foul languages," not that they were, for instance, created by druids to give animals the gift of speech!



                Thus this reader believes that, as written, an absorbed pearl essentially grants the creature 1 rank in skill Speak Language as if it had picked Common, Elven, Slaad, Clockwork Horror, or whatever language the pearl contains, but that virtual skill rank doesn't, in turn, permit an owlbear—like a disturbing combination of Yogi Bear and Woodsy Owl—to actually and for-reals talk.



                However, this player and this DM knows that's no fun. Like, at all.



                Thus, in this DM's campaigns, when a normally noncommunicative creature absorbs a pearl of speech, that creature gains the full capacity to communicate in the language the pearl provides out loud and for-reals using actual speech, just as if every listener were affected by the 1st-level druid spell speak with animals (Player's Handbook 281). Further, like that spell, the pearl's presence "doesn't make [a creature] any more friendly or cooperative than normal[, and] wary and cunning [creatures] are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones make inane comments." So, in this DM's campaigns, that owlbear will be making a lot of inane comments. All the time. And this DM says, sincerely, thank you for paying 600 gp to give me that role-playing opportunity.



                Similarly, this player would try to convince a DM who was reluctant to rule likewise that the pearl should work this way in that DM's campaigns, too, if for no other reason than because the pearl is a lot of fun for the DM.




                Note: In this DM's campaigns, pearls of speech are frequently used by druids, paladins, wizards and others so that their animal companions, familiars, and special mounts can talk. My campaigns have only improved as a result.






                share|improve this answer























                  17












                  17








                  17






                  Typically, without using trickery, magic, or violence, a creature can't make another creature absorb a pearl of speech (Magic Item Compendium 118) (600 gp; 0 lbs.) as its description says




                  When you place a pearl of speech upon your tongue (a standard action), it is absorbed into your mouth until you speak the proper command word to release it.




                  (Emphasis mine.) So an owlbear (Monster Manual 206) must itself—for whatever reason—place the pearl of speech upon its own tongue for the pearl to be absorbed. This isn't an impossible thing to convince an owlbear to do, but doing so usually entails some risk. For instance, a low-level ranger probably must be fairly optimized for the wild empathy special ability to get an owlbear to do this.



                  That said, once the owlbear does absorb the pearl, the owlbear can then communicate in the language the pearl provides… to the best of its ability, anyway. That is, this reader suspects that the owlbear's physiology sadly still limits it to mostly hooting and growling. See, while the pearl "grants [the creature] the ability to speak and understand a specific language," it doesn't also change the creature's underlying (albeit admittedly magical) biology. The pearl's description says that pearls were "created by drow and used to command their slaves without stooping to learn their foul languages," not that they were, for instance, created by druids to give animals the gift of speech!



                  Thus this reader believes that, as written, an absorbed pearl essentially grants the creature 1 rank in skill Speak Language as if it had picked Common, Elven, Slaad, Clockwork Horror, or whatever language the pearl contains, but that virtual skill rank doesn't, in turn, permit an owlbear—like a disturbing combination of Yogi Bear and Woodsy Owl—to actually and for-reals talk.



                  However, this player and this DM knows that's no fun. Like, at all.



                  Thus, in this DM's campaigns, when a normally noncommunicative creature absorbs a pearl of speech, that creature gains the full capacity to communicate in the language the pearl provides out loud and for-reals using actual speech, just as if every listener were affected by the 1st-level druid spell speak with animals (Player's Handbook 281). Further, like that spell, the pearl's presence "doesn't make [a creature] any more friendly or cooperative than normal[, and] wary and cunning [creatures] are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones make inane comments." So, in this DM's campaigns, that owlbear will be making a lot of inane comments. All the time. And this DM says, sincerely, thank you for paying 600 gp to give me that role-playing opportunity.



                  Similarly, this player would try to convince a DM who was reluctant to rule likewise that the pearl should work this way in that DM's campaigns, too, if for no other reason than because the pearl is a lot of fun for the DM.




                  Note: In this DM's campaigns, pearls of speech are frequently used by druids, paladins, wizards and others so that their animal companions, familiars, and special mounts can talk. My campaigns have only improved as a result.






                  share|improve this answer












                  Typically, without using trickery, magic, or violence, a creature can't make another creature absorb a pearl of speech (Magic Item Compendium 118) (600 gp; 0 lbs.) as its description says




                  When you place a pearl of speech upon your tongue (a standard action), it is absorbed into your mouth until you speak the proper command word to release it.




                  (Emphasis mine.) So an owlbear (Monster Manual 206) must itself—for whatever reason—place the pearl of speech upon its own tongue for the pearl to be absorbed. This isn't an impossible thing to convince an owlbear to do, but doing so usually entails some risk. For instance, a low-level ranger probably must be fairly optimized for the wild empathy special ability to get an owlbear to do this.



                  That said, once the owlbear does absorb the pearl, the owlbear can then communicate in the language the pearl provides… to the best of its ability, anyway. That is, this reader suspects that the owlbear's physiology sadly still limits it to mostly hooting and growling. See, while the pearl "grants [the creature] the ability to speak and understand a specific language," it doesn't also change the creature's underlying (albeit admittedly magical) biology. The pearl's description says that pearls were "created by drow and used to command their slaves without stooping to learn their foul languages," not that they were, for instance, created by druids to give animals the gift of speech!



                  Thus this reader believes that, as written, an absorbed pearl essentially grants the creature 1 rank in skill Speak Language as if it had picked Common, Elven, Slaad, Clockwork Horror, or whatever language the pearl contains, but that virtual skill rank doesn't, in turn, permit an owlbear—like a disturbing combination of Yogi Bear and Woodsy Owl—to actually and for-reals talk.



                  However, this player and this DM knows that's no fun. Like, at all.



                  Thus, in this DM's campaigns, when a normally noncommunicative creature absorbs a pearl of speech, that creature gains the full capacity to communicate in the language the pearl provides out loud and for-reals using actual speech, just as if every listener were affected by the 1st-level druid spell speak with animals (Player's Handbook 281). Further, like that spell, the pearl's presence "doesn't make [a creature] any more friendly or cooperative than normal[, and] wary and cunning [creatures] are likely to be terse and evasive, while the more stupid ones make inane comments." So, in this DM's campaigns, that owlbear will be making a lot of inane comments. All the time. And this DM says, sincerely, thank you for paying 600 gp to give me that role-playing opportunity.



                  Similarly, this player would try to convince a DM who was reluctant to rule likewise that the pearl should work this way in that DM's campaigns, too, if for no other reason than because the pearl is a lot of fun for the DM.




                  Note: In this DM's campaigns, pearls of speech are frequently used by druids, paladins, wizards and others so that their animal companions, familiars, and special mounts can talk. My campaigns have only improved as a result.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 19 '18 at 16:21









                  Hey I Can Chan

                  142k12250604




                  142k12250604























                      5














                      By RAW, I believe it would. Specific trumps general, and the general effect of not being able to speak due to a low int is trumped by the specific rule that the pearl allows this specific language.



                      By RAI, I don't really know. The intention (or existence thereof) of the designers for animals and the pearl interacting is not clear.



                      In the end, it probably boils down to GM fiat. I'd be inclined to allow it, depending of course on player intention and its ramifications, since it can enable fun and probably not too disrupting options.






                      share|improve this answer

























                        5














                        By RAW, I believe it would. Specific trumps general, and the general effect of not being able to speak due to a low int is trumped by the specific rule that the pearl allows this specific language.



                        By RAI, I don't really know. The intention (or existence thereof) of the designers for animals and the pearl interacting is not clear.



                        In the end, it probably boils down to GM fiat. I'd be inclined to allow it, depending of course on player intention and its ramifications, since it can enable fun and probably not too disrupting options.






                        share|improve this answer























                          5












                          5








                          5






                          By RAW, I believe it would. Specific trumps general, and the general effect of not being able to speak due to a low int is trumped by the specific rule that the pearl allows this specific language.



                          By RAI, I don't really know. The intention (or existence thereof) of the designers for animals and the pearl interacting is not clear.



                          In the end, it probably boils down to GM fiat. I'd be inclined to allow it, depending of course on player intention and its ramifications, since it can enable fun and probably not too disrupting options.






                          share|improve this answer












                          By RAW, I believe it would. Specific trumps general, and the general effect of not being able to speak due to a low int is trumped by the specific rule that the pearl allows this specific language.



                          By RAI, I don't really know. The intention (or existence thereof) of the designers for animals and the pearl interacting is not clear.



                          In the end, it probably boils down to GM fiat. I'd be inclined to allow it, depending of course on player intention and its ramifications, since it can enable fun and probably not too disrupting options.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:58









                          ThanosMaravel

                          46315




                          46315





















                              -2














                              Well, just on pure logic: the owlbear should be able to understand the language itself. It might just not understand the meaning once things go beyond its primal thoughts. I can talk to you -in perfect english- about advanced quantum stuff, but that doesnt mean you are really understanding what i say.






                              share|improve this answer











                              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.









                              • 1




                                Could you back this up with any citation of game text? Pure logic requires establishing your base assumptions are true, which here would be done through citing game text or rules.
                                – doppelgreener
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:43











                              • Yeah, i dont really have a authority-source. The anwser is more based on real life (there are a lot of animals that can understand some degree of language), and the fact i couldnt find anything for a while that suggested otherwise
                                – Honore Shadeshield
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:54










                              • If there's indication that in-game language works just like learning real-life language that way, then that would be worth citing as an indication it would indeed work that way.
                                – doppelgreener
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:56
















                              -2














                              Well, just on pure logic: the owlbear should be able to understand the language itself. It might just not understand the meaning once things go beyond its primal thoughts. I can talk to you -in perfect english- about advanced quantum stuff, but that doesnt mean you are really understanding what i say.






                              share|improve this answer











                              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.









                              • 1




                                Could you back this up with any citation of game text? Pure logic requires establishing your base assumptions are true, which here would be done through citing game text or rules.
                                – doppelgreener
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:43











                              • Yeah, i dont really have a authority-source. The anwser is more based on real life (there are a lot of animals that can understand some degree of language), and the fact i couldnt find anything for a while that suggested otherwise
                                – Honore Shadeshield
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:54










                              • If there's indication that in-game language works just like learning real-life language that way, then that would be worth citing as an indication it would indeed work that way.
                                – doppelgreener
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:56














                              -2












                              -2








                              -2






                              Well, just on pure logic: the owlbear should be able to understand the language itself. It might just not understand the meaning once things go beyond its primal thoughts. I can talk to you -in perfect english- about advanced quantum stuff, but that doesnt mean you are really understanding what i say.






                              share|improve this answer












                              Well, just on pure logic: the owlbear should be able to understand the language itself. It might just not understand the meaning once things go beyond its primal thoughts. I can talk to you -in perfect english- about advanced quantum stuff, but that doesnt mean you are really understanding what i say.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Dec 19 '18 at 15:37









                              Honore Shadeshield

                              375110




                              375110



                              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.




                              Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.








                              • 1




                                Could you back this up with any citation of game text? Pure logic requires establishing your base assumptions are true, which here would be done through citing game text or rules.
                                – doppelgreener
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:43











                              • Yeah, i dont really have a authority-source. The anwser is more based on real life (there are a lot of animals that can understand some degree of language), and the fact i couldnt find anything for a while that suggested otherwise
                                – Honore Shadeshield
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:54










                              • If there's indication that in-game language works just like learning real-life language that way, then that would be worth citing as an indication it would indeed work that way.
                                – doppelgreener
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:56













                              • 1




                                Could you back this up with any citation of game text? Pure logic requires establishing your base assumptions are true, which here would be done through citing game text or rules.
                                – doppelgreener
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:43











                              • Yeah, i dont really have a authority-source. The anwser is more based on real life (there are a lot of animals that can understand some degree of language), and the fact i couldnt find anything for a while that suggested otherwise
                                – Honore Shadeshield
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:54










                              • If there's indication that in-game language works just like learning real-life language that way, then that would be worth citing as an indication it would indeed work that way.
                                – doppelgreener
                                Dec 19 '18 at 15:56








                              1




                              1




                              Could you back this up with any citation of game text? Pure logic requires establishing your base assumptions are true, which here would be done through citing game text or rules.
                              – doppelgreener
                              Dec 19 '18 at 15:43





                              Could you back this up with any citation of game text? Pure logic requires establishing your base assumptions are true, which here would be done through citing game text or rules.
                              – doppelgreener
                              Dec 19 '18 at 15:43













                              Yeah, i dont really have a authority-source. The anwser is more based on real life (there are a lot of animals that can understand some degree of language), and the fact i couldnt find anything for a while that suggested otherwise
                              – Honore Shadeshield
                              Dec 19 '18 at 15:54




                              Yeah, i dont really have a authority-source. The anwser is more based on real life (there are a lot of animals that can understand some degree of language), and the fact i couldnt find anything for a while that suggested otherwise
                              – Honore Shadeshield
                              Dec 19 '18 at 15:54












                              If there's indication that in-game language works just like learning real-life language that way, then that would be worth citing as an indication it would indeed work that way.
                              – doppelgreener
                              Dec 19 '18 at 15:56





                              If there's indication that in-game language works just like learning real-life language that way, then that would be worth citing as an indication it would indeed work that way.
                              – doppelgreener
                              Dec 19 '18 at 15:56


















                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137634%2fgiving-a-pearl-of-speech-to-a-creature-with-int-too-low-for-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown






                              Popular posts from this blog

                              How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                              Bahrain

                              Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay