INT and POW of Animals


Hi all,

which values would you use for the characteristics of "standard" animals, such as birds, rabbits, rats.
Especially POW and INT would be interesting. My idea would be something like D6 for INT, and 3D6 for POW. Would you think that domestication increases INT? Does INT of an animal refer to human-like intelligence (that's why we think that dogs and dolphins are rather intelligent), or to the intelligence within the species-specific behaviour of this animal?

STR and SIZ are quite easy to estimate, but CHA and DEX are quite specific: Has a surpassingly pretty toad a higher CHA than a lion with below-average appearance (so CHA means how pretty an animal looks for its own species), or does CHA reflect the appearance of the animal to humans? Should all animals (no matter if they look pretty or ugly to us) have something like CHA = 3D6?

And for a fish, a high DEX means it's a good swimmer, while for a bird if reflects it's ability for tricky manoeuvres in flight. So also DEX = 3D6 for all animals, and put the result in connection with the usually abilities of this species?

Thank you!
I don't have the books on me right now, but the Monsters of Legend books have stats for some "mundane" animals. If no one else beats me to it I'll look some up tonight for you.

Sam / Bifforf
Monsters of Legend 1 has a few very good examples.

A Deer has the following stat block:

Str 2D6+6 (Av 13)
Con 3D6 (Av 11)
Siz 3D6+12 (Av 23) (I don't agree with this - this should be 2D6+12)
Int 4 (Av 4)
Pow 2D6 (Av 7)
Dex 3D6+6 (Av 17)

A dog has this stat block:

Str 1D6+1 (Av 5)
Con 3D6 (Av 11)
Siz 1D6 (Av 4)
Int 5 (Av 5)
Pow 1D6+6 (Av 10)
Dex 2D6+6 (Av 13)

A lion has:

Str 3D6+12 (Av 23)
Con 3D6 (Av 11)
Siz 2D6+12 (Av 19) (I don't agree with this - this should be 3D6+12)
Int 5 (Av 5)
Pow 3D6 (Av 11)
Dex 3D6+6 (Av 17)

There is one constant for each "Natural Life" animal and that is a static INT value. They are all a specific value. Now that's not to say you can't vary it for an especially intelligent creature, but Mongoose have certainly made it a "thing" that this is static, not random/variable.

Having said that...... in Monsters of Legend 2 the Wise Hare has an Int of 1D6+6 (Av 10); However that entire book is about mythical or supernatural animals, not mundane ones.

Looking into it further, the 1st book says this (selective cut and paste):

"A creature with a randomly determined INT is considered sapient – it is a rational creation capable of logical thought and self-determination. A creature with a fixed INT ... is sentient but not sapient.
Fixed-INT creatures tend to operate on instinct, rather than logic or intuition. ..... Creatures with a very large fixed INT have rudimentary reasoning abilities, as well as a set of complex and finely-honed instincts."
Thank you!

So it seems that INT for animals means something like human-like social intelligence. Gregarious animals have a comparable lower INT than loners or animals acting more self dependent as part of a small, but complex social structure.

And POW seems to reflect something similar: A higher "self responsibility" in their natural behaviour (e. g. as holds for an eagle or shark) means a higher POW than animals just following all other members of their herd or swarm (horse or herring).
Normal animals have a Fixed INT, which is the same for all members of that type of animal. The higher the Fixed INT, the more intelligent that species. I think Chimpanzees have a very INT, as do Herd Men in Glorantha.

One thing that the INT does is measure how relatively intelligent animals are. It also allows a Beast Trainer to give an animal its INT in commands to understand, so a higher INT creature can be trained in more commands.

Anyone awakening a Beast can turn Fixed INT into normal INT, thus making a stupid but intelligent familiar or awakened creature, however some people play that such awakened beasts get 2D6+6 INT instead.
It's worth pointing out that the concept of Fixed INT has a very long history in D100 games. I'm pretty sure it goes right back to RQI in the late 1970s, but I don't have the book in front of me.