Elder Poll: Animals and Barding [Archive] - Wizards Community

Elder Poll: Animals and Barding [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Caterane
08-23-05, 08:39 AM This Poll is for Core Coliseum Elders only!
- Elders are Pittbull, LLMadCow, Tellish of Ket, Huan, and King Uther -

This poll should decide how the CoCo handles the unclear issue about animals and the ability to wear barding. The only reference we have is from the SRD which basically says that an animal must be trained for war to be proficient with armor barding.

The question is how we define 'trained for war'.

- Option 1: Tricks needed are Attack, Come, Defend, Down, Guard, Heel. That leaves no slots open for any other trick than mentioned ones. It would exclude all Int 1 creature from wearing armor. On the other hand it might be a balanced trade off for all three armor feats.

- Option 2: Trick required are Attack, Down, Stay. Fewer requirements than Option 1 thus easier to teach. It makes armor proficiency available for all handle animal allies, incl. vermin and other Int 1 creatures.

- Option 3: The Attack trick is the simplest and easiest to handle requirement but it might be considered too cheap for the armor feats.

- Option 4: Animals need to take armor proficiency feats to be proficient with armor. No trick can substitute that. In order to be able to use armor, the CoCo rules must be opened a bit to allow modifying feats on animals (example: exchange run with light armor proficiency).

Elders, this poll will be closed automatically in 4 days from now on (saturday). If you haven't voted by then, you abstain. On the other hand it would be better to think about it again before you vote.
Tellish_of_Ket
08-23-05, 08:50 AM First to vote. :)

#3 is the easiest solution and imo is closest to the RAI.

-ToK
michael_noah
08-23-05, 08:57 AM This is the closest to RAW, and the least abusable.

Note that I have posted an option in the commons for giving feats to animals such that they could easily have armor proficiency, without awarding any free feats.

I apologize. I aparently missed the big red thing at the top of the poll, and only saw the part about a "public poll".
Caterane
08-23-05, 10:25 AM This should lead to a way to solve it that involves no free feats, no house rules, etc. Emphasis mine:
Feats
The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites. It specifically states that a monster's feats can be reassigned. So, any animal at all could possibly have armor proficiency, it would just need to be trained such that it had, say, light armor proficiency instead of Run.

@Michael: Hm, we can't allow to switch feats as you wish but we could limit its application by saying you need to pay 1 or 2° to customize your mounts feats, or any handle animal ally for that matter. Sounds like another good way to spend feats on, and would allow for other feats aswell. It would also open yet more options in the CoCo.

What do the Elders think about that? Sounds like an elegant and logical solution.
King Uther
08-23-05, 10:25 AM I honestly feel the whole combat package should be mandatory. You shouldn't even have to train an animal to attack, as any animal has the inherent ability to do so. But true training involves a lot of time, and while you could argue that teaching the attack trick could involve the use of barding, it doesn't have everything needed to be "combat-trained." Using feats would work, but I don't get the impression it was truly intended.
Tellish_of_Ket
08-23-05, 10:51 AM @Michael: Hm, we can't allow to switch feats as you wish but we could limit its application by saying you need to pay 1 or 2° to customize your mounts feats, or any handle animal ally for that matter. Sounds like another good way to spend feats on, and would allow for other feats aswell. It would also open yet more options in the CoCo.

What do the Elders think about that? Sounds like an elegant and logical solution.
If it's a legit rule, and it seems like it, then why the need to pay °'s? It should be an option open to everyone.

-ToK
Huan
08-23-05, 11:28 AM Hmm....

Option 4 certainly seems feasible, as well as an option to sidestep the need to define "trained for war" ... but I would not vote for it.

After all, "War-trained" seems like a standard any mount can achieve (or at least, the rules seem to imply so by making such a general statement), but it is not as overpowering as it may appear.

With feat substitution, anyone can make their mount wear armor (and work up 1 or 2 credits to pay for it). As it is almost anyone can use spells, powers, or magic items for thier mounts (or use defensive tattoos). But, not everyone has invested in Handle Animal enough to be able to teach their Mounts the necessary tricks to be War-Trained (much less capture the animals. After all, only about half of the available classes, mainly warriors, offer it as a class skill). Thus, it seems to me that limiting the war-trained status to a Trick set is still the least abuseable way.

With that in mind, I will select one of the skilll packages to define "trained for war." Option 3 is, of course, much to easy. Option 2 is not much better, but if it had, say, Defend, I might have considered it. Thus, Option 1 seems very viable in my book. It rewards creatures smarter than 1 (whom I doubt can understand the environment of war or battle with their very basic, animalistic intelligence), and still meets a satisfying array of Tricks to use. Additionally, it is the same Trick set existing war-trained mounts all posses. Creatures smarter than that can of course learn more, better Tricks. True, it will take some work to train an animal to learn all those tricks, as well as its trainer having a skill bonus high enough to teach it, but that is the point.

If you want to talk "least abuseable", this is the best way. Wearing armor was clearly not intended to be a thing every mount can do automatically, and as such, setting a decent height for the bar that both a trainer and mount must surpass is fair.

Summary:
I DO support monsters taking feats for armor proficiency when their HD growth grants them new feats (like class companions, familiars, mounts)
I DO NOT support swapping out a monster's starting feats for monsters whose HD will not progress (captured monsters, typically)
I DO support having these monsters whose HD will not progress instead be trained with the Combat Riding package and gain Armor Proficiency that way.

For this, I choose "trained for war" to be defined by Option 1 (combat riding package). If option 4 is elaborated more I may lean there instead (ignore what I voted.)
Usurpator
08-23-05, 11:52 AM It is a little outside the core rules, but it may help to interpret the 'trained for war' clause:

MMII: p.219 - Warbeast Template
It shows an example of a Rhinoceros in scale barding. The template gives the following special quaility:

Combative Mount (Ex): A rider on a warbeast Rhinoceros gets a +2 circumstance bonus on Ride checks. A warbeast rhinoceros is proficient with light, medium, and heavy armor. A vermin warbeast, being mindless and therefore untrainable, cannot have this ability.

Another case in point: MM3, p. 38: Dinosaur, Battletitan. This creature wears barding and it has all the armor proficiencies listed as feats.

These are the examples of creatures in official sources I know have barding (there may be others, though). Both have a special quality that allows them to use that barding without the requisite penalties.

So, by all indications, I think it should be option 4.
Usurpator
08-23-05, 11:53 AM Sorry, voted in the poll, my trigger finger was too happy. Scrap one vote from option 4.... :embarrass
michael_noah
08-23-05, 02:48 PM I think this could possibly change some minds.

A riding dog might be an ironclad example of "trained for war" not being the same as the Combat Riding trick set, or any subset of it.

Riding dogs can fight while bearing a rider. I would guess that means that they have the Combat Riding package, just as warhorse. However, they cannot automatically make trip checks.

They must have some additional training in order to make trip checks - they must be trained for war. Might I suggest then that being "trained for war" has nothing to do with handle animal at all?
Huan
08-23-05, 03:00 PM I think this could possibly change some minds.
Well, unlike ponies or horses, dogs are natural, yet domestic, predators that know, and will, fight or defend with little need for formal battle.

Handle Animal is crucial for the wild animals to first be "tamed" then trained to perform Tricks in battle. The dog needs the Handle Animal to be taught how to fight more effectively in battle (aka Trip). Just like the horses/ponies need Handle Animal to not run away from danger and actually fight.
michael_noah
08-23-05, 03:02 PM Well, unlike ponies or horses, dogs are natural, yet domestic, predators that know, and will, fight or defend with little need for formal battle.

Handle Animal is crucial for the wild animals to first be "tamed" then trained to perform Tricks in battle.

I really hate to use real world examples for arguing DnD "logic", but, um, have you ever seen a ****** off horse? Let your dog attack my horse any time and we'll see who wins.

Also, I don't understand your second comment. The riding dog is tamed, and trained, and posseses all of the things that are being proposed would qualify it as being "trained for war". Yet, it is not "trained for war", as it can not yet make trip attacks. Something more must be done.
Huan
08-23-05, 03:06 PM Well, good for that horse, but the facts remain that dogs are natural fighters while horses are not.
Gonbow
08-23-05, 03:14 PM Michael's point is this:

Warhorses are trained for war, and have combat riding training. This implies that the two are one and the same.

Riding dogs are NOT trained for war, and have combat riding training. This impleis that the two are NOT the one and the same. If combat riding = war training, then they would be able to trip already.
michael_noah
08-23-05, 03:16 PM Well, good for that horse, but the facts remain that dogs are natural fighters while horses are not.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you referring to the fact that (non-War) horses get only half their strength bonus? Or are you alluding to some great scientific breakthrough in the real world that I'm unaware of?

Even if that's the case, it completely works against your point. If Riding Dogs are trained in the combat riding package, but are still not "trained for war", how is it that a horse, who is oh so much weaker and peaceful, is "trained for war" when it knows the exact same tricks?

Or, are you saying that the Riding Dog does not need to be trained in the combat riding package in order to fight with a rider? I'm pretty sure that is not the case. There is no special exception for the dog listed below.

An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel.
NiQil
08-23-05, 04:51 PM One thing I wanted to mention here with regard to riding dogs and warhorses. According to the SRD under the Handle Animal Skill, it says that warhorses and riding dogs (and I am assuming by association warponies) are already trained with the combat riding package. Michael Noah is correct, however, in that the riding dog entry alludes to the fact that riding dogs must receive additional training in order to trip like wolves. Well, one thing that I noticed, is that with the Fighting trick package, there is a trick that is not given under combat riding, and that is Stay. That would lead me to believe that either feats or the answer, as Michael has said, or, that the fighting package may be the one needed for war training. The problem we run into there is that if dogs and horses already have combat training, since they only have a 2 intelligence, they can only ever learn 6 tricks, which precluded them from ever learning Stay to also have the Fighting package. Based on that information, I cannot help but think that Michael's argument about them requiring feats for barding holds merit.

Disclaimer: I am currently on pain medication, so anything I just said may or not make any sense at all. Take it for what it is worth.
Pittbull
08-26-05, 02:32 PM I voted for option 1, because I strongly believe that a standart heavy warhorse is proficient with all kinds of armor and doesn't need a feat. But really like Cat's idea of being able to exchange feats for all bought animal without credit-costs and for others with credit-costs. That gives us more options to create different mounts.
LLMadCow
08-27-05, 05:12 PM Okay, well, being under the impression that I would be able to vote today, I was coming to post my vote. BUT I CANNOT! Now, I am still annoyed that my recommended option was not even a consideration, but barring MY OPTION, my vote would have gone with Choice #1. I would like to see an additonal poll that reflects what I posted as a recommendation since it very clearly addresses all aspects and qualifying information regarding Mounts and barding and what are the qualifiers for being combat ready. Please consider it.

LL
Caterane
08-28-05, 09:39 AM Alright, the Elders have decided, with a 3 votes majority on Option 1, Tok Option 3 and MadCow abstaining.

With the recent addition of exchanging feats, there are now 2 options to get the armor proficiency for mounts:

- you can either train the whole Combat Riding Package (all 6 tricks), or
- you can give the animal the armor proficiency feats in place of their default ones.

Trained for War means Combat Riding for purposes of the Dog being able to make trip attacks.

I want to thank everyone for his or her participation and suggestions. We'll soon see a new poll about which tricks are necessary for an animal to be able to be ridden.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caterane 08-23-05, 08:39 AM	This Poll is for Core Coliseum Elders only! - Elders are Pittbull, LLMadCow, Tellish of Ket, Huan, and King Uther - This poll should decide how the CoCo handles the unclear issue about animals and the ability to wear barding. The only reference we have is from the SRD which basically says that an animal must be trained for war to be proficient with armor barding. The question is how we define 'trained for war'. - Option 1: Tricks needed are Attack, Come, Defend, Down, Guard, Heel. That leaves no slots open for any other trick than mentioned ones. It would exclude all Int 1 creature from wearing armor. On the other hand it might be a balanced trade off for all three armor feats. - Option 2: Trick required are Attack, Down, Stay. Fewer requirements than Option 1 thus easier to teach. It makes armor proficiency available for all handle animal allies, incl. vermin and other Int 1 creatures. - Option 3: The Attack trick is the simplest and easiest to handle requirement but it might be considered too cheap for the armor feats. - Option 4: Animals need to take armor proficiency feats to be proficient with armor. No trick can substitute that. In order to be able to use armor, the CoCo rules must be opened a bit to allow modifying feats on animals (example: exchange run with light armor proficiency). Elders, this poll will be closed automatically in 4 days from now on (saturday). If you haven't voted by then, you abstain. On the other hand it would be better to think about it again before you vote.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-23-05, 08:50 AM	First to vote. :) #3 is the easiest solution and imo is closest to the RAI. -ToK
michael_noah 08-23-05, 08:57 AM	This is the closest to RAW, and the least abusable. Note that I have posted an option in the commons for giving feats to animals such that they could easily have armor proficiency, without awarding any free feats. I apologize. I aparently missed the big red thing at the top of the poll, and only saw the part about a "public poll".
Caterane 08-23-05, 10:25 AM	This should lead to a way to solve it that involves no free feats, no house rules, etc. Emphasis mine: Feats The line gives the creature’s feats. A monster gains feats just as a character does. Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat. If you wish to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats. A creature cannot have a feat that is not a bonus feat unless it has the feat’s prerequisites. It specifically states that a monster's feats can be reassigned. So, any animal at all could possibly have armor proficiency, it would just need to be trained such that it had, say, light armor proficiency instead of Run. @Michael: Hm, we can't allow to switch feats as you wish but we could limit its application by saying you need to pay 1 or 2° to customize your mounts feats, or any handle animal ally for that matter. Sounds like another good way to spend feats on, and would allow for other feats aswell. It would also open yet more options in the CoCo. What do the Elders think about that? Sounds like an elegant and logical solution.
King Uther 08-23-05, 10:25 AM	I honestly feel the whole combat package should be mandatory. You shouldn't even have to train an animal to attack, as any animal has the inherent ability to do so. But true training involves a lot of time, and while you could argue that teaching the attack trick could involve the use of barding, it doesn't have everything needed to be "combat-trained." Using feats would work, but I don't get the impression it was truly intended.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-23-05, 10:51 AM	@Michael: Hm, we can't allow to switch feats as you wish but we could limit its application by saying you need to pay 1 or 2° to customize your mounts feats, or any handle animal ally for that matter. Sounds like another good way to spend feats on, and would allow for other feats aswell. It would also open yet more options in the CoCo. What do the Elders think about that? Sounds like an elegant and logical solution. If it's a legit rule, and it seems like it, then why the need to pay °'s? It should be an option open to everyone. -ToK
Huan 08-23-05, 11:28 AM	Hmm.... Option 4 certainly seems feasible, as well as an option to sidestep the need to define "trained for war" ... but I would not vote for it. After all, "War-trained" seems like a standard any mount can achieve (or at least, the rules seem to imply so by making such a general statement), but it is not as overpowering as it may appear. With feat substitution, anyone can make their mount wear armor (and work up 1 or 2 credits to pay for it). As it is almost anyone can use spells, powers, or magic items for thier mounts (or use defensive tattoos). But, not everyone has invested in Handle Animal enough to be able to teach their Mounts the necessary tricks to be War-Trained (much less capture the animals. After all, only about half of the available classes, mainly warriors, offer it as a class skill). Thus, it seems to me that limiting the war-trained status to a Trick set is still the least abuseable way. With that in mind, I will select one of the skilll packages to define "trained for war." Option 3 is, of course, much to easy. Option 2 is not much better, but if it had, say, Defend, I might have considered it. Thus, Option 1 seems very viable in my book. It rewards creatures smarter than 1 (whom I doubt can understand the environment of war or battle with their very basic, animalistic intelligence), and still meets a satisfying array of Tricks to use. Additionally, it is the same Trick set existing war-trained mounts all posses. Creatures smarter than that can of course learn more, better Tricks. True, it will take some work to train an animal to learn all those tricks, as well as its trainer having a skill bonus high enough to teach it, but that is the point. If you want to talk "least abuseable", this is the best way. Wearing armor was clearly not intended to be a thing every mount can do automatically, and as such, setting a decent height for the bar that both a trainer and mount must surpass is fair. Summary: I DO support monsters taking feats for armor proficiency when their HD growth grants them new feats (like class companions, familiars, mounts) I DO NOT support swapping out a monster's starting feats for monsters whose HD will not progress (captured monsters, typically) I DO support having these monsters whose HD will not progress instead be trained with the Combat Riding package and gain Armor Proficiency that way. For this, I choose "trained for war" to be defined by Option 1 (combat riding package). If option 4 is elaborated more I may lean there instead (ignore what I voted.)
Usurpator 08-23-05, 11:52 AM	It is a little outside the core rules, but it may help to interpret the 'trained for war' clause: MMII: p.219 - Warbeast Template It shows an example of a Rhinoceros in scale barding. The template gives the following special quaility: Combative Mount (Ex): A rider on a warbeast Rhinoceros gets a +2 circumstance bonus on Ride checks. A warbeast rhinoceros is proficient with light, medium, and heavy armor. A vermin warbeast, being mindless and therefore untrainable, cannot have this ability. Another case in point: MM3, p. 38: Dinosaur, Battletitan. This creature wears barding and it has all the armor proficiencies listed as feats. These are the examples of creatures in official sources I know have barding (there may be others, though). Both have a special quality that allows them to use that barding without the requisite penalties. So, by all indications, I think it should be option 4.
Usurpator 08-23-05, 11:53 AM	Sorry, voted in the poll, my trigger finger was too happy. Scrap one vote from option 4.... :embarrass
michael_noah 08-23-05, 02:48 PM	I think this could possibly change some minds. A riding dog might be an ironclad example of "trained for war" not being the same as the Combat Riding trick set, or any subset of it. Riding dogs can fight while bearing a rider. I would guess that means that they have the Combat Riding package, just as warhorse. However, they cannot automatically make trip checks. They must have some additional training in order to make trip checks - they must be trained for war. Might I suggest then that being "trained for war" has nothing to do with handle animal at all?
Huan 08-23-05, 03:00 PM	I think this could possibly change some minds. Well, unlike ponies or horses, dogs are natural, yet domestic, predators that know, and will, fight or defend with little need for formal battle. Handle Animal is crucial for the wild animals to first be "tamed" then trained to perform Tricks in battle. The dog needs the Handle Animal to be taught how to fight more effectively in battle (aka Trip). Just like the horses/ponies need Handle Animal to not run away from danger and actually fight.
michael_noah 08-23-05, 03:02 PM	Well, unlike ponies or horses, dogs are natural, yet domestic, predators that know, and will, fight or defend with little need for formal battle. Handle Animal is crucial for the wild animals to first be "tamed" then trained to perform Tricks in battle. I really hate to use real world examples for arguing DnD "logic", but, um, have you ever seen a ****** off horse? Let your dog attack my horse any time and we'll see who wins. Also, I don't understand your second comment. The riding dog is tamed, and trained, and posseses all of the things that are being proposed would qualify it as being "trained for war". Yet, it is not "trained for war", as it can not yet make trip attacks. Something more must be done.
Huan 08-23-05, 03:06 PM	Well, good for that horse, but the facts remain that dogs are natural fighters while horses are not.
Gonbow 08-23-05, 03:14 PM	Michael's point is this: Warhorses are trained for war, and have combat riding training. This implies that the two are one and the same. Riding dogs are NOT trained for war, and have combat riding training. This impleis that the two are NOT the one and the same. If combat riding = war training, then they would be able to trip already.
michael_noah 08-23-05, 03:16 PM	Well, good for that horse, but the facts remain that dogs are natural fighters while horses are not. What on earth are you talking about? Are you referring to the fact that (non-War) horses get only half their strength bonus? Or are you alluding to some great scientific breakthrough in the real world that I'm unaware of? Even if that's the case, it completely works against your point. If Riding Dogs are trained in the combat riding package, but are still not "trained for war", how is it that a horse, who is oh so much weaker and peaceful, is "trained for war" when it knows the exact same tricks? Or, are you saying that the Riding Dog does not need to be trained in the combat riding package in order to fight with a rider? I'm pretty sure that is not the case. There is no special exception for the dog listed below. An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel.
NiQil 08-23-05, 04:51 PM	One thing I wanted to mention here with regard to riding dogs and warhorses. According to the SRD under the Handle Animal Skill, it says that warhorses and riding dogs (and I am assuming by association warponies) are already trained with the combat riding package. Michael Noah is correct, however, in that the riding dog entry alludes to the fact that riding dogs must receive additional training in order to trip like wolves. Well, one thing that I noticed, is that with the Fighting trick package, there is a trick that is not given under combat riding, and that is Stay. That would lead me to believe that either feats or the answer, as Michael has said, or, that the fighting package may be the one needed for war training. The problem we run into there is that if dogs and horses already have combat training, since they only have a 2 intelligence, they can only ever learn 6 tricks, which precluded them from ever learning Stay to also have the Fighting package. Based on that information, I cannot help but think that Michael's argument about them requiring feats for barding holds merit. Disclaimer: I am currently on pain medication, so anything I just said may or not make any sense at all. Take it for what it is worth.
Pittbull 08-26-05, 02:32 PM	I voted for option 1, because I strongly believe that a standart heavy warhorse is proficient with all kinds of armor and doesn't need a feat. But really like Cat's idea of being able to exchange feats for all bought animal without credit-costs and for others with credit-costs. That gives us more options to create different mounts.
LLMadCow 08-27-05, 05:12 PM	Okay, well, being under the impression that I would be able to vote today, I was coming to post my vote. BUT I CANNOT! Now, I am still annoyed that my recommended option was not even a consideration, but barring MY OPTION, my vote would have gone with Choice #1. I would like to see an additonal poll that reflects what I posted as a recommendation since it very clearly addresses all aspects and qualifying information regarding Mounts and barding and what are the qualifiers for being combat ready. Please consider it. LL
Caterane 08-28-05, 09:39 AM	Alright, the Elders have decided, with a 3 votes majority on Option 1, Tok Option 3 and MadCow abstaining. With the recent addition of exchanging feats, there are now 2 options to get the armor proficiency for mounts: - you can either train the whole Combat Riding Package (all 6 tricks), or - you can give the animal the armor proficiency feats in place of their default ones. Trained for War means Combat Riding for purposes of the Dog being able to make trip attacks. I want to thank everyone for his or her participation and suggestions. We'll soon see a new poll about which tricks are necessary for an animal to be able to be ridden.