Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Painlord 11-09-07, 10:39 PM	Yo. I'm still plotting my Greyhawk Ruins character...a Human Paladin. I'm only going up to level 5 as Paladin...just enough to get my celestial steed. This character probably won't have many chances to do much riding/horse handling since I expect to be underground quite a bit. And, more importantly, most of my skills will be going to add other flava, I'd like to put as few skill points into Ride/Handle as possible. But since I'm new to this silly DnD game, I'm not sure how few points I can put in Ride/HA and still be able to competently charge/lance. I've never done the lancing/charging/horseback thing yet...how much R/HA do I need? Thanks. Painlord
Ancillary 11-10-07, 12:41 AM	You do not need any handle animal. Ride is good to max since you protect your mount with it via the mounted combat feat. The minimum would be whatever allows you to make a DC 5 check automatically, since that lets you and your mount both fight without any mishaps. Since you don't fail on a one, you would want between 3-5 ranks depending on your dex. Being a halfling or gnome riding a medium mount makes it dramatically easier to get charges off.
CSHunt68 11-10-07, 10:51 AM	If you want to be able to direct your mount to attack as well as you, you need Handle Animal. It's a DC10 check, made as a Move action, to be able to direct your mount to attack what you specify. Plus, five ranks of Handle Animal gives you a +2 synergy bonus on Ride, which is handy since your Dex score probably won't be great.
Nerax 11-10-07, 04:37 PM	I agree with CS as you should atleast put 5 ranks into HA for the +2 synergy bonus. It is a Cha based skill so being a Paladin with a good Cha will also help with getting the DC 10 attack check. Being able to "tap it" is great! As for ranks in Ride, if you are going to be a "Mounted" type, I would put as many as you can. Atleast try to get your fast mount/dismount to work consistanly. As Ancillary mentioned if you want to be able to do mounted combat indoors/dungeons crawling you should consider going Gnome or Halfling.
RtrnofdMax 11-12-07, 11:57 AM	I would say you only need Handle Animal if you plan on fighting with your mount, while "un"-mounted. If you want your mount to give you flanking bonuses, then this is the way. If you plan on attacking from your mount, all you need is ride. To have your mount attack, and allow you to attack as well, requires a DC10 ride check, and high ride skill, more or less, sets your mounts AC to your ride modifier. So if you want flanks, do handle animal; if you want to attack while mounted, do ride.
solbergb 11-12-07, 12:05 PM	If your mount is intelligent, you only need ride. For the first four levels though, you'll want some handle animal. As a rule, a +9 handle animal lets you do whatever it is trained to do when not hurt, +11 means you can get it to do whatever it is trained to do even if injured. My druid has a +11 with her animal companion for this reason. For most paladins, +9 is usually good enough, as once you tell the horse to start fighting, you only need to make handle animal checks if you want it to do something else. (and calming it down after the fight, it's ok to roll next round if you roll a 1 or 2 to make it stop fighting the first time) For ride, the magic numbers are +4, +9, +14 and +19. at +4, you can always guide with knees and stay on the horse if hit while riding. at +9, you can always fight while the mount is fighting. Most paladins need a +9. At +14, you can always take cover from your mount, essentially giving yourself +4 AC when mounted most of the time. At +19 you can reliably swift mount or dismount, but note that this has an armor check penalty, so most paladins need additional bonuses to counter their armor and/or shield.
kjenks 11-12-07, 12:33 PM	Riding Straps from Races of Stone are Open in LG. http://members.aol.com/kenjenks/lg/ Riding Straps: Armor equipped with riding straps is specially fitted to allow the wearer maximum maneuverability while riding. Armor with the straps affixed grants a +1 circumstance bonus to Ride checks. This bonus stacks with the bonus a military saddle provides on Ride checks to stay in the saddle. Source: Races of Stone, page 157. 150 gp The MW skill kit from PH is also Open.
Howie23 11-12-07, 01:53 PM	If you plan on attacking from your mount, all you need is ride. To have your mount attack, and allow you to attack as well, requires a DC10 ride check, and high ride skill, more or less, sets your mounts AC to your ride modifier. So if you want flanks, do handle animal; if you want to attack while mounted, do ride. This advice is contrary to what has been provided by the other posters. The passage in question is the Ride DC10 check to fight along with a war-trained mount. Some view this as a Ride check to allow the rider to attack if and when the mount is attacking, and is paired with using the Handle Animal Attack trick (or others tricks) to get the animal to attack. Others view it a Ride check for both getting the mount to attack, and to permit the rider to attack. I happen to agree with the other posters that it takes both skills; as Brad mentioned, it is a requirement that largely goes away once you have an intelligent mount. Regardless, and without engaging in a debate that has been had many times on which is correct, the original poster should know that there is variance among judges about this. If the OP chooses to follow the advice to take only Ride as a mounted combatant, he should understand that he will sit down at tables where Ride alone is insufficient to control the mount as much as he might wish. David
solbergb 11-12-07, 03:58 PM	to make the distinction clear in order to understand why judges may rule this way: DC10 handle animal gets the MOUNT to attack. DC10 ride allows YOU to attack when the MOUNT is doing its attack sequence. (fail the check and all you can do is hang on) That's the rules as written. Some judges rule that the rules as intended allow a ride check to allow both mount and rider to attack.
RtrnofdMax 11-12-07, 05:51 PM	I was all ready to write a rebuttal about how clear the rules are, but I missed a conjunction. That if at the beginning of the "fighting with a warmount" section pretty much seals it for me. It assumes that you already instructed the mount to attack, and how else would you do that (non-verbally, due to low intelligence) except with a handle animal check. I will then place myself in the at least 5 but maybe 9 ranks camp.
CSHunt68 11-13-07, 12:12 AM	I would say you only need Handle Animal if you plan on fighting with your mount, while "un"-mounted. If you want your mount to give you flanking bonuses, then this is the way. If you plan on attacking from your mount, all you need is ride. To have your mount attack, and allow you to attack as well, requires a DC10 ride check, and high ride skill, more or less, sets your mounts AC to your ride modifier. So if you want flanks, do handle animal; if you want to attack while mounted, do ride. I see that you figured out what was wrong with the above post on your own. ;)
Tonus 11-15-07, 05:03 PM	to make the distinction clear in order to understand why judges may rule this way: DC10 handle animal gets the MOUNT to attack. DC10 ride allows YOU to attack when the MOUNT is doing its attack sequence. (fail the check and all you can do is hang on) That's the rules as written. Some judges rule that the rules as intended allow a ride check to allow both mount and rider to attack. I admit to being in the latter camp. As far as I am concerned, the idea that a knightly type character must also double as a circus trainer to get his trained warhorse to attack is pretty ridiculous. However, if you aren't playing regularly with a judge you know will be sympathetic, best be prepared for the worst. Putting 5 ranks in Handle Animal gives a +2 synergy bonus to Ride checks, so is really only a net cost of 3 skill points opposed to putting points strictly into ride. As a side benefit, not only will you be able to give your mount commands when you are dismounted, when you are outside of combat you will be able to take 20 and "push" your mount to do a trick it doesn't even know (assuming you don't have a charisma penalty--which would be unusual for a Paladin.) If you want to be sure that your mount will never fail to respond to the "attack" command, put enough ranks in the skill that your total skill bonus (including your charisma bonus) is +9. Rolling a one doesn't auto fail on skill checks, so you are golden. As far as the Ride skill itself goes, in my opinion getting your overall skill bonus to +9 is all you really "need." That will let you auto-make the attack with mount check, and give you at least a pretty good chance with the other manoevers. I'd only bother with more if you plan on taking the Mounted Combat feat, in which case I would keep maximum ranks in it. So, for example, if your Paladin has a 10 dexterity and 16 charisma, putting 5 skill points into Handle Animal and 7 points into Ride would give you an overall skill bonus of +8 to Handle Animal and +9 to Ride. IMHO, that would be plenty to be competent in those skills, if not a specialist.
CSHunt68 11-16-07, 08:52 AM	I admit to being in the latter camp. As far as I am concerned, the idea that a knightly type character must also double as a circus trainer to get his trained warhorse to attack is pretty ridiculous. On the contrary, I'd say that the skill of riding a horse has just about nothing to do with making your mount suddenly lash out with hooves and teeth at a target of your choice. _That_ sounds ridiculous to me. In the real world, professional horse riders aren't professional horse trainers (though the converse probably applies, thus the synergy bonus one-way) - and neither were "knightly types". But, there's no point getting into the debate here and now. ;)
Painlord 11-16-07, 11:57 PM	Wow. Thanks. I got what I needed. I'm going to aim for +9/+9 on stuff. I'll put rest of my skill points into flava skills like perform (kazoo) and profession (mudsculpter). Thanks for all the info. Look for my next installation of "I don't know nothing" in about 4 months when I actually get to Lvl 5 and need info on the stats of my mount. Also, I'm going to need help naming it. You guys rule. Painlord
magebeast 11-17-07, 12:38 AM	May I humbly suggest you name your Paladin Bartholomew and your mount James so that you can be PB & J?
Painlord 11-17-07, 01:22 AM	Yar. Would that I could do that. Actually, this Paladin is a CGR character and I'm saving as many skill points as I can to get as many Professtion (Merchant) ranks as I possibly can. And I need Appraise. And bluff. And diplomacy. Yeah...I'm a Paladin of Zilchus. Who gets boni (plural of bonus?) for bluff, diplomacy, appraise, and Prof(merchant) as I'm going heavy in the Greyhawk Merchant's Guild. Anyhoo...my celestrial steed needs an appropriate name for a Paladin of Zilchus. Usury? Extortion? Prime Interest? Graft? "I summon my celestial steed, Capital Gains, and ride into battle. Hiho! There is a substantial penalty for early withdrawl!" ::smite:: I dunno. Think about that. -Painlord
magebeast 11-17-07, 03:04 PM	Expedited Transaction?
Hurricane 11-17-07, 11:37 PM	I like the name "Easy Money".
paigeoliver 11-18-07, 07:00 AM	Riding animals doesn't use the handle animal skill at all. Skip Williams did a pair of "Rules of the Game" articles explaining and clarifying mounts in depth. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050125a http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050201a Nowhere in his articles does he ever even begin to imply that the handle animal skill gets used. He even restates the "Fight with Warhorse" ability in totally different words (going much longer) and still never mentions using handle animal in this fairly COMPREHENSIVE pair of articles. Nowhere in any D&D 3.5 book does it say you use the handle animal skill to direct an animal you are mounted on. The rules are pretty darn clear that handle animal is the skill you use while mounted and ride is the skill you use while riding. The things some people try to come up with related to mounts and then spout off as if it is the HOLY RAW is really just getting stupid at this point. Please just play your overtweaked wizards and leave the mounted characters alone. This advice is contrary to what has been provided by the other posters. The passage in question is the Ride DC10 check to fight along with a war-trained mount. Some view this as a Ride check to allow the rider to attack if and when the mount is attacking, and is paired with using the Handle Animal Attack trick (or others tricks) to get the animal to attack. Others view it a Ride check for both getting the mount to attack, and to permit the rider to attack. I happen to agree with the other posters that it takes both skills; as Brad mentioned, it is a requirement that largely goes away once you have an intelligent mount. Regardless, and without engaging in a debate that has been had many times on which is correct, the original poster should know that there is variance among judges about this. If the OP chooses to follow the advice to take only Ride as a mounted combatant, he should understand that he will sit down at tables where Ride alone is insufficient to control the mount as much as he might wish. David
Howie23 11-18-07, 10:12 AM	Riding animals doesn't use the handle animal skill at all. Skip Williams did a pair of "Rules of the Game" articles explaining and clarifying mounts in depth. Skip's contributions to the game have been extensive. The Rules of the Game articles are not authoritative in LG. The articles do not include reference to Handle Animal, despite inclusion of material in the skill description that deals with Combat Riding. Whether this indicates what you think it does, what I think it does, or something else is unclear. I'm not debating the issue point-by-point. It's been done before and this isn't the rules forum. What is very clear is that there is difference of opinion when the LG community is viewed as a whole. To recommend a non-rules source as authoritative to a new player seems unwise, particularly when the source includes material variance to actual authoritative rules sources (treatment of Ride by Attack vs. the FAQ, treatment of threat range of a lance vs. the PHB, the augmentation of Ride skill you quoted regarding Fighting With Warhorse vs. the PHB text). I applaud the original poster for selecting a conservative approach to his character build with respect to both skills. This approach improves the chance of a consistent experience within the LG environment in light of its challenges of table variance. David
_metz_ 11-18-07, 10:37 AM	Skip's contributions to the game have been extensive. The Rules of the Game articles are not authoritative in LG. The articles do not include reference to Handle Animal, despite inclusion of material in the skill description that deals with Combat Riding. Whether this indicates what you think it does, what I think it does, or something else is unclear. I'm not debating the issue point-by-point. It's been done before and this isn't the rules forum. What is very clear is that there is difference of opinion when the LG community is viewed as a whole. To recommend a non-rules source as authoritative to a new player seems unwise, particularly when the source includes material variance to actual authoritative rules sources (treatment of Ride by Attack vs. the FAQ, treatment of threat range of a lance vs. the PHB, the augmentation of Ride skill you quoted regarding Fighting With Warhorse vs. the PHB text). I applaud the original poster for selecting a conservative approach to his character build with respect to both skills. This approach improves the chance of a consistent experience within the LG environment in light of its challenges of table variance. David what he said.
CSHunt68 11-18-07, 11:11 AM	"Nowhere in any D&D 3.5 book does it say you use the handle animal skill to direct an animal you are mounted on. The rules are pretty darn clear that handle animal is the skill you use while mounted and ride is the skill you use while riding." Uh, except the PHB, I suppose? Nowhere in any D&D 3.5 book does it say you use the Ride skill to direct an animal you are mounted on to attack. The rules are pretty darn clear that Handle Animal is the skill you use to do so, while Ride is the skill you use to ride your mount.
KarmaInferno 11-18-07, 02:08 PM	Skip's contributions to the game have been extensive. He also has exhibited a tendency to use his articles to change the rules of the game to his liking, despite what the rest of the dev team thinks, since his articles don't have to go through the same level of review and oversight as stuff that goes into the actual rules books would. Most infamously was the "saving throws fail on a 1" that was added into both AD&D 2nd edition and 3rd Edition via Sage Advice, despite other designers comments that leaving the rule out of both books was intentional, as it made no sense that a 65th level uber-god always had at least a flat 5% chance of failing the save vs a 1st level nobody. And lo and behold, since those dissenting designers were not involved in the 3.5 revision, "fail on a 1" was written into the core books. -karma
paigeoliver 11-18-07, 04:54 PM	"Nowhere in any D&D 3.5 book does it say you use the handle animal skill to direct an animal you are mounted on. The rules are pretty darn clear that handle animal is the skill you use while mounted and ride is the skill you use while riding." Uh, except the PHB, I suppose? Nowhere in any D&D 3.5 book does it say you use the Ride skill to direct an animal you are mounted on to attack. The rules are pretty darn clear that Handle Animal is the skill you use to do so, while Ride is the skill you use to ride your mount. Skip Williams' articles may not be an official LG authority, but fortunately neither is thinking of some ridiculous way to further abuse mounted characters and trying to pass it off as the one and true interpretation of the rules. Not even any secondary sources can really be cited to support the usage of handle animal while riding. As far as I can tell directing your mount to attack doesn't use a skill check at all. You are taking one area of the rules where it says you can do something one way and then applying it to someplace else, where that rule isn't mentioned at all. The ride skill description uses the word "direct" all over the place, the handle animal skill doesn't use it at all. The ride skill mentions that the rider can use his ATTACKS (plural) while fighting with his warhorse, hard to do if he is using a move action to use the handle animal skill. I really cannot fathom what makes it fun for some people to find areas of the rules that aren't written in flawless legalese and then interpreting them in the the most arcane manner possible. The area of mounts is particularly bad in that way. I have 150+ ARs on MOUNTED characters, going from year 4 to year 7, under dozens of different gamemasters in 8 states. I have never heard this interpretation of the rules. Players, if you encounter this interpretation, just run screaming, really, because it is almost certainly going to be combined with dozens more of them and they will suck all of the fun out of the game. Really, just walk away. Now with all that, said, most of it seems to be a fairly moot point, since having warhorses attack with their relatively pathetic attack bonuses is pretty much inferior to just using a reach weapon instead.
CSHunt68 11-18-07, 07:48 PM	Skip Williams' articles may not be an official LG authority, but fortunately neither is thinking of some ridiculous way to further abuse mounted characters and trying to pass it off as the one and true interpretation of the rules. Nothing constructive there ... (Oh, and "FURTHER" abuse? Yeah, mounted combat sucks in 3.5. ...) Not even any secondary sources can really be cited to support the usage of handle animal while riding. As far as I can tell directing your mount to attack doesn't use a skill check at all. You are taking one area of the rules where it says you can do something one way and then applying it to someplace else, where that rule isn't mentioned at all. Please see the Handle Animal skill in the PHB, which is a _primary_ source. I assume you agree your mount is an animal, right? The PHB describes how you fight from a mount, and how you direct your animal mount to attack in the first place. The ride skill description uses the word "direct" all over the place, the handle animal skill doesn't use it at all. "All over the place"? Uh, no, only once. And nowhere does the Ride skill describe how to "direct" your animal / mount to attack - only how to be able to attack yourself, once it has been so directed. Since Handle Animal describes how to get an animal to attack, this is the skill to be used. The ride skill mentions that the rider can use his ATTACKS (plural) while fighting with his warhorse, hard to do if he is using a move action to use the handle animal skill. From the PHB, Handle Animal skill, "an animal ... continues to fight until it must flee". So, once you've directed your mount to attack, you are free to use full-round actions in subsequent rounds. I really cannot fathom what makes it fun for some people to find areas of the rules that aren't written in flawless legalese and then interpreting them in the the most arcane manner possible. The area of mounts is particularly bad in that way. Awfully decent of you to assume that people arguing against you are doing so "in the most arcane manner possible". Frankly, as stated, I think your interpretation is as ridiculous as you think mine is. Unfortunately, I believe the primary sources back my position. Which leaves you with an option you've taken - assault those who have this opinion as "ridiculous" and "arcane", since you can't appeal to the RAW. I have 150+ ARs on MOUNTED characters, going from year 4 to year 7, under dozens of different gamemasters in 8 states. I have never heard this interpretation of the rules. Is it possible that DMs weren't aware of what you were doing? Frankly, I think that's probably the case in a number of your games. I assume the players at my table know the rules, and most often don't question every roll they make. Players, if you encounter this interpretation, just run screaming, really, because it is almost certainly going to be combined with dozens more of them and they will suck all of the fun out of the game. Really, just walk away. Great advice. Please stay away from my tables if that's your attitude, 'cause I can only imagine what judging you would be like. I love players like that. Now with all that, said, most of it seems to be a fairly moot point, since having warhorses attack with their relatively pathetic attack bonuses is pretty much inferior to just using a reach weapon instead. But, please feel free to leave anyway, despite it being "moot". :rolleyes: If you want to continue this rules debate, feel free to email me offline.
paigeoliver 11-18-07, 11:44 PM	No, I don't want to continue this argument because it won't go anywhere. Although I don't think it is a subject that normally even gets debated. Searching google I can only find a few threads on it. But, one of them involved multiple people asking various custserv people about the subject and custserv was unified in it not having anything to do with handle animal if you were mounted. http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-83236.html I myself never have my mounts attack past the lowest levels, and actually have plenty of handle animal because I believe it is an important skill for mounted characters because they are not ALWAYS on their mounts. As for judging me, you likely wouldn't notice me at all. I have just had enough bad judging experiences to know that strange rules interpretations that you don't normally hear usually go hand in hand with a bad time. Exceptions are always possible, and truthfully I have never actually played with any of the people I have argued rules with online. For all I know you guys are all awesome.
CSHunt68 11-19-07, 01:03 PM	You're right - as I said, this rules debate is pointless. AFAIK, you're a great player. But, when you start posting things like "spout off as if it is the HOLY RAW", "stupid", "Please just play your overtweaked wizards and leave the mounted characters alone", "ridiculous", "further abuse", "flawless legalese", "the most arcane manner", and especially "Players, if you encounter this interpretation, just run screaming, really, because it is almost certainly going to be combined with dozens more of them and they will suck all of the fun out of the game. Really, just walk away." well, you're going to lose all respect you may have gotten from me. Tone back the rhetoric in the future, and you'll get a more rational discussion, and more respect. In any case, I assure you that there are many players and judges who believe that Handle Animal needs to be used in the fashion I described, even while mounted. Some of these people are even rational, reasonable human beings capable of having fun, and letting others have fun, at a gaming table.
JamesMaissen 11-19-07, 04:52 PM	I applaud the original poster for selecting a conservative approach to his character build with respect to both skills. This approach improves the chance of a consistent experience within the LG environment in light of its challenges of table variance. David I guess I disagree here. I've seen a 'duck and cover' mentality to table variation encouraged and tend to dislike it. It's likely not the case here, but it happens and figured I'd comment upon it. You will encounter variation regardless of any such efforts. Some will be local phenomenon or trends while others will be individual judges. Some will be real grey areas of the rules while others will go against clearly detailed rules. Regardless it will happen. It's one thing to shore up against such an occurrence, but don't go too far into the running from shadows camp. I think it just creates a bad feeling of dread at the table that shouldn't have to be. Be aware of the random rulings out there, but if you have an opinion on one then stand up for it. -James