Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EberronMoses 10-31-06, 09:05 PM	In the phb it says a ranger may have a light or heavy horse as his animal companion at 4th level. I think this is mainly so that it doesn't come readily trained in mounted combat riding. If i BUY a light warhorse at 1st level, play with it until I get all the way to 4th can I make it my animal companion. This way I can add some continuity to this guy instead of "hey i just found this horse that likes me." Also, since my character will be riding something at first level this will explain my ranks in ride and my choice of mounted combat and archery as feats. I'd just like some sort of official ruling on this one so I can get on with making my character.
Arvagor 10-31-06, 09:27 PM	Short answer, no. Long answer, LGCS, page 66:Q: I want to take a warhorse for an animal companion for my druid or ranger. Can I do this? A: Not unless you have campaign documentation allowing access to that specific animal. As noted on page 35 of the Player’s Handbook, a druid may select horse (light or heavy) for a starting animal companion, and the warhorse is not listed in the sidebar on page 36 (alternate animal companions). FWIW, there are adventures out there which grant you the ability to do so...
EberronMoses 10-31-06, 09:33 PM	wow, that faq in the back answers lots of useful stuff, thanks for ur help. Sorry to ask a question I could have answered myself if I would have just read a bit more.
DragonKnight82 11-05-06, 02:20 PM	Something to think about, though, is the Handle Animal skill gives the ability to train an animal for a specific purpose. One of the purposes you can train an animal for is War. I would think that if you were to do this, you would have a War trained mount. The only thing about it is that it requires a DC 20 HA check and 6 tricks.
zigspatty 11-05-06, 04:28 PM	I would think that if you were to do this, you would have a War trained mount. While you would have a "war-trained mount," that mount would not have the higher stats of a warhorse. (Heavy horse is a CR 1 with 3d8+6 hp while the CR 2 heavy warhorse has 4d8+12 hp with a higher str, con, & cha; CR 1 light horse has 3d8+6 versus the CR 1 light warhorse's 3d8 +9 with better str, con & cha.) The wild horses that rangers and druids befriend are apparently a rather different breed than those bred to be warhorses....at least in LG. Of course, if you can get a favor on an AR that allows you to take a warhorse as your companion, then you get a slightly more survivable companion, and the question is settled... at least for you. Patty
DragonKnight82 11-05-06, 11:15 PM	While you would have a "war-trained mount," that mount would not have the higher stats of a warhorse. When did I ever insinuate otherwise? I was merely stating that if the objective was to obtain a war-trained mount, it's really a very simple process.
pimeister 11-05-06, 11:51 PM	Also, in some areas you cannot use even the option of training them, and here's why. Under handle animal, you can train them for combat riding which isnt trained for war. Therefore they do not get armor proficiency and have to burn a bonus hitdie feat on AP: Light. In my opinion this is worse than splitting hairs as it makes "trained for war" a mythical state that is unatainable through game mechanics. Some regions have ruled as such, which I think is bogus. Riding dogs get trip by burning 2 trick slots instead of being war trained. So it really depends on region and/or the DM at the table, and how much they hate animal companions.
Arvagor 11-06-06, 12:35 AM	What it comes down to is, in the long run, both mechanically and "legally", you will be much better served (and have a much firmer leg to stand on, rules-wise) by just buying your warhorse at first level, and taking another animal as your companion at fourth level. If you're going to be using a mount in combat, pretty much everything you're going to be doing will be accomplished through Ride checks anyway, not Handle Animal checks...
DragonKnight82 11-06-06, 12:42 PM	Also, in some areas you cannot use even the option of training them, and here's why. Under handle animal, you can train them for combat riding which isnt trained for war. Therefore they do not get armor proficiency and have to burn a bonus hitdie feat on AP: Light. In my opinion this is worse than splitting hairs as it makes "trained for war" a mythical state that is unatainable through game mechanics. Some regions have ruled as such, which I think is bogus. Riding dogs get trip by burning 2 trick slots instead of being war trained. So it really depends on region and/or the DM at the table, and how much they hate animal companions. The intent of the post seemed to indicate a desire for a war-trained mount so as to not have to use a move action to control the mount in combat, not to have the ability to use barding. If you use the HA skill as listed in the PHB and allowed in the LGCS, you get a mount that you can use a free action to control, which as I stated above, seemed to be the posters intent.
Arvagor 11-06-06, 12:58 PM	The intent of the post seemed to indicate a desire for a war-trained mount so as to not have to use a move action to control the mount in combat, not to have the ability to use barding. If you use the HA skill as listed in the PHB and allowed in the LGCS, you get a mount that you can use a free action to control, which as I stated above, seemed to be the posters intent.Hence my suggestion to by a warhorse and use the Ride skill instead. Regardless of whether the animal is an animal companion or not, all combat actions for a mount are handled via the Ride skill, and of the actions you can take, only two -- "Control Mount in Battle" and "Fast Mount or Dismount" require move actions. The former wouldn't apply if you actually were riding a warhorse, and the latter is only a move action if you fail the check. All other Ride checks are free actions or not an action at all. The Link (Ex) ability for a druid and his animal companion ony applies to use of the Handle Animal skill, and since commanding your mount to attack is a free action when using the Ride skill (look under "Fight with Warhorse"), then the druid's ability to handle the mount as a free action (in general) is superfluous in this case...
Howie23 11-06-06, 01:23 PM	Hence my suggestion to by a warhorse and use the Ride skill instead. Regardless of whether the animal is an animal companion or not, all combat actions for a mount are handled via the Ride skill, and of the actions you can take, only two -- "Control Mount in Battle" and "Fast Mount or Dismount" require move actions. The former wouldn't apply if you actually were riding a warhorse, and the latter is only a move action if you fail the check. All other Ride checks are free actions or not an action at all. The Link (Ex) ability for a druid and his animal companion ony applies to use of the Handle Animal skill, and since commanding your mount to attack is a free action when using the Ride skill (look under "Fight with Warhorse"), then the druid's ability to handle the mount as a free action (in general) is superfluous in this case... Manouvering a mount is free and doesn't take either a Ride nor HA check (assuming the mount is controllable in battle). Getting the mount to attack is an HA check. That HA check is DC 10 if the mount is trained to attack the creature in question, else is a push of DC25; note that a non-companion mount can never be both trained with the six tricks of Combat Riding and have the second attack trick to attack unnatural creatures. The Ride check "Fight with Warhorse" is for the rider to make his attack/attacks normally. David
Arvagor 11-06-06, 02:49 PM	Manouvering a mount is free and doesn't take either a Ride nor HA check (assuming the mount is controllable in battle). Getting the mount to attack is an HA check. That HA check is DC 10 if the mount is trained to attack the creature in question, else is a push of DC25 ...Heh... I was thinking about this as I composed my last message. There are a lot of paladins out there in for a rude awakening since I know very few (if any) that ever take ranks in anything but Ride. ;)
Howie23 11-06-06, 03:00 PM	Heh... I was thinking about this [HA vs. Ride for mount attacking] as I composed my last message. There are a lot of paladins out there in for a rude awakening since I know very few (if any) that ever take ranks in anything but Ride. ;) It usually isn't a problem for Paladins, at least, not once they get their summoned mount. The summoned mount doesn't use Handle Animal at all...Pally just tells him what to do and he does it, like a familiar (it has a non-animal Int). David
DragonKnight82 11-06-06, 03:45 PM	What it comes down to is, in the long run, both mechanically and "legally", you will be much better served (and have a much firmer leg to stand on, rules-wise) The LGCS states that all PHB uses of HA are allowed, so I really fail to see how you think that, either mechanically or legally speaking, a PC who used HA to make his Companion trained using the "Combat Riding" purpose described in the HA skill would have any less of a leg to stand on than a PC who just buys and uses a Warhorse. I'd love to hear some reasoning on this as opposed to you just making a severly un-informed statement. Hence my suggestion to by a warhorse and use the Ride skill instead. Regardless of whether the animal is an animal companion or not, all combat actions for a mount are handled via the Ride skill, and of the actions you can take, only two -- "Control Mount in Battle" and "Fast Mount or Dismount" require move actions. The former wouldn't apply if you actually were riding a warhorse, and the latter is only a move action if you fail the check. All other Ride checks are free actions or not an action at all. Actually Control mount in battle doesn't apply if you are using a war trained mount, which a regular horse can become with the HA skill. Granted it won't have the stat block of a Warhorse, but it's still an important distinction to make. The Link (Ex) ability for a druid and his animal companion ony applies to use of the Handle Animal skill, and since commanding your mount to attack is a free action when using the Ride skill (look under "Fight with Warhorse"), then the druid's ability to handle the mount as a free action (in general) is superfluous in this case... Up to the point that you posted this, nobody in this thread has ever made the statement that you seem to be attempting to argue against, so I'm really at a loss as to why you thought this a necessary statement.
Howie23 11-06-06, 04:00 PM	The LGCS states that all PHB uses of HA are allowed, so I really fail to see how you think that, either mechanically or legally speaking, a PC who used HA to make his Companion trained using the "Combat Riding" purpose described in the HA skill would have any less of a leg to stand on than a PC who just buys and uses a Warhorse. Various elements of this get hashed over repeatedly, but it is not universally accepted that you can train an animal for a purpose in LG. The LGCS says that the PHB applies unless explicitly overridden by the LGCS. The LGCS then details how animal training works in LG. That comes across as explicit to many. A purpose includes a set of tricks. Training that set of tricks doesn't establish the purpose. Expect variance. David
chesspiece 11-06-06, 04:30 PM	Let's all try to keep the language respectful. Please and thank you. a PC who used HA to make his Companion trained using the "Combat Riding" purpose Actually Control mount in battle doesn't apply if you are using a war trained mount, which a regular horse can become with the HA skill. Granted it won't have the stat block of a Warhorse, but it's still an important distinction to make. The problem is that the PHB doesn't clearly define how to make an animal "war-trained". I've heard half-a-dozen reasonable interpretations and none of them can be proven correct via PHB text. Combat Riding gives the animal 6 tricks and makes Control Mount in Battle (Ride DC 20) unnecessary; but no other benefits are explicitly given. Do not take barding or primary hoof attacks for granted - as these require "trained for war" and there is no such Trick / Purpose. Until the Circle or Sage clarifies this in writing, expect table variation. This has been a hot topic for the last few years when it comes time to edit the LGCS - so I don't anticipate a Circle ruling any time soon. Up to the point that you posted this, nobody in this thread has ever made the statement that you seem to be attempting to argue against Your words were "so as to not have to use a move action to control the mount in combat". I believe you were refering to Control Mount in Battle. It appears he thought you were also referring to Handle Animal checks in battle - a simple misunderstanding. This being the Internet, giving others the benefit of the doubt is prudent. (So is offering my apology in case I'm putting words into other people's mouths.) :)
Arvagor 11-06-06, 04:40 PM	The LGCS states that all PHB uses of HA are allowed, so I really fail to see how you think that, either mechanically or legally speaking, a PC who used HA to make his Companion trained using the "Combat Riding" purpose described in the HA skill would have any less of a leg to stand on than a PC who just buys and uses a Warhorse.The LGCS states only, "The Handle Animal skill can be used to further train these animals", and then goes on to describe how that is done, with some very specific rules on how animals can be trained. "Tricks" and "trained for a purpose" are two distinct things in the PHB description for Handle Animal, and nowhere does the LGCS permit you to train an animal for a purpose, only that you may teach it additional tricks up to the limit permitted by its Intelligence score; to state that "all PHB uses of HA are allowed" is no more accurate than a broad assumption that I am "severly un-informed". Yes, characters with the Handle animal skill can train their animals further, but they are still limited to teaching tricks only: "To do so you must have the ability to train the animal type desired (see skill description, PH page 74), and spend 1 TU to teach one animal one trick. The only animals that come trained for a purpose (specifically the "Combat Riding" purpose) right out of the box are warhorses and riding dogs (and presumably war ponies, based on their MM description -- "similar to light warhorses"). Actually Control mount in battle doesn't apply if you are using a war trained mount, which a regular horse can become with the HA skill.It doesn't apply if you are using a mount that has been trained for the Combat Riding purpose (but see above for why, IMO, I don't believe this is possible in LG). There is no definition of "war-trained", other than what might be inferred from the MM descriptions of warhorses ("bred for strength and aggression"). Being trained for Combat Riding != "war-trained", but it [Combat Riding] does obviate the need to use the "Control Mount in Battle" aspect of the Ride skill. Which, if you had read my post, you would see that I said that. Up to the point that you posted this, nobody in this thread has ever made the statement that you seem to be attempting to argue against, so I'm really at a loss as to why you thought this a necessary statement.You did: "If you use the HA skill as listed in the PHB and allowed in the LGCS, you get a mount that you can use a free action to control, which as I stated above, seemed to be the posters intent." Nowhere have I said that these are hard and fast rules. As I am not a Circle member, nor Triad member, nor professsed to be either, it should be a given that anything I (or anyone else) say should always be taken as opinion only...
_m_ 11-06-06, 07:47 PM	Nowhere have I said that these are hard and fast rules. As I am not a Circle member, nor Triad member, nor professsed to be either, it should be a given that anything I (or anyone else) say should always be taken as opinion only... allow me to disagree. im firmly of the opinion that you are, in fact, an online rulebook, and as such, you're simply copying bits of yourself and pasting them into these forums (you sneaky devil), and as such, you're expresisng rules, not opinions :D