Combat Riding: What have we gained? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Combat Riding: What have we gained? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Howie23
08-13-07, 02:13 PM http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgif/20070812a

Q: How many tricks do warhorses and riding dogs begin with?

A: Six. The core rules (see the Handle Animal skill, Player’s Handbook, page 75) specify that warhorses and riding dogs are already trained with the Combat Riding package, which includes attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. The LGCS rules are intended to provide a limited amount of free training to animals that would otherwise begin play untrained; the LGCS rules do not override the core rules in this case. The two free tricks that a warhorse or riding dog would be allowed by the LGCS rules may be used to replace any two tricks within the Combat Riding package with other tricks that are Open to that PC.

While we don't have, and won't get, a Circle ruling on trained for war/war trained, the biggest thing that is gained out of this Dispel Confusion is that DMs now have method to treat riding dogs and warhorses as trained for war / war trained that is consistent with both the LGCS and the core rules. This may be a yawner for those who have been in the trenches on this, but for completeness:

Dogs are horses, too.

Dog, Riding
This Medium dog is specially trained to carry a Small humanoid rider. It is brave in combat like a warhorse. You take no damage when you fall from a riding dog.

Threfore, everything below referencing warhorses also applies to riding dogs and warponies.

Universal Combat Riding
Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose.

In the past, the literal reading of the LGCS was that warhorses only had two tricks, and thus required handle animal training to complete Combat Riding. Regardless of its merits, that position is now gone as an element of table variance. LG warhorses are now fully combat trained mounts, if the player wants them to be, by retaining the six Combat Riding tricks.

Warhorses are war-trained
Fight with Warhorse
If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

This passage directly links warhorses with "war-trained." By doing so, it establishes that warhorses are "war-trained," and are thus different from other mounts.

A light warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check.

This clearly references the Ride check to Fight with Warhorse quoted above. It reinforces a consistent view that warhorses are different in capability, and that "war-trained" is an adjective for describing that difference.

War-Trained = Trained for War

Animal Type (partial listing)
Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore uses its natural weapons as a secondary attack. Such attacks are made with a -5 penalty on the creature’s attack rolls, and the animal receives only ½ its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.

Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.

The English language allows multiple ways of presenting a concept. I am comfortable with the leap that "trained for war" means the same as "war-trained." While neither of these terms are explicitly defined, they are implicitly related and apply to warhorses, given the context in which they are used. Warhorses with Combat Riding are both "war-trained" and "trained for war."

Likewise, warhorses do not take the noncombative -5 secondary attack penalty; they are combative. This fits in with the general texture of "war-trained" and "trained for war."

Combat Riding trained Riding Dogs can Trip

If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry). A riding dog can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check.

As mentioned above, I've used the convention that everything above for warhorse applies to riding dogs as well. Riding dogs with Combat Riding are trained for war, and therefore may trip. The second sentence is provided for completeness in placing riding dog and warhorse in the same basket.

The remaining table variance pitfalls

There are a few areas that will still see table variance.

Are warhorses proficient with barding? The animal description says that they are proficient with no armor unless war-trained, but does not identify what proficiency, if any, they gain by virtue of being war-trained. Light armor only? Up to heavy armor? Including exotic armors?

Combat Riding is the set of six tricks. There is an option to substitute for those tricks, and a temptation to due so in order to acquire attack unusual, assist defend, assist attack, etc. If the creature no longer has all six tricks, it no longer has the Combat Riding purpose, and the chain of logic falls.

The above logic ties Combat Riding and breeding for aggressive disposition in order to argue that these result in an animal that is trained for war, for warhorses, warponies, and riding dogs. Combat Riding alone has not been addressed here, and will generate variance. The animal companion list excludes warhorses and warponies, and there may still be variance seen for other companions, such as dire bats or rhinos. Riding Dogs companions clearly reign supreme. There is certainly the option of riding non-companion warhorses as well.

There is also a circle ruling that animal companions are not normally war-trained: http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#warcomp

A non-companion animal with Int 2 may never have both Combat Riding and attack unusual without some way to increase the number of tricks; doing so would result in 7 tricks vs. a maximum of 6.

Summary

I think this Dispel Confusion is a big step forward. It particularly helps those who have wanted to treat appropriate mounts as trained for war but have felt that their hands were tied by the houserule that has now been cleared up. Others may see the glass half empty, but I like the progress given the limitation that Circle is under regarding a direct ruling on trained for war.

David
Britt
08-13-07, 02:20 PM Sorry, but this DC entry does not impact the Trained for War discussion at all. This only talks about how many tricks an animal begins play with. The people that thought Combat Riding qualified as Trained for War will still think so, while the people that did not think Combat Riding qualified as Trained for War will still not think so.
Oaklock
08-13-07, 02:21 PM I think this Dispel Confusion is a big step forward. It particularly helps those who have wanted to treat appropriate mounts as trained for war but have felt that their hands were tied by the houserule that has now been cleared up. Others may see the glass half empty, but I like the progress given the limitation that Circle is under regarding a direct ruling on trained for war.

David

Thanks for you commentary, I agree.
Howie23
08-13-07, 02:30 PM Sorry, but this DC entry does not impact the Trained for War discussion at all. This only talks about how many tricks an animal begins play with. The people that thought Combat Riding qualified as Trained for War will still think so, while the people that did not think Combat Riding qualified as Trained for War will still not think so.

It does impact the TfW discussion, Britt, even if it doesn't resolve it.

Those who viewed Combat Riding as qualifying as Trained for War previously had the houserule hurdle of two tricks only. This generated a flurry of alternate qualifying theories from those seeking enter TfW-paradise through the eye of the LGCS needle.

I'm not claiming this closes the issue. However, as I've outlined, there is a strong chain of logic for those wishing to make use of it that was previously subject to the paradox of ignoring the LGCS-RAW to justify using the core rules concepts.

David
Istaran
08-13-07, 02:35 PM Forgive me if this has been asked before, but in the future can the circle include an option to train a riding dog or other animal to be "trained for war" or perhaps to "count as being trained for war"? I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is balanced to just plain allow it for free, or whether to place some game mechanic restriction.
It just seems like you could break from the need for table variation due to an unclear core rule by making a clear way to unambiguously qualify as "trained for war" within the campaign, without speaking as to what the core mechanic might be.
Would that be crossing the line of what the circle is allowed to do?
Jay_Ibero_911
08-13-07, 06:20 PM Forgive me if this has been asked before, but in the future can the circle include an option to train a riding dog or other animal to be "trained for war" or perhaps to "count as being trained for war"? I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is balanced to just plain allow it for free, or whether to place some game mechanic restriction.
It just seems like you could break from the need for table variation due to an unclear core rule by making a clear way to unambiguously qualify as "trained for war" within the campaign, without speaking as to what the core mechanic might be.
Would that be crossing the line of what the circle is allowed to do?

Unfortunately the Circle cannot say anything regarding the trained for war issue because it is a core rules issue and only WotC can say anything regarding that...
Timlagor
08-14-07, 07:22 AM Hmm that's an idea.

The circle might be able to specify something like "all riding dogs and warhorses bought by PCs may be Trained for War" without actually worrying about what that involves.
Tonus
08-16-07, 02:22 PM You make a reasoned case by considering only warhorses. But considering Riding Dogs leads to the opposite conclusion.

Riding Dogs, we now know, come with Combat Riding as a default. However, the description for Riding Dogs is qualified with "If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do...", indicating that Riding Dogs do not come "trained for war" by default. Therefore, whatever "trained for war" may mean, it is something *other* than Combat Riding -- at least where Riding Dogs are concerned.

I appreciate that the lack of definition for "trained for war" is a core rules problem that the circle is not authorized to answer. It seems to me though, that without actually defining what "trained for war" means, the circle might be able to provide a solid procedure for someone to obtain said training for their mount.

While we don't have, and won't get, a Circle ruling on trained for war/war trained, the biggest thing that is gained out of this Dispel Confusion is that DMs now have method to treat riding dogs and warhorses as trained for war / war trained that is consistent with both the LGCS and the core rules. This may be a yawner for those who have been in the trenches on this, but for completeness:

Dogs are horses, too.

Threfore, everything below referencing warhorses also applies to riding dogs and warponies.

Universal Combat Riding

In the past, the literal reading of the LGCS was that warhorses only had two tricks, and thus required handle animal training to complete Combat Riding. Regardless of its merits, that position is now gone as an element of table variance. LG warhorses are now fully combat trained mounts, if the player wants them to be, by retaining the six Combat Riding tricks.

Warhorses are war-trained

This passage directly links warhorses with "war-trained." By doing so, it establishes that warhorses are "war-trained," and are thus different from other mounts.

This clearly references the Ride check to Fight with Warhorse quoted above. It reinforces a consistent view that warhorses are different in capability, and that "war-trained" is an adjective for describing that difference.

War-Trained = Trained for War

The English language allows multiple ways of presenting a concept. I am comfortable with the leap that "trained for war" means the same as "war-trained." While neither of these terms are explicitly defined, they are implicitly related and apply to warhorses, given the context in which they are used. Warhorses with Combat Riding are both "war-trained" and "trained for war."

Likewise, warhorses do not take the noncombative -5 secondary attack penalty; they are combative. This fits in with the general texture of "war-trained" and "trained for war."

Combat Riding trained Riding Dogs can Trip

As mentioned above, I've used the convention that everything above for warhorse applies to riding dogs as well. Riding dogs with Combat Riding are trained for war, and therefore may trip. The second sentence is provided for completeness in placing riding dog and warhorse in the same basket.

The remaining table variance pitfalls

There are a few areas that will still see table variance.

Are warhorses proficient with barding? The animal description says that they are proficient with no armor unless war-trained, but does not identify what proficiency, if any, they gain by virtue of being war-trained. Light armor only? Up to heavy armor? Including exotic armors?

Combat Riding is the set of six tricks. There is an option to substitute for those tricks, and a temptation to due so in order to acquire attack unusual, assist defend, assist attack, etc. If the creature no longer has all six tricks, it no longer has the Combat Riding purpose, and the chain of logic falls.

The above logic ties Combat Riding and breeding for aggressive disposition in order to argue that these result in an animal that is trained for war, for warhorses, warponies, and riding dogs. Combat Riding alone has not been addressed here, and will generate variance. The animal companion list excludes warhorses and warponies, and there may still be variance seen for other companions, such as dire bats or rhinos. Riding Dogs companions clearly reign supreme. There is certainly the option of riding non-companion warhorses as well.

There is also a circle ruling that animal companions are not normally war-trained: http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#warcomp

A non-companion animal with Int 2 may never have both Combat Riding and attack unusual without some way to increase the number of tricks; doing so would result in 7 tricks vs. a maximum of 6.

Summary

I think this Dispel Confusion is a big step forward. It particularly helps those who have wanted to treat appropriate mounts as trained for war but have felt that their hands were tied by the houserule that has now been cleared up. Others may see the glass half empty, but I like the progress given the limitation that Circle is under regarding a direct ruling on trained for war.

David

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Howie23 08-13-07, 02:13 PM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgif/20070812a Q: How many tricks do warhorses and riding dogs begin with? A: Six. The core rules (see the Handle Animal skill, Player’s Handbook, page 75) specify that warhorses and riding dogs are already trained with the Combat Riding package, which includes attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. The LGCS rules are intended to provide a limited amount of free training to animals that would otherwise begin play untrained; the LGCS rules do not override the core rules in this case. The two free tricks that a warhorse or riding dog would be allowed by the LGCS rules may be used to replace any two tricks within the Combat Riding package with other tricks that are Open to that PC. While we don't have, and won't get, a Circle ruling on trained for war/war trained, the biggest thing that is gained out of this Dispel Confusion is that DMs now have method to treat riding dogs and warhorses as trained for war / war trained that is consistent with both the LGCS and the core rules. This may be a yawner for those who have been in the trenches on this, but for completeness: Dogs are horses, too. Dog, Riding This Medium dog is specially trained to carry a Small humanoid rider. It is brave in combat like a warhorse. You take no damage when you fall from a riding dog. Threfore, everything below referencing warhorses also applies to riding dogs and warponies. Universal Combat Riding Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose. In the past, the literal reading of the LGCS was that warhorses only had two tricks, and thus required handle animal training to complete Combat Riding. Regardless of its merits, that position is now gone as an element of table variance. LG warhorses are now fully combat trained mounts, if the player wants them to be, by retaining the six Combat Riding tricks. Warhorses are war-trained Fight with Warhorse If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action. This passage directly links warhorses with "war-trained." By doing so, it establishes that warhorses are "war-trained," and are thus different from other mounts. A light warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check. This clearly references the Ride check to Fight with Warhorse quoted above. It reinforces a consistent view that warhorses are different in capability, and that "war-trained" is an adjective for describing that difference. War-Trained = Trained for War Animal Type (partial listing) Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore uses its natural weapons as a secondary attack. Such attacks are made with a -5 penalty on the creature’s attack rolls, and the animal receives only ½ its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment. Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. The English language allows multiple ways of presenting a concept. I am comfortable with the leap that "trained for war" means the same as "war-trained." While neither of these terms are explicitly defined, they are implicitly related and apply to warhorses, given the context in which they are used. Warhorses with Combat Riding are both "war-trained" and "trained for war." Likewise, warhorses do not take the noncombative -5 secondary attack penalty; they are combative. This fits in with the general texture of "war-trained" and "trained for war." Combat Riding trained Riding Dogs can Trip If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry). A riding dog can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check. As mentioned above, I've used the convention that everything above for warhorse applies to riding dogs as well. Riding dogs with Combat Riding are trained for war, and therefore may trip. The second sentence is provided for completeness in placing riding dog and warhorse in the same basket. The remaining table variance pitfalls There are a few areas that will still see table variance. Are warhorses proficient with barding? The animal description says that they are proficient with no armor unless war-trained, but does not identify what proficiency, if any, they gain by virtue of being war-trained. Light armor only? Up to heavy armor? Including exotic armors? Combat Riding is the set of six tricks. There is an option to substitute for those tricks, and a temptation to due so in order to acquire attack unusual, assist defend, assist attack, etc. If the creature no longer has all six tricks, it no longer has the Combat Riding purpose, and the chain of logic falls. The above logic ties Combat Riding and breeding for aggressive disposition in order to argue that these result in an animal that is trained for war, for warhorses, warponies, and riding dogs. Combat Riding alone has not been addressed here, and will generate variance. The animal companion list excludes warhorses and warponies, and there may still be variance seen for other companions, such as dire bats or rhinos. Riding Dogs companions clearly reign supreme. There is certainly the option of riding non-companion warhorses as well. There is also a circle ruling that animal companions are not normally war-trained: http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#warcomp A non-companion animal with Int 2 may never have both Combat Riding and attack unusual without some way to increase the number of tricks; doing so would result in 7 tricks vs. a maximum of 6. Summary I think this Dispel Confusion is a big step forward. It particularly helps those who have wanted to treat appropriate mounts as trained for war but have felt that their hands were tied by the houserule that has now been cleared up. Others may see the glass half empty, but I like the progress given the limitation that Circle is under regarding a direct ruling on trained for war. David
Britt 08-13-07, 02:20 PM	Sorry, but this DC entry does not impact the Trained for War discussion at all. This only talks about how many tricks an animal begins play with. The people that thought Combat Riding qualified as Trained for War will still think so, while the people that did not think Combat Riding qualified as Trained for War will still not think so.
Oaklock 08-13-07, 02:21 PM	I think this Dispel Confusion is a big step forward. It particularly helps those who have wanted to treat appropriate mounts as trained for war but have felt that their hands were tied by the houserule that has now been cleared up. Others may see the glass half empty, but I like the progress given the limitation that Circle is under regarding a direct ruling on trained for war. David Thanks for you commentary, I agree.
Howie23 08-13-07, 02:30 PM	Sorry, but this DC entry does not impact the Trained for War discussion at all. This only talks about how many tricks an animal begins play with. The people that thought Combat Riding qualified as Trained for War will still think so, while the people that did not think Combat Riding qualified as Trained for War will still not think so. It does impact the TfW discussion, Britt, even if it doesn't resolve it. Those who viewed Combat Riding as qualifying as Trained for War previously had the houserule hurdle of two tricks only. This generated a flurry of alternate qualifying theories from those seeking enter TfW-paradise through the eye of the LGCS needle. I'm not claiming this closes the issue. However, as I've outlined, there is a strong chain of logic for those wishing to make use of it that was previously subject to the paradox of ignoring the LGCS-RAW to justify using the core rules concepts. David
Istaran 08-13-07, 02:35 PM	Forgive me if this has been asked before, but in the future can the circle include an option to train a riding dog or other animal to be "trained for war" or perhaps to "count as being trained for war"? I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is balanced to just plain allow it for free, or whether to place some game mechanic restriction. It just seems like you could break from the need for table variation due to an unclear core rule by making a clear way to unambiguously qualify as "trained for war" within the campaign, without speaking as to what the core mechanic might be. Would that be crossing the line of what the circle is allowed to do?
Jay_Ibero_911 08-13-07, 06:20 PM	Forgive me if this has been asked before, but in the future can the circle include an option to train a riding dog or other animal to be "trained for war" or perhaps to "count as being trained for war"? I'll leave it to you to decide whether it is balanced to just plain allow it for free, or whether to place some game mechanic restriction. It just seems like you could break from the need for table variation due to an unclear core rule by making a clear way to unambiguously qualify as "trained for war" within the campaign, without speaking as to what the core mechanic might be. Would that be crossing the line of what the circle is allowed to do? Unfortunately the Circle cannot say anything regarding the trained for war issue because it is a core rules issue and only WotC can say anything regarding that...
Timlagor 08-14-07, 07:22 AM	Hmm that's an idea. The circle might be able to specify something like "all riding dogs and warhorses bought by PCs may be Trained for War" without actually worrying about what that involves.
Tonus 08-16-07, 02:22 PM	You make a reasoned case by considering only warhorses. But considering Riding Dogs leads to the opposite conclusion. Riding Dogs, we now know, come with Combat Riding as a default. However, the description for Riding Dogs is qualified with "If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do...", indicating that Riding Dogs do not come "trained for war" by default. Therefore, whatever "trained for war" may mean, it is something other than Combat Riding -- at least where Riding Dogs are concerned. I appreciate that the lack of definition for "trained for war" is a core rules problem that the circle is not authorized to answer. It seems to me though, that without actually defining what "trained for war" means, the circle might be able to provide a solid procedure for someone to obtain said training for their mount. While we don't have, and won't get, a Circle ruling on trained for war/war trained, the biggest thing that is gained out of this Dispel Confusion is that DMs now have method to treat riding dogs and warhorses as trained for war / war trained that is consistent with both the LGCS and the core rules. This may be a yawner for those who have been in the trenches on this, but for completeness: Dogs are horses, too. Threfore, everything below referencing warhorses also applies to riding dogs and warponies. Universal Combat Riding In the past, the literal reading of the LGCS was that warhorses only had two tricks, and thus required handle animal training to complete Combat Riding. Regardless of its merits, that position is now gone as an element of table variance. LG warhorses are now fully combat trained mounts, if the player wants them to be, by retaining the six Combat Riding tricks. Warhorses are war-trained This passage directly links warhorses with "war-trained." By doing so, it establishes that warhorses are "war-trained," and are thus different from other mounts. This clearly references the Ride check to Fight with Warhorse quoted above. It reinforces a consistent view that warhorses are different in capability, and that "war-trained" is an adjective for describing that difference. War-Trained = Trained for War The English language allows multiple ways of presenting a concept. I am comfortable with the leap that "trained for war" means the same as "war-trained." While neither of these terms are explicitly defined, they are implicitly related and apply to warhorses, given the context in which they are used. Warhorses with Combat Riding are both "war-trained" and "trained for war." Likewise, warhorses do not take the noncombative -5 secondary attack penalty; they are combative. This fits in with the general texture of "war-trained" and "trained for war." Combat Riding trained Riding Dogs can Trip As mentioned above, I've used the convention that everything above for warhorse applies to riding dogs as well. Riding dogs with Combat Riding are trained for war, and therefore may trip. The second sentence is provided for completeness in placing riding dog and warhorse in the same basket. The remaining table variance pitfalls There are a few areas that will still see table variance. Are warhorses proficient with barding? The animal description says that they are proficient with no armor unless war-trained, but does not identify what proficiency, if any, they gain by virtue of being war-trained. Light armor only? Up to heavy armor? Including exotic armors? Combat Riding is the set of six tricks. There is an option to substitute for those tricks, and a temptation to due so in order to acquire attack unusual, assist defend, assist attack, etc. If the creature no longer has all six tricks, it no longer has the Combat Riding purpose, and the chain of logic falls. The above logic ties Combat Riding and breeding for aggressive disposition in order to argue that these result in an animal that is trained for war, for warhorses, warponies, and riding dogs. Combat Riding alone has not been addressed here, and will generate variance. The animal companion list excludes warhorses and warponies, and there may still be variance seen for other companions, such as dire bats or rhinos. Riding Dogs companions clearly reign supreme. There is certainly the option of riding non-companion warhorses as well. There is also a circle ruling that animal companions are not normally war-trained: http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html#warcomp A non-companion animal with Int 2 may never have both Combat Riding and attack unusual without some way to increase the number of tricks; doing so would result in 7 tricks vs. a maximum of 6. Summary I think this Dispel Confusion is a big step forward. It particularly helps those who have wanted to treat appropriate mounts as trained for war but have felt that their hands were tied by the houserule that has now been cleared up. Others may see the glass half empty, but I like the progress given the limitation that Circle is under regarding a direct ruling on trained for war. David