Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NotLestat 07-12-07, 09:30 AM	Hey guys, I was wondering guys if anyone can help me out regarding LG and animal tricks. I must confess, I'm a little confused. I've got a Riding Dog, all spiffy and ready to go for Red Hand of Doom. Now, on p.131-132 of the PHB, it says that riding dogs are as brave as warhorses, and that 'Warhorses and warponies can be ridden easily into combat." It also says on p.75 under Handle Animal (or alternatively: http://www.d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/handleAnimal.htm)), under the Combat Riding (DC 20) entry that "Warhorses and riding dogs... are already trained to bear riders into combat, and that they don't require and additional training for this purpose. Then in the LGCS 597 v.7.5 it says on p.13: Tricks Any creature with an INT of 1 or 2 must be handled using the Handle Animal skill. Purchased animals come with one trick per point of INT. Animal companions come with the maximum number of tricks allowed by their INT. Tricks must be selected from the lists in the PH, CAd, RS, and RW. Animals with fewer than their maximum tricks may be trained further. Once per adventure, by spending 1 TU and succeeding on the Handle Animal check, you can teach an animal one extra trick. You may not take 20 on this check. Now I'm confused. Does a warhorse/riding dog come with Combat Riding or not? In the Combat Riding entry it also says: "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." To me, this statement implies that warhorses/riding dogs indeed do have Combat Riding, however, the 2 free tricks for INT 2 confuses me. Can someone please clarify? Also in the Riding Dog entry it mentions that riding dogs trained for war have the Trip special attack. Does my Riding Dog qualify (I'm pretty sure it would)?
CdrcJsn 07-12-07, 02:40 PM	The Complete Riding Dog isn't out yet, so nobody is sure. Cedric
Howie23 07-12-07, 02:46 PM	Can someone please clarify? There is no official answer, and lots of opinions. Basically, it comes down to your DM. So, since you're prepping for RHoD, as the DM who's running RHoD for you. That will answer it for the next 51 TU, anyway. :) David
MatteBlack 07-12-07, 09:30 PM	There is an unofficial document that pulled together most of the LG applicable rules on tricks and handling pets. It's called the Living Greyhawk Open Trick List You'll probably find it fairly useful.
kjenks 07-12-07, 10:10 PM	Living Greyhawk Open Trick List http://members.aol.com/kenjenks/lg/
Takei 07-13-07, 01:21 AM	Now I'm confused. Does a warhorse/riding dog come with Combat Riding or not? Also in the Riding Dog entry it mentions that riding dogs trained for war have the Trip special attack. Does my Riding Dog qualify (I'm pretty sure it would)? Yes and yes. Riding dogs come trained for Combat Riding and can Trip as they are trained for attack.
Britt 07-13-07, 01:33 AM	...can Trip as they are trained for attack. That is not what the rules say.
Takei 07-13-07, 02:57 AM	That is not what the rules say. I've not got the rulebook at work, but IIRC it says that if the riding dog is trained for war then it can make trip attacks like a wolf. The Combat Riding package includes the attack trick which ceratinly sounds like it's trained for war.
NotLestat 07-13-07, 03:20 AM	I've not got the rulebook at work, but IIRC it says that if the riding dog is trained for war then it can make trip attacks like a wolf. The Combat Riding package includes the attack trick which ceratinly sounds like it's trained for war. I concur. If it has Combat Riding, then it definately is able to Trip.
Britt 07-13-07, 03:40 AM	I concur. If it has Combat Riding, then it definately is able to Trip. Again, the rules don't say that. It might be the intent, but there's no way of knowing for sure.
MatteBlack 07-13-07, 10:12 AM	"If...trained for war" could mean if you teach it those tricks. My assumption was that they had the abilities once taught the proper tricks.
kjenks 07-13-07, 11:24 AM	Does a warhorse/riding dog come with Combat Riding or not? Apparently not. The LGCS rules you quoted show that a warhorse or a riding dog (Int 2) comes with two tricks; the Combat Riding package has six tricks in it (attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel). It looks like you will need to spend 4 TUs (one after each of four adventures) to train up your warhorse or riding dog to have all of the tricks in the Combat Riding package. You should try to get +10 in Handle Animal so you can Take 10 on the DC 20 skill check. Since you're going into RHoD, you may need to wait a LONG time before you can get your animal up to Combat Riding. But regardless of the Combat Riding thing, just ask your DM what "Trained for War" means to him or her. See my list of seven possible definitions for "Trained for War" in this Q&A (but please DO NOT reply to that thread): Q: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12722207&postcount=521 A: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12777041&postcount=544
Britt 07-13-07, 02:12 PM	The Core rules specifically state that warhorses and riding dogs are already trained for combat riding; that is an aspect of their breed. Warhorses and riding dogs are more than just specially trained horses and dogs, as evidenced by their stats.
pedr 07-13-07, 02:29 PM	Does this mean that while most purchased animals have one trick per point of intelligence, a warhorse or riding dog is purchased with the whole combat riding package? I've not come across that interpretation before, although it seems to be the most 'sensible' one - and could partly account for the price difference. I must admit that I hadn't noticed the Handle Animal entry which reads: "An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel ... Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose." This would suggest that warhorses and riding dogs so indeed automatically know attack, come, defend, down, guard and heel, which makes them a considerably better investment!
NotLestat 07-13-07, 04:12 PM	Hence my initial question. Since I have my group's ruling, I'm happy. And yes, the extra price reflects both stats and training.
lseelba 07-13-07, 11:41 PM	It is not clearly spelled out in any source. Sadly, 'trained for war' has never been adequately explained in any rule source. It is up the DM whether your riding dog (whether bought or animal companion) can trip on a successful bite attack. I've run into both types of DM.
Takei 07-14-07, 12:43 PM	I think the Combat Riding entry under Handle Animal (PHB 75) makes it pretty clear; Animals trained for Combat Riding can attack. Riding dogs come with the Combat Riding package. Whilst not actually specified, I think it would take a pretty bad DM to declare that Combat Riding does not mean trained for war! The riding dog entry (MM 272) A riding dog trained for war trips just as a wolf.
lseelba 07-14-07, 01:29 PM	I think the Combat Riding entry under Handle Animal (PHB 75) makes it pretty clear; Animals trained for Combat Riding can attack. Riding dogs come with the Combat Riding package. Whilst not actually specified, I think it would take a pretty bad DM to declare that Combat Riding does not mean trained for war! The riding dog entry (MM 272) A riding dog trained for war trips just as a wolf. I'm not arguing with you that riding dogs (bought or animal companion) should be able to trip on a successful bite attack. I allow it in games I DM. The issue is that the rules don't provide ANY way for you to explicitly train your riding dog "for war". Furthermore, RAW, riding dogs don't even have the Combat Riding package. "Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose." What the rules state is that you don't NEED the combat riding package for riding dogs and warhorses to ride them into combat. Some people interpret that sentence to mean that they HAVE the combat riding package, but if this was the intent of the authors they should have just stated "Warhorses and riding dogs already have the combat riding package." There are only two ways for you to have a riding dog that trips: A) an NPC sells you a riding dog that comes "trained for war," or B) your DM interprets the phrase in the Combat Riding section to mean that all riding dogs come "trained for war." Neither is required by the rules, and since it is not stated explicitly anywhere, expect extreme table variation.
Takei 07-14-07, 02:51 PM	What the rules state is that you don't NEED the combat riding package for riding dogs and warhorses to ride them into combat. Some people interpret that sentence to mean that they HAVE the combat riding package, but if this was the intent of the authors they should have just stated "Warhorses and riding dogs already have the combat riding package." You're not by chance a corporate lawyer? :) Seriously though, you are right that the the rules do not specifically state that warhorses and riding dogs come with the Combat Riding package, but the fact that it is mentioned in the Combat Riding package description implies that it is so. Then again, the more I read it the more ambiguious it becomes. Sounds like a good dispel confusion question. There are only two ways for you to have a riding dog that trips: A) an NPC sells you a riding dog that comes "trained for war," or B) your DM interprets the phrase in the Combat Riding section to mean that all riding dogs come "trained for war." Neither is required by the rules, and since it is not stated explicitly anywhere, expect extreme table variation. To be honest, my local group has only just started using riding dogs (as we decided to create a party of halflings and gnomes) so the rules are only now starting to be looked at. I've not previously played on a table that used riding dogs.
Britt 07-14-07, 03:53 PM	"An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel." Or, in logic terms: A = Animal b = trained to Bear a rider into combat k = Knows the tricks: attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel If A(b) -> A(k) "Warhorses and riding dogs (see the Monster Manual) are already trained to bear riders into combat..." In logic terms: W = Warhorses and riding dogs W(b) Therefore, W(k) Warhorses and riding dogs necessarily know the combat riding package. "...they don’t require any additional training for this purpose." This further indicates that they are already trained with the combat riding package, per the use of the word 'additional', for those that prefer induction to deduction. On a further note, since riding dogs necessarily know the combat riding package, and the MM gives a conditional statement about being trained for war, having the combat riding package cannot be what is meant by 'trained for war'; all riding dogs would then be trained for war and the conditional would have no purpose.
Takei 07-14-07, 04:15 PM	On a further note, since riding dogs necessarily know the combat riding package, and the MM gives a conditional statement about being trained for war, having the combat riding package cannot be what is meant by 'trained for war'; all riding dogs would then be trained for war and the conditional would have no purpose. I think we're dealing in somantics here. Let's follow the same logic. The entry for Combat Riding says that warhorses and riding dogs are trained to carry riders into combat. The entry for riding dogs specifically says that if they are trained for war they trip as a wolf, but because trained for war is not specifically mentioned, they don't. The entry for light warhorse says they're usually not ready for warfare before age three. There is no such comment under heavy warhorse, so presumably they're not? So because it is not specifically mentioned, warhorses are not, in fact, trained for war. The only reasons for thinking they are is their name and the fact that the Combat Riding description mentions war-like actions?
Britt 07-14-07, 04:59 PM	I think we're dealing in somantics here. Let's follow the same logic. The entry for Combat Riding says that warhorses and riding dogs are trained to carry riders into combat. The entry for riding dogs specifically says that if they are trained for war they trip as a wolf, but because trained for war is not specifically mentioned, they don't. The entry for light warhorse says they're usually not ready for warfare before age three. There is no such comment under heavy warhorse, so presumably they're not? So because it is not specifically mentioned, warhorses are not, in fact, trained for war. The only reasons for thinking they are is their name and the fact that the Combat Riding description mentions war-like actions? Sorry, but that is not at all the same logic. My statement is based on rules statements having a purpose. If 'trained for war' was synonymous with 'combat riding package', all warhorses and riding dogs would be 'trained for war' and the conditional statement, 'if trained for war,' would have no purpose. Since one of the more commonly accepted rules of construction is that statements have a purpose, we can infer that 'trained for war' is not synonymous with 'combat riding package'. Your statement is something like "if a statement is not made, then it must be false." That type of argument isn't made in my above post.
Howie23 07-14-07, 05:03 PM	Warhorses and riding dogs necessarily know the combat riding package. Which then leaves us with: Warhorses and riding dogs are trained with six tricks. Which means they cannot be trained (as purchased animals) to attack unusual creatures (a 7th trick). Britt, how does your conclusion that they have Combat Purpose (six tricks) jive with the LGCS statement that they come with 2 tricks? David
Britt 07-14-07, 05:13 PM	Which then leaves us with: Warhorses and riding dogs are trained with six tricks. Which means they cannot be trained (as purchased animals) to attack unusual creatures (a 7th trick). Britt, how does your conclusion that they have Combat Purpose (six tricks) jive with the LGCS statement that they come with 2 tricks? Horses and dogs have an INT of 2, which means they can only ever know 6 tricks. All warhorses and riding dogs have the combat riding package, which is 6 tricks. That means they can never have Attack Unnatural, as that would require more tricks than their INT allows. As for the LGCS and Core rules, the point of the LGCS entry is to give you free training of two tricks, not to limit you to two tricks if the core rules grant more. The core rules, for warhorses and riding dogs, tell you what those animals know, every time. The core rules do not grant you the option to have the combat riding package; they always have the combat riding package.
Howie23 07-14-07, 05:25 PM	Horses and dogs have an INT of 2, which means they can only ever know 6 tricks. All warhorses and riding dogs have the combat riding package, which is 6 tricks. That means they can never have Attack Unnatural, as that would require more tricks than their INT allows. Exactly my point. As for the LGCS and Core rules, the point of the LGCS entry is to give you free training of two tricks, not to limit you to two tricks if the core rules grant more. The core rules, for warhorses and riding dogs, tell you what those animals know, every time. The core rules do not grant you the option to have the combat riding package; they always have the combat riding package. The statement you just made above would be very, very helpful in a Dispel Confusion. The existing wording in the LGCS can be (and is, at times) interpretted as exactly two tricks (overriding the core rules), rather than at least two tricks when the training is undefined. David
Britt 07-14-07, 06:12 PM	The statement you just made above would be very, very helpful in a Dispel Confusion. The existing wording in the LGCS can be (and is, at times) interpretted as exactly two tricks (overriding the core rules), rather than at least two tricks when the training is undefined. That's understandable and I will try to remember to put it in my next DC.
lseelba 07-14-07, 07:13 PM	That's understandable and I will try to remember to put it in my next DC. Also, could you please explain in your next DC how one can train their Riding Dog animal companion "for war"? If a Druid can't do it, then who could? :rolleyes:
Britt 07-14-07, 07:18 PM	Also, could you please explain in your next DC how one can train their Riding Dog animal companion "for war"? If a Druid can't do it, then who could? :rolleyes: No I can't explain it, as it is a core rules issue that is not clearly defined. We cannot make core rules clarifications or errata like that; only WotC can make a ruling on 'trained for war'.
Samwise 07-15-07, 01:30 AM	This further indicates that they are already trained with the combat riding package, per the use of the word 'additional', for those that prefer induction to deduction. Ummm, no. "Warhorses and riding dogs (see the Monster Manual) are already trained to bear riders into combat..." and "...they don’t require any additional training for this purpose." Do not ignore that conjunction. They are already trained and they don't require any additional training for this purpose. Per the use of logic, that suggests those abilities are innate, and require no use of tricks to be able to perform. They don't need additional training for that purpose to be able to do those things - training that comes from teaching them the combat riding package tricks. Otherwise it would say something like: "Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained with this package when purchased, and must be retrained if they ae to learn any other tricks."
Britt 07-15-07, 01:45 AM	They are already trained and they don't require any additional training for this purpose. Per the use of logic, that suggests those abilities are innate, and require no use of tricks to be able to perform. That is not at all necessary nor implied by the use of a conjunction. 'And' means that both parts of the statement are true. The first part of the statement is that they are trained for combat riding; that means they are...trained. The second part of the statement says they do not require additional training, which means that they are already trained some. There is nothing in the passage that indicates they get more tricks for their INT than a normal animal, only that they are already trained with a full trick package for free.
Takei 07-15-07, 02:00 AM	Sorry, but that is not at all the same logic. My statement is based on rules statements having a purpose. If 'trained for war' was synonymous with 'combat riding package', all warhorses and riding dogs would be 'trained for war' and the conditional statement, 'if trained for war,' would have no purpose. Since one of the more commonly accepted rules of construction is that statements have a purpose, we can infer that 'trained for war' is not synonymous with 'combat riding package'. There is always the possibility that the 'if trained for war' statement is a mistake. That would certainly make things clearer all round because 'trained for war' is mentioned but never actually defined. Do we assume that heavy warhorses are not trained for war because it's not mentioned anywhere? Of course not. We assume they're trained for war because they have the combat riding package. Your statement is something like "if a statement is not made, then it must be false." That type of argument isn't made in my above post. Fair enough.
NotLestat 07-15-07, 02:21 AM	There is another thing to take into consideration. Whilst the MM stats for a Riding Dog stipulate if trained for war they have Trip, you're assuming that the stats are used solely for player bought riding dogs or animal companions. The stat block is often used to describe any large dogs. Perhaps the reference is present to that extent. After all, what is a riding dog BEFORE it recieves its specialist training (that warrants a whopping 150 gp head price, the equivalent in the D&D economy of 15 cows)? It must take a lot of time to train up a riding dog to warrant such a price. However, it doesn't change the fact that obviously, the training is already done. It certainly must be true for the immense sum of 400 gp one must pay for a heavy warhorse.
Samwise 07-15-07, 03:03 PM	There is nothing in the passage that indicates they get more tricks for their INT than a normal animal, only that they are already trained with a full trick package for free. Nor is there any indication in that passage that their quote of tricks is already used up by this innate training. You have said statements must have meaning. What then is the meaning of the direct statement that those animals require no additional training, training clearly specified in the preceeding parts of the paragraph, if they simply just have all those tricks? And while it may mean they are already trained some, without any definition of that training, you are making the same leap in assuming that it requires tricks that you say others are making when they say it constitutes being trained for war. Instead of "if it doesn't say it, it must be false," you are saying "if it doesn't say it, it must be true." I'm not sure how that follows. Oh, and by inference: MM pg 273 "A horse not trained for war does not normally use its hooves to attack. its hoof attack is treated as a secondary attack and adds only half the horse's Strength bonus to damage. (These secondary attacks are noted with an asterisk in the Attack and Full Attack entries for the heavy horse and the light horse.)" First, they are specifically noted for only the heavy horse and light horse. Second, they are clearly not the way the stat blocks are written for the heavy warhorse and light warhorse. Therefore, as a consequence of making hoof attacks as a primary attack and gaining their full Strength bonus to damage, heavy warhorses and light warhorses must be trained for war, whatever it otherwise means. So warhorses at least are trained for war by virtue of their stat block and that introductory statement.
Mommy was an Orc 07-15-07, 07:21 PM	So warhorses at least are trained for war by virtue of their stat block and that introductory statement. What's not clear though is whether or not 'Combat Riding' is 'Trained for War' - it also gets tricky where a creature is no longer an animal. As an example, a Celestial Riding Dog via Summon Monster II. Does it need to be trained. Kind of annoying that they never clear this up.
Takei 07-16-07, 02:58 AM	What's not clear though is whether or not 'Combat Riding' is 'Trained for War' - it also gets tricky where a creature is no longer an animal. As an example, a Celestial Riding Dog via Summon Monster II. Does it need to be trained. Kind of annoying that they never clear this up. This is my interpretation; If a mount is trained to attack, I think you can safely assume it's trained for war. Attack is part of the Combat Riding package, so a mount with Combat Riding is trained for war. Celestial Riding dogs do make things tricky. As a DM I'd say they at least have the Attack trick. There's no point summoning one to help you in combat if all it can do is fetch a stick! :)
Howie23 07-16-07, 11:03 AM	This is my interpretation; If a mount is trained to attack, I think you can safely assume it's trained for war. Attack is part of the Combat Riding package, so a mount with Combat Riding is trained for war. By which logic, a mouse trained with the attack trick is proficient with full plate armor. :) David
Timlagor 07-16-07, 12:00 PM	Sorry, but that is not at all the same logic. My statement is based on rules statements having a purpose. If 'trained for war' was synonymous with 'combat riding package', all warhorses and riding dogs would be 'trained for war' and the conditional statement, 'if trained for war,' would have no purpose. Since one of the more commonly accepted rules of construction is that statements have a purpose, we can infer that 'trained for war' is not synonymous with 'combat riding package'. I find it rather silly to make deductions based on the assumption that these rules were written with a clear intent (which they failed to communicate) when they so clearly were not. I find your belief that "trained to bear [a] rider[s] in combat" was actually intended to be refer to the same thing equally weak. You can certainly read it that way but I don't believe there was any actual deliberate intent to say the same thing there ...just another sadly misjudged attempt to make the rules more 'readable' by varying the language. I think we can say with confidence that - it was intended that some animals qualify as "trained for war" - therefore there must be some way to make an animal "trained for war" Everything else is either conjecture or a houserule. Given that all riding dogs come with this package I will be treating them all as trained for war. I think it's a great shame that this should be the only option for people buying riding dogs but if that appears in the next DC at least it'll be clear. I'd like to be able to pay someone else to train my animals -or just buy them trained as I want- and can't see how this could be problematic. The only reaon for an animal to have a trick is because someone decided to teach it to them after all ...it seems crazy to have all the NPCs teaching exactly the same tricks to the animals they intend to sell when 90%* of their market wants a trick they aren't providing. Incidentally is there any reason why a 'trained for mounted combat' animal can't have one of their tricks changed by being trained with the 'attack unnatural' trick in its stead (as if it didn't have the trick being given up in the first place)? * maybe adventurers aren't 90% of the market but given the expense of these animals it's not a particularly big market
Timlagor 07-16-07, 12:02 PM	Anything with Int 3 doesn't use tricks or training at all. This does seem to make it much harder for a Celestial Riding Dog to get armour proficiency and potentially impossible for them to get the free trip attempts.
kjenks 07-16-07, 12:38 PM	By which logic, a mouse trained with the attack trick is proficient with full plate armor. :) David Use armored chickens instead. Much more fun. And there's open access through the PH. With a Heat Metal spell, you get nicely roasted dinner.
kjenks 07-16-07, 12:41 PM	I'd like to suggest some alternatives: (1) "Trained for war" means the animal has the attack trick. (2) "Trained for war" means the animal has an extra attack trick. (3) "Trained for war" means the animal has all six tricks in the Combat Riding package. (4) "Trained for war" means the animal has all six tricks in the Combat Riding package or all six tricks in the Fighting package. (5) All animals are "Trained for war" unless their MM entry says otherwise (like riding horses). (6) "Trained for war" means the animal has the Warbeast template from MM2. (7) All animals are "Trained for war" unless their MM entry says otherwise (like riding horses). When I'm the DM, I use (1). When I play, I assume (3), but I'll ask the DM what he or she thinks.
Mommy was an Orc 07-16-07, 01:18 PM	Anything with Int 3 doesn't use tricks or training at all. This does seem to make it much harder for a Celestial Riding Dog to get armour proficiency and potentially impossible for them to get the free trip attempts. Actually, the FAQ implies otherwise - page 21 uses the Paladin's Mount as an example - "You don't have to train a creature of this intelligence for combat; you can simply ask it to do what's needed." Technically speaking, as a Paladin's Mount has a 6+ Intelligence and it is a horse, it shouldn't be able to use its hooves as a primary attack as it 'isn't trained for war' if Celestial Riding Dogs can't trip. I'm sure that would go over really well, though... By the way, where does it say animals get Armor proficiency if they're trained for war?
Howie23 07-16-07, 01:29 PM	By the way, where does it say animals get Armor proficiency if they're trained for war? Monster Manual glossary near the bottom of the Animal entry.
Mommy was an Orc 07-16-07, 02:18 PM	Monster Manual glossary near the bottom of the Animal entry. That says animals that haven't been trained for war are not proficient in armor - where does it say that they are automatically proficient in all armor types if they have been trained for war?
Howie23 07-16-07, 02:59 PM	That says animals that haven't been trained for war are not proficient in armor - where does it say that they are automatically proficient in all armor types if they have been trained for war? There is no explicit statement that defines nor limits what armor they are proficient in if they are trained for war. David
lseelba 07-16-07, 03:11 PM	That says animals that haven't been trained for war are not proficient in armor - where does it say that they are automatically proficient in all armor types if they have been trained for war? All I have in front of me is the SRD, which reads "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war." If this is the same language that is in the MM, then an animal trained for war would be proficient in SOME armor. Why? Since we have taken this thread into the realm of parsing arguments, I'll point out that the word 'unless' is a two way conditional (as is the phrase 'if and only if'). The sentence "A unless B" implies that A is true except on the condition that B is true. This means the following four sentences are also true (where ~ means NOT and -> is a conditional) A -> ~B (if A then not B) B -> ~A (if B then not A) ~B -> A (if not B then A) ~A -> B (if not A then B) Bringing it back to the original sentence, "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war." A = "Proficient with no armor" B = "Trained for war" Therefore an animal 'trained for war' implies ~A, or "Not proficient with no armor" which is the same as "Proficient with some armor". Sadly this tells us nothing about which armor an animal trained for war is proficient with. It could be all barding, or it could be light barding, or it could be just leather barding. We have no way to know as it is another poorly defined rule. This is yet another reason my riding dog animal companion wears -0 Armor Check Penalty armor.
Howie23 07-16-07, 03:18 PM	I'd like to suggest some alternatives: (5) All animals are "Trained for war" unless their MM entry says otherwise (like riding horses). (7) All animals are "Trained for war" unless their MM entry says otherwise (like riding horses). I can understand someone going for (5), but (7) is just silly. ;) David
Mommy was an Orc 07-16-07, 03:35 PM	All I have in front of me is the SRD, which reads "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war." If this is the same language that is in the MM, then an animal trained for war would be proficient in SOME armor. Why? Since we have taken this thread into the realm of parsing arguments, I'll point out that the word 'unless' is a two way conditional (as is the phrase 'if and only if'). The sentence "A unless B" implies that A is true except on the condition that B is true. This means the following four sentences are also true (where ~ means NOT and -> is a conditional) Remember, though, there's the additional possibility of: Proficient with no armor (period) unless trained for war. If trained for war, can pick up feats for proficiency.
bitznarf 07-16-07, 03:51 PM	The armor proficeny feats don't list a 'trained for war' entry in their prerequisites.
lseelba 07-16-07, 03:56 PM	Remember, though, there's the additional possibility of: Proficient with no armor (period) unless trained for war. If trained for war, can pick up feats for proficiency. This is a valid interpretation too. It could be interpreted: (1) Proficient with no armor unless trained for war (and has appropriate feats). OR (2) Proficient with no armor unless trained for war (or has appropriate feats). OR (3) Proficient with no armor unless trained for war (gains proficiency without needing feats, similar to class based or racial based armor proficiencies). My original interpretation above implied (3). (2) would let you pick up proficiency feats as a non-war trained animal increased in HD. (1) would have you take feats AND be war-trained to use armor. It still is very poorly worded and the whole 'war-trained' think needs its own FAQ entry.
Howie23 07-16-07, 04:09 PM	Remember, though, there's the additional possibility of: Proficient with no armor (period) unless trained for war. If trained for war, can pick up feats for proficiency. Which would then mean that domestic dogs and horses could never be trained for war; they don't advance and therefore cannot pick up feats. David
Mommy was an Orc 07-16-07, 04:53 PM	Which would then mean that domestic dogs and horses could never be trained for war; they don't advance and therefore cannot pick up feats. David That doesn't mean they can't advance period. In general, they don't advance. They didn't think Trained for War through - that doesn't mean they just didn't think it through in one way.
clannagh 07-17-07, 02:23 AM	That is not at all necessary nor implied by the use of a conjunction. 'And' means that both parts of the statement are true. The first part of the statement is that they are trained for combat riding; that means they are...trained. The second part of the statement says they do not require additional training, which means that they are already trained some. There is nothing in the passage that indicates they get more tricks for their INT than a normal animal, only that they are already trained with a full trick package for free. Presumably its still OK to purchase a riding dog with the 6 standard tricks and retrain one of those tricks effectively replacing it with the second attack trick which allows it to attack unnatural. I would also assume that a paladin mount riding dog can be pretty much trip, attack unnatural etc at will the same way a character of INT 6 could.
Takei 07-17-07, 03:40 AM	By which logic, a mouse trained with the attack trick is proficient with full plate armor. :) David I'm sure he'd do well if he could find a set! :) I've not checked the relevant rules, but do mounts require an armour feat in order to use barding?
NotLestat 07-17-07, 04:09 AM	http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#animalType "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war." This implies to me (if one can at least decide on this whole mess I seem to have started what 'trained for war' means) that an animal gains the armour proficiency feats as bonus feats if trained for war, just as a riding dog gains the Trip special attack if trained for war. Note, that my reasoning is that unless there is a way for advancing animals (I'd love to have been able to use a HD advanced riding dog rather than a heavy warhorse for my gnome character), aside from being a class with an animal companion, there's no way for an animal character to gain those feats. I should also point out, that many classes gain armour proficiencies as a part of their class features, rather than feats. I think it stands to reason that this should be the same for an animal trained for war. Rather than starting a thread war on the inns and outs of this, perhaps we should petition for this to be laid to rest somehow by Wizards rather than going on and on in this seemingly endless cycle of for and against.
Howie23 07-17-07, 09:54 AM	I'm sure he'd do well if he could find a set! :) I've not checked the relevant rules, but do mounts require an armour feat in order to use barding? Nope. They can use barding without any relevant training or feats. Proficiency is another matter. Proficiency requires armor proficiency feats (available to animal companions) or being trained for war. Armor proficiency and riding dog trips are the only game mechanics that result from trained for war. David
kjenks 07-17-07, 12:06 PM	It appears that Wizards knows about this issue and has decided not to post any official FAQ or errata about it. They leave this up to the DM to decide, and the LG Circle has decided not to decide. So it's up to the judge at each LG table to decide. I suspect the reason that Wizards has chosen not to post any official FAQ or errata about it is that this will require a relatively large effort spanning the three Core rules books, for the benefit of a relatively small number of players. From their point of view, this is a minor thing and should be left up to the DM. The fact that it causes heartburn to players in the LG campaign is probably of little concern to them. I suspect the reason that the Circle has decided not to decide is part of its effort to move LG back a little closer to the Core rules, as evidenced by the removal of most house rules from the 597 LGCS. And I suspect that there's little that you or I can do to influence the situation right now. We've asked Wizards what "trained for war" means and we've been rebuffed ("It's not defined. Ask your DM."), and we've asked the Circle and been rebuffed ("'Trained for war' in LG means the same thing as it does in the Core rules... Sorry."), so our only recourse now is to ask each DM and expect table variations. If your animal is trained for war (or whatever)... PH 80: You can attack while your mount is attacking. PH 80: You don't need to roll to control your mount in battle. PH 74: Your animal knows six tricks. MM 271: Your riding dog can make a free trip attack. MM 274: Your warhorse is substantially different from a riding horse. MM 305: Your animal is proficient in barding. MM II 219: Your animal changes dramatically. All of these things now hinge on the whim of each judge in LG, so if you play a mounted character, you need to ask your judge what his opinion is. When I'm the judge, I treat an animal as "trained for war" it it has the attack trick. When I'm a player, I only claim that my animal is "trained for war" if it has the Combat Riding package of tricks. None of my LG characters have animals that wear barding with an armor check penalty (I stick with light armor for them), in part so I can avoid an argument about it at each table.
Timlagor 07-17-07, 01:00 PM	The Circle has decided not to make a ruling on this because they have been told by WotC (probably through RPGA HQ) that they are not allowed to.
TetsujinOni 07-17-07, 01:51 PM	The Circle has decided not to make a ruling on this because they have been told by WotC (probably through RPGA HQ) that they are not allowed to. So, everyone who is going to be at the August RPGA chat should have this question ready for Chris Tulach, eh?
Britt 07-17-07, 02:46 PM	So, everyone who is going to be at the August RPGA chat should have this question ready for Chris Tulach, eh? Core rules issues are for WotC R&D to answer, not the RPGA; Chris can't answer them any more than we can.
TetsujinOni 07-17-07, 02:53 PM	Core rules issues are for WotC R&D to answer, not the RPGA; Chris can't answer them any more than we can. At least he works in the right building to bother them internally, though... The fact that it's his 'house' that feels the most pain from their unwillingness to publicize a decision at least makes it a conceivable 'please shake the tree inside the walls' type question.
Britt 07-17-07, 02:58 PM	I've already bugged both Chris and R&D myself. Bugging Chris more won't do anything more. If there's an R&D table, you could go bug them about it; that might do something.