Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hand_OF_Mystra 01-30-07, 01:03 PM	I had really hoped that the Rules of the Game column on animls would answer the perrenial "what does trained for war mean?" question. I even posted on the Discuss This Article thread link, but alas we are still left to founder in the darkness.
trollbill 01-30-07, 01:22 PM	Maybe they are saving it for the Animal Companion Compendium, or the Complete Animal Companion.;)
rockondon 01-30-07, 01:49 PM	well at least around here being "trained for war" does not allow the animal to wear armor without penalty. At lower levels, my druid's animal companion takes the light armor proficiency feat to wear barding (chain shirt). At higher levels, I'll probably armor it in mithral chain shirt barding which has a 0 check penalty and put the feat towards improved natural attack instead.
LGMoses 01-30-07, 02:40 PM	w8, animals have to take feats! to wear barding? explain plz?
trollbill 01-30-07, 02:45 PM	w8, animals have to take feats! to wear barding? explain plz? Barding for animals follows the same rules as armor for characters. In order to wear armor/barding without armor check penalties to attack rolls, etc., you must have the appropriate armor proficiency. Animals to not get any armor proficiency as a base racial feat and thus must take it like anyone else in order to wear armor. Of course, leather armor, masterwork studded leather armor and a mithral shirt all have an armor check penalty of 0, so animals can wear these without problem, even without the feat.
clannagh 01-30-07, 08:03 PM	w8, animals have to take feats! to wear barding? explain plz? the issue is not about feats barding is armor ... animals are simply not proficient with armor and need to take a feat to use armor and always have .. that bit is not controversial the problem is whether the nebulous term "trained for war" gives them armor profiency or not arguments against: trained implies a "trick" and armor profiency is a feat and aside from which how can training grant a feat arguments in favor: the description of animals like wardogs states tehy have all teh training they need to be ridden into combat which imples they are proficient with barding most people, at least till its clarified, limit their barding to mithral chain (though this brings up other issues about using mithral access to get barding)
kegdrainer 01-30-07, 08:25 PM	the issue is not about feats barding is armor ... animals are simply not proficient with armor and need to take a feat to use armor and always have .. that bit is not controversial the problem is whether the nebulous term "trained for war" gives them armor profiency or not arguments against: trained implies a "trick" and armor profiency is a feat and aside from which how can training grant a feat arguments in favor: the description of animals like wardogs states tehy have all teh training they need to be ridden into combat which imples they are proficient with barding most people, at least till its clarified, limit their barding to mithral chain (though this brings up other issues about using mithral access to get barding) Trained for War does give them proficiency. Per the SRD for Animals: Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). —Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal). —Low-light vision. —Alignment: Always neutral. —Treasure: None. —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 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment. —Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. —Animals eat, sleep, and breathe. So, if it is trained for war, it can wear armor. Since it does not specify a type, it should be all forms of armor. If it was different, then the rules for training them to wear armor (and types) would be under Handle Animal.
Howie23 01-30-07, 08:33 PM	the issue is not about feats barding is armor ... animals are simply not proficient with armor and need to take a feat to use armor and always have .. that bit is not controversial the problem is whether the nebulous term "trained for war" gives them armor profiency or not I've never heard anyone suggest trained for war doesn't give armor proficiency. The controversy is what constitutes "trained for war." David
pimeister 01-31-07, 12:36 AM	in most places, it means Warhorse, Warpony, and occasionally riding dog. It is technically undefined in the core books as to what is war trained. Much sadness at tables has occurred.
kjenks 02-01-07, 02:43 PM	I've always been disappounted in the Rules of the Game articles. They rarely give any extra insight beyond just reading the rules themselves, and what extra stuff they do add often contradicts the actual rules. I think people are better off just reading the books, errata and FAQ rather than these articles.