Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bob_the_Theurge 12-20-06, 04:54 PM	Per another discussion that sort of got hijacked (not really objecting, I worded it very broadly anyways) here:http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=758252 It has become obvious, at least to me, that current Circle philosophy regarding animals and training is silly. The D20 SRD on Handle Animal is quite clear: training an animal for a given trick requires 1 week of time, and a Handle Animal check of a certain DC. The only thing missing from its table is the phrase "trained for war" which pops up in odd places, necessary for certain animals to wear armor/barding, and which could easily be stated in the LGCS as "an animal is considered in LG to be Trained for War if it has been trained with either the Trained for purpose: Fighting or Trained for purpose: Combat Riding trick." So here's the idea. Why don't we FIX this rather than sitting around jawing about why the Circle won't do it, because they consider it a rules issue and defer it to WotC, who's then said "see your DM", which is the Circle, ad nauseum till I want to throw up. Real simple. We've done this before in abstracting magic item creation appropriately for the campaign. We have similar things for Polymorph and other shape-changing abilities. Here's my suggested take. Circle, please respond and give serious consideration to this: #1 - Create a form. Use the MIC form if you want as a template. Require that any character who wishes to train an animal companion with a Trick as per the Handle Animal skill, spend 1 TU per week that it would take to train (example: Train for Purpose: Fighting is 3 weeks, so 3 TU's) and make the requisite roll in front of the DM in the same way as if they were crafting a magic item, and have the DM sign off on it. #2 - Simply put in the LGCS mention of the usage of this form, and the Campaign Definition of what "trained for war" actually means. It's not that hard. I provided you some simple wording up above. This would solve all our problems, gripes, and worries as to what it means to have an animal and train them. Does it mean more paperwork for those who use animals? Sure. Is it a big deal? In the long run, I don't think so, and I think it'd be less hassle than the current "well how do we do this? I don't know, we can't because the Circle are busy passing the buck" problem we have now. This is not inconsistent with anything, and it's not having the Circle make a "change to the rules" any more than requiring people to spend TU's brewing potions is a "change to the rules."
Mithreinmaethor 12-20-06, 05:15 PM	Actually after reading other posts in other threads. I have come up with what would, I think be a realistic and acceptable solution. There is actually a trained-for-war template for animals. The Monster Manual 2 has a template called "Warbeast." That's how you give animals and the like armor proffs and make them trained for war. Though good luck getting access to that anywhere. Beyond that what else would you people really want from saying smething is trained for war? They gave the riding dog two free tricks if it can't make a trip attack otherwise it can do that for free. Warhorses already know combat riding pre-installed... If you look at the differences between the wartrained animals and their standard counterparts they almost look like they follow this template. This would be a good template to make available for use. Since the rules for training the animals will make alot of people not even want to try. Domesticated animal = 2 months to train (DC 20) Wild Animal = reared for 1 year (DC 15 + HD of creature) + 2 months to train (DC 20 + HD of creature) Magical Beast = reared for 1 year (DC 20 + HD of creature) + 2 months to train (DC 25 + HD of creature) Vermin can not be reared or trained. So if people are willing to spend approx 60 TU's to train a wild animal or magical beast then hey maybe the circle should let them. I mean if you want to take your character out of the loop for over a year to do it then more power to you.
Lupo 12-20-06, 06:01 PM	Actually after reading other posts in other threads. I have come up with what would, I think be a realistic and acceptable solution. If you look at the differences between the wartrained animals and their standard counterparts they almost look like they follow this template. This would be a good template to make available for use. Since the rules for training the animals will make alot of people not even want to try. Domesticated animal = 2 months to train (DC 20) Wild Animal = reared for 1 year (DC 15 + HD of creature) + 2 months to train (DC 20 + HD of creature) Magical Beast = reared for 1 year (DC 20 + HD of creature) + 2 months to train (DC 25 + HD of creature) Vermin can not be reared or trained. So if people are willing to spend approx 60 TU's to train a wild animal or magical beast then hey maybe the circle should let them. I mean if you want to take your character out of the loop for over a year to do it then more power to you. yea, swing the nerf bat on the druids again, what for does a druid get the additional tricks, when he is spending more time on it then playing red hand of doom over and over again :( ciao martin m.
Mithreinmaethor 12-20-06, 06:10 PM	Hey those are the rules as written to give a non war trained animal etc the ability to do what everyone is wanting. And a druid or ranger teaching tricks stil takes up time (tu's) does it not ? Heck the given example is a war trained rhino. look at it and imagine it advanced per the animal companion rules ick
Japangirl 12-20-06, 06:19 PM	Actually, my understanding of it is that the druid/ranger's animal companion comes with a full complement of tricks (3 for Int 1, 6 for Int 2) plus the bonus tricks for advancement. I could be wrong, but I didn't think rangers or druids had to train their animal companions.
Mithreinmaethor 12-20-06, 06:59 PM	They come with extra tricks. But you can spend time to train them further within the rules. So you would spend the time to train them for tricks that it didnt start with I would assume. I havent read the LGCS on this yet. And after looking at the LGCS I would venture to say that the extra 2 months of training (8 weeks) could be shortened by the number of tricks/extra tricks the Druids animal companion would have. But the 52 TU's for rearing it correctly is something you wouldnt be able to get around. There has to be some penalty (for lack of a better word) to getting the abilities you otherwise could not
Britt 12-20-06, 09:58 PM	I've added this topic to my list to discuss, but to be honest, I doubt anything will happen with it. You can feel free to continue discussing various options if you still want, knowing that any change is unlikely. I will read them for use during discussion.
Howie23 12-20-06, 10:02 PM	I've added this topic to my list to discuss, but to be honest, I doubt anything will happen with it. You can feel free to continue discussing various options if you still want, knowing that any change is unlikely. I will read them for use during discussion. Thank you. David
MaxDog 12-20-06, 11:13 PM	They come with extra tricks. But you can spend time to train them further within the rules. So you would spend the time to train them for tricks that it didnt start with I would assume. I havent read the LGCS on this yet. No, Animal Companions come with a full compliment of tricks and gain new tricks as their master increases in level, per the PHB. Other animals (purchased mounts or dogs) do not come with tricks and must be trained by a character with the Handle Animal skill. The LGCS describes how this is done.
DragonKnight82 12-21-06, 11:05 AM	I doubt anything will happen with it. And the buck gets passed yet again. How pathetic. The circle decides pretty much everything that a DM decides in a normal home game, in essence acting as a collective DM. Since the game designers screwed up the rules in question, isn't it the circles responsibilty as collective DM's to the campaign to make some sort of ruling on the issue, instead of just ignoring it like you are now?
Britt 12-21-06, 01:07 PM	And the buck gets passed yet again. How pathetic. The circle decides pretty much everything that a DM decides in a normal home game, in essence acting as a collective DM. Since the game designers screwed up the rules in question, isn't it the circles responsibilty as collective DM's to the campaign to make some sort of ruling on the issue, instead of just ignoring it like you are now? Consider yourself ignored.
haferka 12-21-06, 03:01 PM	There, I belive that brings me to the same level of maturity that you've managed to show. I believe that comment was "sarcasm"... Britt has been doing alot of listending to us since his promotion.. give him some credit.. and take your own advice.
CrystalBlue 12-21-06, 03:13 PM	You know, he did say that he would try to bring it up. These people are busy all the time. Just like any other DM for a game, they're writing and reviewing mods, looking at new books to add to the campaign, dealing with campaign-altering events...and they have lives. You know, families, jobs, car payments...the whole lot. So for you to call them names like that is unfair. They have to prioritize what they deal with, and if they think that running the show is better then debating if how other people train their mounts. If you REALLY need to get this done and you're not a ranger or druid, then pay the time and gold, have your table DM write off on it, and wait to see if someone does something. That way, if they do make a rule, you can show them your documentation. Otherwise, grow up and leave them alone.
Britt 12-21-06, 03:15 PM	CrystalBlue: Oh, it will be brought up and discussed. I just think it's either something outside our realm, there isn't an adequate solution, or an adequate solution isn't worth the effort and impact a change would have. All those possibilities combined, I don't think anything will change. But it will be discussed.
DragonKnight82 12-21-06, 03:32 PM	I just think it's either something outside our realm, You don't seem to have a problem changing the rules when they've been FAQ answered and it makes no sense to do so, like polymorph, and yet when something actually needs an answer, like this, you sit on your butts. Good Job guys. Glad to know you're on the ball and making sure the rules that don't work get the attention they need.
haferka 12-21-06, 03:39 PM	I believe the warbeast template (mm2) should be reserved for indivuduals willing to spend the actuall time (TUs) to train a creature for the full template benifits.. they go beyond what I think of as "trained for war". I would simply clarify "trained for war" as granting Armor Proficiency Light & Armor Proficiency Medium to the creature as bonus feats. Also clarify that "trained for war" does NOT grant any BONUS tricks.. it simply specifies which tricks are taught to a creature for this purpose. Reasonings... - Armor Proficiencies.. most historical barding seems to be light or medium armors.. Even when you see a knight in full plate.. his horse is normally covered in half-plate (at the very most). I would reserve Heavy barding for animals that either don't care about the lack of proficiency, or a duids companion that actually spends a proficiency to gain it.. or a "warbeast" templated creature which is trained to use it. - Warbeast extras... the template adds a few bonuses like increased movement rate, bonus HD, ability bonuses, bonus tricks, a ride bonus granted to the rider, etc.. (this goes beyond what a typical "warhorse" is capable of granting). -LG requires special access to non-PH tricks and I see the "warbeast" template as an fitting into the same restriction. I say allow people to gain "access" to the warbeast template.. but require the expenditure of 52+ TUs to gain that access. once its gained.. they can make any of their creatures into "warbeast"... (I would however adjust their effective druid level by -3 for animal companions). And I would establish a gp cost for purchased creatures with the template. (since LG requires you to "purchase" items instead of crafting them... I would treat this the same way). Perhaps 300gp (like a masterwork weapon).
trollbill 12-21-06, 03:53 PM	CrystalBlue: Oh, it will be brought up and discussed. I just think it's either something outside our realm, there isn't an adequate solution, or an adequate solution isn't worth the effort and impact a change would have. All those possibilities combined, I don't think anything will change. But it will be discussed. While I have no intentions of sharing DragonKnight's attitude, I do share his frustration. The LGCS has special rules/clarifications for dealing with magic item creation, upkeep, skill use to earn money, etc. Why is a rule clarifying what "train for war" means in an LG context any different? And how much effort would it be to add a paragraph or two in the Adventuring Animals section of the LGCS? Please explain this to me. I really want to understand. BTW, is there a maximum number of TUs you can spend after a regional adventure to train an animal?
DragonKnight82 12-21-06, 04:07 PM	Why is a rule clarifying what "train for war" means in an LG context any different? It isn't any different, they just refuse to do so and then hide behind the statement: "We don't want to change or make rulings on the Core Rules". Which is really rather dumb, because they've already made numerous changes to how the Core Rules work. There's no point to them not making a ruling that obviously needs to be made, especially when they've made so many that didn't.
Britt 12-21-06, 04:07 PM	While I have no intentions of sharing DragonKnight's attitude, I do share his frustration. The LGCS has special rules/clarifications for dealing with magic item creation, upkeep, skill use to earn money, etc. Why is a rule clarifying what "train for war" means in an LG context any different? And how much effort would it be to add a paragraph or two in the Adventuring Animals section of the LGCS? Please explain this to me. I really want to understand. BTW, is there a maximum number of TUs you can spend after a regional adventure to train an animal? Those rules you cite are all inherently problems of a Living campaign system. Trained for war is a core rule that is ambiguous and not at all a problem related to a Living Campaign system, but a general rules issue. The effort is not in how much effort it would be for us to add, but in how much effort it would be to correct existing animals, look for any needed exceptions and implement those, and teach people the new rules. For example, say we were to Restrict fighter (we're not). That would require a ton of work on the player end, but only one word for us.
DragonKnight82 12-21-06, 04:12 PM	Those rules you cite are all inherently problems of a Living campaign system. Trained for war is a core rule that is ambiguous and not at all a problem related to a Living Campaign system, but a general rules issue. You've changed how certain spells work when they had no problem fitting into a Living Campaign setting, so I don't see how this is anything different.
trollbill 12-21-06, 04:20 PM	Those rules you cite are all inherently problems of a Living campaign system. Trained for war is a core rule that is ambiguous and not at all a problem related to a Living Campaign system, but a general rules issue. Okay, in this case, how would it be different for you to say, "In Greyhawk, 'trained for war' works this way," than it is for you to say, "In Greyhawk, 'polymorph' works this way?" The effort is not in how much effort it would be for us to add, but in how much effort it would be to correct existing animals, look for any needed exceptions and implement those, and teach people the new rules. For example, say we were to Restrict fighter (we're not). That would require a ton of work on the player end, but only one word for us. Due to the current amibiguity of the rules, no ruling, whether it come from the Circle or from Wizards is going to avoid this sort of implementation problem. Unless the Circle has some inside information that Wizards is going to make an official clarification on this soon, the longer the Circle waits, the worse this implementation problem is going to get. I understand the Circle's reluctance on this issue. But surely the Circle understands the need to address this issue.
DragonKnight82 12-21-06, 04:26 PM	Okay, in this case, how would it be different for you to say, "In Greyhawk, 'trained for war' works this way," than it is for you to say, "In Greyhawk, 'polymorph' works this way?" Due to the current amibiguity of the rules, no ruling, whether it come from the Circle or from Wizards is going to avoid this sort of implementation problem. Unless the Circle has some inside information that Wizards is going to make an official clarification on this soon, the longer the Circle waits, the worse this implementation problem is going to get. I understand the Circle's reluctance on this issue. But surely the Circle understands the need to address this issue. If the Circle understood the need to address the issue they would have done it long ago. They obviously don't get the idea that this needs a ruling, one way or the other.
Britt 12-21-06, 04:27 PM	With polymorph, it was such a major change that we were given an option to incorporate the new rules completely or not at all. The Circle at the time chose not at all. I understand that it's a problem, but it's a problem we've lived with for years. Every decision is a balancing act between how bad the problem is and how bad the solution is. Even if it is something we can change and something for which we have a solution, the problems the solution causes might outweigh the original problem. Personally, I tend to favor short-term problems to long, but it's not always so clear-cut and we don't always agree.
DragonKnight82 12-21-06, 04:33 PM	With polymorph, it was such a major change that we were given an option to incorporate the new rules completely or not at all. The Circle at the time chose not at all. To me, that isn't what he was saying at all. He was saying that Polymorph has specific rulings made on it in the LGCS. It's a Core Rule that didn't need to be ruled on, yet the Circle did. tone it down please :)
trollbill 12-21-06, 04:44 PM	With polymorph, it was such a major change that we were given an option to incorporate the new rules completely or not at all. The Circle at the time chose not at all. I understand that it's a problem, but it's a problem we've lived with for years. Every decision is a balancing act between how bad the problem is and how bad the solution is. Even if it is something we can change and something for which we have a solution, the problems the solution causes might outweigh the original problem. Personally, I tend to favor short-term problems to long, but it's not always so clear-cut and we don't always agree. I really hate complaining about the actions of the Triads and Circle because I know you guys are all volunteers, you all have earned your positions through hard work with little reward, there are far more 'critics' than anyone should have to deal with, and, in the end, I know you guys really do have our best interest at heart. But this one, single issue still boggles my mind. (Well, okay, I am still a little boggled as to why you guys chose to nerf Mirror Image even more than Wizards did, but at least that is a clear ruling.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing if you asked most LG players what needed a ruling on more, 'trained for war' or whether or not Divine Insight should be made NPC only, I think most would vote, 'trained for war.' Albeit, I understand the fix for Divine Insight was easier and not quite as game changing. But how long does a problem have to fester before it becomes 'important enough?'
Britt 12-21-06, 05:38 PM	For the best reasoning I can give on divine insight and why it isn't really like this issue, see these two threads: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/89175 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/89242 As for how long, it isn't really an issue of time. As you pointed out before, the longer it stays, the harder it is to change. At this point, having the rule stay the way it is won't make the problem any worse than it already is. I'm not saying it's a trivial problem, just that it's not really going to get any worse. So, we just have to look at the possible solutions, what those solutions entail, and compare those to the problem.
Mithreinmaethor 12-21-06, 05:43 PM	Actually if memory serves me correctly WOTC came to the RPGA people before that change was made and they were given the chance to accept the new rules or keep the old. So they didnt change the rule for it. Now to get back to the topic at hand instead of hijacking threads to bash the circle and triads. Allowing the Warbeast template would solve the problem of table variance and all of the questions. By requiring the player to spend the 52 TU's per creature so trained would keep people from doing this and abusing it all that much. The only question I have about this is would the additional HD given my the template count towards the normal rules for advancing ? i.e A wolverine is a 3 HD Medium creature. Under its statblock for advancing a wolverine of 4 or 5 HD becomes large. This is the only place other than just putting in the template and ruling that you must spend the TU's to train each creature, that would need a judgement call by the Circle. Will the extra HD advance the creature normally (so the warbeast wolverine would be large) or would you treat it like the companion advancement rules where the HD wont change the size. To me, that isn't what he was saying at all. If you had any kind of sense at all, you might be able to see that. He was saying that Polymorph has specific rulings made on it in the LGCS. It's a Core Rule that didn't need to be ruled on, yet the Circle did. This is something that needs to be ruled on, yet the Circle hasnt. That is pretty pathetic.
Japangirl 12-21-06, 05:55 PM	Polymorph errata was a special situation, where Wizards allowed the RPGA to either take the new errata or figure out a way to deal with polymorph in another way. The Circle chose to restrict polymorph to MM1 monsters instead of using the errata, but only because Wizards allowed them that choice. With trained for war, Wizards isn't being so obliging. The Circle clarifying this issue would essentially be making a rules ruling, something reserved for the Sage and the FAQ. While it is possible the Circle could say "well, for LG it means this but that's not necessarily what it always means", it's still skirting the line of what the Circle can and cannot do in terms of setting rules. I share everyone's frustration with the problem. I wish to make a Beastmaster with my baby druid, and have built her towards that. Having a war-trained animal would be really really nice. However, the Circle's hands really are fairly tied on this issue, and I applaud Britt for his patience with the person (people?) who makes being on the Circle less than a pleasurable experience.
Mithreinmaethor 12-21-06, 06:15 PM	I hope that the Circle looks at the Warbeast template as a viable solution. It fills in all the blanks except for the one question I posted previously about the 1 HD and advancing. I would spend the TU's with my druid (that I am getting ready to start mind you) to train a warbeast animal companion. Wouldnt do it until mid levels when I can get a companion that would be worth adding the template to, but I WOULD spend the time and the 624 gold for upkeep to do it.
haferka 12-21-06, 06:16 PM	Back on subject.. ignoring all the compaining... I would simply clarify "trained for war" as granting Armor Proficiency Light & Armor Proficiency Medium to the creature as bonus feats. Done. I would also like to see "Warbeast" added as access in mods.. Purchasing Warbeast creatures is fully detailed in the template.. cost is based on HD. Training existing creatures to become warbeasts would require ~12TU and a DC 20 or 25 +HD handle animal check. After successfully training the creature some creatures would require 1 year "rearing time". The "Rearing time" would remove the creature from play for 52 TUs (beyond the training time).. before you could use it in-game. If you fail the handle animal check the "rearing time" would not apply, and you would need to play another adventure before attempting the training again. --------------------- Here is the stuff I am making up.. (it is NOT detailed in the template) Paladin Mounts, Druid companions, and familiars are NOT required to spend the "rearing time" but the class granting creatures abilities is considered effectivly 3 levels lower for determining those abilities. If this would lower your effective level below 1 you can NOT add the template to the creature.
rogerd 12-21-06, 06:16 PM	Bob: good post. I was glad to see this topic brought up - it does need clarification. Mithreinmaethor: LG does not ordinarily require any books beyond core. Hence, using the warbeast template as a solution does not serve well. I agree that people would just plain not try if this were the solution however. Britt: Thanks for adding this to your list. A simple clarification need not change people's characters or animals very much and would be deeply appreciated. Your efforts to improve communications and provide insight into the circle's thinking are deeply appreciated. DragonKnight82: I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but I don't think you help your case with any of your posts. My preference would be to clarify that the default training package for each of the animals in the PHB is: Combat Riding (Riding Dog, Warpony, Light warhorse, heavy warhorse), Riding (heavy horse, light horse, pony), Heavy Labor (Donkey, mule) or Guarding (Guard dog). Warhorses and riding dogs are considered trained for war. The existing rules could be kept for customized animals and for backwards compatibility. Multiple TU's should be spendable to train an animal for a purpose. Basically - use the core rules with sensible clarifications as to the intent of the Equipment table. That said, I don't think the circle will change any of this, basically because it isn't considered high priority. At least they're slated to discuss it! Roger
katrick 12-21-06, 08:30 PM	if its not a riding dog, warhorse, war camel, or brixashulty and possibly others that are stated trained for war then give it masterwork studded leather barding +3 to AC(no check penalty and only 350gp for an elephant) or just cop the armor penalty. mithrall full plate is -3 for 9 to AC(8+ most animals have at least1 for dex) irrelevant to a druid or ranger who can afford 14000gp x2 - x8 the animal is going to have a very good attack bonus or put magical armor spikes on the armor to counteract this GMW GWF etc not sure where the 52 TU's is from training for a purpose only takes six weeks and the tricks completely replace existing ones so you could buy a guard dog and train it for combat riding to save 100gps or there abouts (although it wouldn't be trained for war) as per Handle Animal you can teach animals other tricks not mentioned in the PHB (maybe not according to LGCS) so if in the LGCS it said Trained for war is 3-6 tricks problem solved marty
Howie23 12-21-06, 09:20 PM	I hope that the Circle looks at the Warbeast template as a viable solution. You know that the warbeast template specifically says that it cannot be applied to creatures that already have the (undefined) "war" template, such as warhorses, right? :) Given that warbeast is not from a core source, there must be a solution that does not involve warbeast, as there are core creatures that are trained for war without having the warbeast template. David
pimeister 12-22-06, 12:55 AM	What would be the thought of these two things: 1) Without changing how you teach tricks, if you teach an animal all of the tricks listed under a particular purpose in the PHB, it is considered to have that purpose. 2) Then, define that creatures with combat riding are considered to be war trained (with whatever proficiencies that title gives). As it stands, animals go from one table to the next being drastically changed in their mechanics and effectiveness, at the expense of the player and character.
Mithreinmaethor 12-22-06, 02:23 AM	The 52 TU's comes from the necessity to rear an animal that is not normally war trained to be war trained. And just teaching it tricks does not make it war trained. If you look at the war trained animals they have extra HD and some stat changes, and the war trained mounts will attack when ridden. The Warbeast template could solve this problem. Its a good read none the less. And to say that LG doesnt deal with much thats not in the core books. Tell that to my Warmage or Hexblade, or the other guys Marshall. Items out of non core can easily be implemented. if its not a riding dog, warhorse, war camel, or brixashulty and possibly others that are stated trained for war then give it masterwork studded leather barding +3 to AC(no check penalty and only 350gp for an elephant) or just cop the armor penalty. mithrall full plate is -3 for 9 to AC(8+ most animals have at least1 for dex) irrelevant to a druid or ranger who can afford 14000gp x2 - x8 the animal is going to have a very good attack bonus or put magical armor spikes on the armor to counteract this GMW GWF etc not sure where the 52 TU's is from training for a purpose only takes six weeks and the tricks completely replace existing ones so you could buy a guard dog and train it for combat riding to save 100gps or there abouts (although it wouldn't be trained for war) as per Handle Animal you can teach animals other tricks not mentioned in the PHB (maybe not according to LGCS) so if in the LGCS it said Trained for war is 3-6 tricks problem solved marty
Mithreinmaethor 12-22-06, 02:27 AM	Yes I am aware of the fact it cant be added to those creatures since a form of it has already been done. I have read the template several times over and it still looks as very viable solution to the problem at hand. The only problem I see from implementing it is people whining about losing their druid/ranger for 52 TU's. But hey you want something out of the norm, there is a price to pay. And the template clearly states that an animal needs to be reared for a year to be war trained. And in LG 1 year means 52 TU's You know that the warbeast template specifically says that it cannot be applied to creatures that already have the (undefined) "war" template, such as warhorses, right? :) Given that warbeast is not from a core source, there must be a solution that does not involve warbeast, as there are core creatures that are trained for war without having the warbeast template. David
Britt 12-22-06, 02:37 AM	And in LG 1 year means 52 TU's Not quite. 52 TUs = 1 year's worth of adventuring opportunities. It is quite conceivable that you could adventure and rear an animal within a year. It might just be that an animal just won't get it until a year's worth of beating it into its head; it wouldn't actually take all day everyday for an entire year, just a year's worth of repetitive Pavlovian training.
Lupo 12-22-06, 03:38 AM	<snip>As it stands, animals go from one table to the next being drastically changed in their mechanics and effectiveness, at the expense of the player and character. yea, i too would love to see a final definition of this grey area ;). till then i will just do the obvious: avoid DMs with funny ideas (assumed the DM is not open for reasonable discussion) about animals in general and "wartrained" animals in particular, and spread the word about them ;). in fact most DMs i have encountered assume a druid or anyone else with an animal companion knows the rules and as long as nothing strange is happening they and me are fine with it :). some few DMs come up with funny rulings and strange ideas about animals - they also have a tendency to come up with funny ideas on other grey areas and sometimes even areas nobody else sees as "grey" - so just don't have a table with such DM when playing a character with an animal companion or even better, inform the event coordiantor that you would prefer NOT to be DM-ed by said individual at all. when a substantial number of players don't want to seat at certain DMs tables most coordinators get the message. ciao martin m. ps: my list of "to be avoided DMs" is very short at the moment, exactly TWO names :P
JJeff 12-22-06, 03:51 AM	some few DMs come up with funny rulings and strange ideas about animals - they also have a tendency to come up with funny ideas on other grey areas and sometimes even areas nobody else sees as "grey" - so just don't have a table with such DM when playing a character with an animal companion or even better, inform the event coordiantor that you would prefer NOT to be DM-ed by said individual at all. I feel rather sad that things need to reach a point where Hudges are boycotted. Admitted I know who I would not like to DM my table (cos he loves to coup-de-grac players, even breaking rules just to do so), but I think it is still sad that things must reach this point. Maybe it's time for Senior GMs to make sure that the people who you pick to DM tables at events are people you trust to run games without trouble. I mean if it's a home/retail game, opt-ing to not play under the guy is easy and he shoudl get the hint himself soon, but at events, it becomes more problematic. So, note to all Senior GMs for cons and other events. Vet your Judges.
DragonKnight82 12-22-06, 08:33 AM	To reiterate my point about Polymorph, because nobody seems to have understood what I was saying: The point about whether or not the errata was accepted is moot in the case I'm pointing out. What I am saying is that the Circle issued a campaign specific rulings for Poly, i.e. nothing changes size with you, you only have certain slots available to you even if the form you are changing into could support it. These changes are directly contradictory to how the non- errated Poly works. Now, the reason I make this point is because the Circle has stated as a reason they refuse to make a ruling on this issue is because it's a Core Rule and they don't want to mess with Core Rules. Poly is a Core Rule that was changed by the Circle. So, I'm just saying that you shouldn't use one excuse not to do something when you've already done the same thing in the past. It's so hypocritical it's pathetic.
Herrbard 12-22-06, 07:42 PM	So, note to all Senior GMs for cons and other events. Vet your Judges. Note to all players: Let your Senior GM know how you liked your tables. Both good and bad. Senior GMs of events LIVE to hear this stuff. Without good player feedback, they don't know how their GMs are doing. And please, don't just bash people, let them know when someone has done a good job, too!!!:D
RedKnightofKet 12-23-06, 05:12 PM	Why don't we just all start sending in requests to the Sage to fix this problem? Maybe if enough people send in questions, they'll have no choice but to come up with an answer :)
Howie23 12-23-06, 05:50 PM	Why don't we just all start sending in requests to the Sage to fix this problem? Maybe if enough people send in questions, they'll have no choice but to come up with an answer :) It's certainly a step in the right direction. If a reply is Combat Riding= Trained for War, then we still have the LGCS issue about training, though. David
MeinVT 12-23-06, 10:43 PM	I've done so as well. I wish I'd saved my e-mail so I could post the questions for others to just copy and paste. Basically I asked: If you buy a PHB Riding Dog or War Horse does it get all Combat Riding tricks? Is Combat Riding == Trained for War? If not, how do you train a mount for war? I also asked, if it is DM discretion is it fair to say that they get those tricks, combat riding is trained for war would be a consistent ruling without making modification to the core rules. Hopefully we can at least get them to clearly give discretion to LG to make a ruling on this as that seems to currently be in question.
Samwise 12-24-06, 12:04 AM	Why don't we just all start sending in requests to the Sage to fix this problem? Maybe if enough people send in questions, they'll have no choice but to come up with an answer :) Heh. I just told someone in the regular LG group I run for who hates this whole Catch-22 rules void the same thing. Maybe it does take a critical mass of people asking the same question to get it into the monthly queue. Who knows, maybe he'll even save everyone a trick on trip while he's at it. :P
JamesMaissen 12-24-06, 03:11 AM	Wouldn't it be within the purview of the Circle to include in the next LGCS how many TUs it would take to make an animal 'trained for war'? -James
Mithreinmaethor 12-24-06, 10:58 AM	Being trained for war is a matter of how the creature is reared. If you notice the war horse's and the riding(war) dog have an extra HD and mods to their stats compared to their normal counterparts. It is not something that you just make a roll and take 1 week to do. Read the Warbeast template from MM II. It gives the best explanation of this that can be found on the subject. I've done so as well. I wish I'd saved my e-mail so I could post the questions for others to just copy and paste. Basically I asked: If you buy a PHB Riding Dog or War Horse does it get all Combat Riding tricks? Is Combat Riding == Trained for War? If not, how do you train a mount for war? I also asked, if it is DM discretion is it fair to say that they get those tricks, combat riding is trained for war would be a consistent ruling without making modification to the core rules. Hopefully we can at least get them to clearly give discretion to LG to make a ruling on this as that seems to currently be in question.
Iswald 12-28-06, 11:26 AM	The only problem I see from implementing it is people whining about losing their druid/ranger for 52 TU's. But hey you want something out of the norm, there is a price to pay. And the template clearly states that an animal needs to be reared for a year to be war trained. And in LG 1 year means 52 TU's Wow. This is completely insane. Currently, you can bring in a new animal companion every mod, with tricks, and not spend any TUs, unless I missed something. An AR I have lets my animal companion gain the template for 8 TUs per HD before gaining the template. Better for low level druids.
haferka 12-28-06, 12:33 PM	Wow. This is completely insane. Currently, you can bring in a new animal companion every mod, with tricks, and not spend any TUs, unless I missed something. An AR I have lets my animal companion gain the template for 8 TUs per HD before gaining the template. Better for low level druids. As Britt stated earlier.. "rearing" an animal does not require your total attention.. it requires the total attention of the animal. (thus you would NOT have an animal would be unavailable for 52 TUs. You would still be required to spend the 8 TUs in addition to the "rearing" time. Domesticated animals, such as an animal companions would NOT be required to spend the 52 TUs in "rearing" time. The fact that the template has already been handed out is a good sign, I believe that it is however unbalanced to simply allow the template to be applied to animal companions without adjusting the effective druid level by -3 for companion abilities. The +1 HD, armor proficiencies, skill bonuses, etc... are more than equivilant to a -3 effective druid level. I think a -6 would be to much of an adjustment. I am curious exactly what this AR says about the template.. is there a gp cost? does it modify your effective druid level? or does it just cost you TUs?