What is the "trained for war" issue? [Archive] - Wizards Community

What is the "trained for war" issue? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
heirodule
02-09-07, 01:36 PM It seems clear to me, as a GM and a player.

A riding horse in the PHB is not trained for war. For that you need a Warhorse which you can buy.

Small paladins can buy 'riding dogs' instead of warhorses, ergo, the riding dogs fucntion as warhorses.

So they are "trained for war".

I've never had a GM challenge my halfling druidess' plain vanilla "riding dog" animal companion doing trip attacks.

Opposing views?
Britt
02-09-07, 01:41 PM There is no definition of "trained for war". You can think it means something, but there is no proof.
kjenks
02-09-07, 04:14 PM Britt is correct that there is no formal definition of "Trained for war" in the core rules, but many of us have been forced to come up with a working definition.

At my tables, and if there's an appeal when I'm Senior GM, "Trained for war" simply means "has the Attack trick."

In LG, almost all animals (except donkeys and mules) come off-the-shelf with the attack trick. For the riding dog, in addition to the attack trick, you also need two trick slots to make the dog trained to use a trip attack, per LGCS 596CY, page 40.

The way I interpret the LGCS, off-the-shelf animals have only that one trick, but when you buy an animal, you may pick an extra trick for each point of Intelligence the animal has. If the animal has Int 2, those can be the two "trip" slots or two other tricks.

If you want your animal to have more tricks than that, ya gotta spend the TUs (and lifestyle gold) and have a DM note on that same AR that you've succeeded at the required Handle Animal check to train the critter, up to its normal maximum of 3 tricks per point of Int (or more for animal companions with bonus trick slots). If you have NOT spent the TUs, if you failed the Handle Animal check, or if you change animals, your animal only has attack and one or two extra tricks that you get to choose when you buy the animal. At least, that's how I read the LGCS rules.

Many people have repeatedly asked WotC Customer Service, The Sage and Ask Wizards this same question. There appears to be an internal disagreement at WotC about the true meaning of "trained for war" -- or possibly an Errata in the works, causing an internal conflict about the need vs. the costs of releasing an Errata. Whatever the problem is, we still don't have an official definition.
trollbill
02-09-07, 04:59 PM My guess is that the answer will likely show up in some book currently scheduled for release, like the Rules Compendium. But it could just be an errata.
Alpha_Nerd
02-09-07, 05:06 PM Coming out in March: "Wizards of the Coast doesn't care enough Compendium" A listing of all the rules that need more clarification, but no clarifications to be found!
Samwise
02-09-07, 05:10 PM My guess is that the answer will likely show up in some book currently scheduled for release, like the Rules Compendium. But it could just be an errata.

Heh.
That same thought occurred to me about an hour ago. (Too many messages to read.)
So yeah, maybe we'll finally get an answer in the Rules Compendium.
Bold
02-09-07, 09:22 PM At my tables, and if there's an appeal when I'm Senior GM, "Trained for war" simply means "has the Attack trick."

Another possible interpretation is that "trained for war" means the Combat Riding package of tricks. According to the rules on Handle Animal, one can train an animal for a general purpose that includes a prepackaged list of individual tricks. It's sort of a "bundle" deal, rather than training an animal with a bunch of individual tricks à la carte:

Train an Animal for a Purpose: Rather than teaching an animal individual tricks, you can simply train it for a general purpose. Essentially, an animal’s purpose represents a preselected set of known tricks that fit into a common scheme, such as guarding or heavy labor. The animal must meet all the normal prerequisites for all tricks included in the training package. If the package includes more than three tricks, the animal must have an Intelligence score of 2.

An animal can be trained for only one general purpose, though if the creature is capable of learning additional tricks (above and beyond those included in its general purpose), it may do so. Training an animal for a purpose requires fewer checks than teaching individual tricks does, but no less time. At your DM’s option, you may be able to train an animal for a purpose that isn’t mentioned here.

The package of tricks for Combat Riding (and especially the fluff text description) seems to fit with riding dogs and warhorses, who are "trained for war":

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 (see the Monster Manual) are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose.

The last sentence is pretty vague: does it imply that the "trained for war" aspect of warhorses and riding dogs is equivalent to Combat Riding, or does it imply that "trained for war" is something entirely different--a superset of Combat Riding (e.g. Combat Riding + Heavy Armor Proficiency)?

In any case, it suggests that "trained for war" is probably more than just the attack trick. However, that's definitely open to interpretation, and players should expect table variation.
Timlagor
02-09-07, 09:42 PM War Horses are BRED for war. It is made very very clear that they differ from normal horses not by training but by breeding.
Mithreinmaethor
02-09-07, 11:06 PM This was hashed over in other threads a few months back. The 2 Trained for War critters have more HD and different stats than a regular of its kind. So that entails more than just a trick or 2 being trained.

Maybe WOTC will update the Warbeast Template from Monster Manual II, and add it in an upcoming book or errata or something.

I had hoped that the Circle would have looked at it and added it to the campaign and modified the costs and time (TU's) needed to rear such an animal. But WOTC must have something up there sleeves in regards to this matter for the Circle to take the stand they have.
Timlagor
02-09-07, 11:08 PM This was hashed over in other threads a few months back. The 2 Trained for War critters have more HD and different stats than a regular of its kind. So that entails more than just a trick or 2 being trained.

I repeat: WAR HORSES are not different due to training but breeding. They are born different.

"Trained for war" is clearly a matter of training -it's right there in the phrase!
Mithreinmaethor
02-09-07, 11:26 PM If you go read the Warbeast template it pretty much explains all that. Its all in the breeding and the training.

And I think the biggest problem is that people read too much into the choice of words the writer used. Trained for War could have easily been replaced with Bred for War. But by saying Trained for War and not explaining how that is done or how it could be done has caused the confusion.

The above mentioned Warbeast (unfortunate its a 3.0 book) actually talks about the rearing and training of such creatures.

We will just have to see what WOTC has up their sleeve. We wont get anything from the circle on this until then. So put away your stick and leave this dead horse alone for awhile
Britt
02-09-07, 11:29 PM But is it the dead horse trained for war? Cause I want to know if my dead horse can wear barding without taking a penalty on attacks.
Mithreinmaethor
02-09-07, 11:32 PM You know Britt I will catch you at some BK con and kick you in the shin. Barding or no barding it will hurt I tell you. And if I find you have access to Adamantine Shin Guards of Deflection I know that the Circle cheated for you
JamesMaissen
02-09-07, 11:41 PM But is it the dead horse trained for war? Cause I want to know if my dead horse can wear barding without taking a penalty on attacks.

Just have it wear mithril chain shirt barding and then you don't have to worry about the penalty on attacks. You might have to worry how much it costs, but if you weren't worrying then its a sure sign that you're doing something wrong...

-James
Bold
02-09-07, 11:44 PM But is it the dead horse trained for war?

No, but upon its death a horse automatically receives the "Goad" feat, forcing everyone in the area to beat it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
heirodule 02-09-07, 01:36 PM	It seems clear to me, as a GM and a player. A riding horse in the PHB is not trained for war. For that you need a Warhorse which you can buy. Small paladins can buy 'riding dogs' instead of warhorses, ergo, the riding dogs fucntion as warhorses. So they are "trained for war". I've never had a GM challenge my halfling druidess' plain vanilla "riding dog" animal companion doing trip attacks. Opposing views?
Britt 02-09-07, 01:41 PM	There is no definition of "trained for war". You can think it means something, but there is no proof.
kjenks 02-09-07, 04:14 PM	Britt is correct that there is no formal definition of "Trained for war" in the core rules, but many of us have been forced to come up with a working definition. At my tables, and if there's an appeal when I'm Senior GM, "Trained for war" simply means "has the Attack trick." In LG, almost all animals (except donkeys and mules) come off-the-shelf with the attack trick. For the riding dog, in addition to the attack trick, you also need two trick slots to make the dog trained to use a trip attack, per LGCS 596CY, page 40. The way I interpret the LGCS, off-the-shelf animals have only that one trick, but when you buy an animal, you may pick an extra trick for each point of Intelligence the animal has. If the animal has Int 2, those can be the two "trip" slots or two other tricks. If you want your animal to have more tricks than that, ya gotta spend the TUs (and lifestyle gold) and have a DM note on that same AR that you've succeeded at the required Handle Animal check to train the critter, up to its normal maximum of 3 tricks per point of Int (or more for animal companions with bonus trick slots). If you have NOT spent the TUs, if you failed the Handle Animal check, or if you change animals, your animal only has attack and one or two extra tricks that you get to choose when you buy the animal. At least, that's how I read the LGCS rules. Many people have repeatedly asked WotC Customer Service, The Sage and Ask Wizards this same question. There appears to be an internal disagreement at WotC about the true meaning of "trained for war" -- or possibly an Errata in the works, causing an internal conflict about the need vs. the costs of releasing an Errata. Whatever the problem is, we still don't have an official definition.
trollbill 02-09-07, 04:59 PM	My guess is that the answer will likely show up in some book currently scheduled for release, like the Rules Compendium. But it could just be an errata.
Alpha_Nerd 02-09-07, 05:06 PM	Coming out in March: "Wizards of the Coast doesn't care enough Compendium" A listing of all the rules that need more clarification, but no clarifications to be found!
Samwise 02-09-07, 05:10 PM	My guess is that the answer will likely show up in some book currently scheduled for release, like the Rules Compendium. But it could just be an errata. Heh. That same thought occurred to me about an hour ago. (Too many messages to read.) So yeah, maybe we'll finally get an answer in the Rules Compendium.
Bold 02-09-07, 09:22 PM	At my tables, and if there's an appeal when I'm Senior GM, "Trained for war" simply means "has the Attack trick." Another possible interpretation is that "trained for war" means the Combat Riding package of tricks. According to the rules on Handle Animal, one can train an animal for a general purpose that includes a prepackaged list of individual tricks. It's sort of a "bundle" deal, rather than training an animal with a bunch of individual tricks à la carte: Train an Animal for a Purpose: Rather than teaching an animal individual tricks, you can simply train it for a general purpose. Essentially, an animal’s purpose represents a preselected set of known tricks that fit into a common scheme, such as guarding or heavy labor. The animal must meet all the normal prerequisites for all tricks included in the training package. If the package includes more than three tricks, the animal must have an Intelligence score of 2. An animal can be trained for only one general purpose, though if the creature is capable of learning additional tricks (above and beyond those included in its general purpose), it may do so. Training an animal for a purpose requires fewer checks than teaching individual tricks does, but no less time. At your DM’s option, you may be able to train an animal for a purpose that isn’t mentioned here. The package of tricks for Combat Riding (and especially the fluff text description) seems to fit with riding dogs and warhorses, who are "trained for war": 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 (see the Monster Manual) are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose. The last sentence is pretty vague: does it imply that the "trained for war" aspect of warhorses and riding dogs is equivalent to Combat Riding, or does it imply that "trained for war" is something entirely different--a superset of Combat Riding (e.g. Combat Riding + Heavy Armor Proficiency)? In any case, it suggests that "trained for war" is probably more than just the attack trick. However, that's definitely open to interpretation, and players should expect table variation.
Timlagor 02-09-07, 09:42 PM	War Horses are BRED for war. It is made very very clear that they differ from normal horses not by training but by breeding.
Mithreinmaethor 02-09-07, 11:06 PM	This was hashed over in other threads a few months back. The 2 Trained for War critters have more HD and different stats than a regular of its kind. So that entails more than just a trick or 2 being trained. Maybe WOTC will update the Warbeast Template from Monster Manual II, and add it in an upcoming book or errata or something. I had hoped that the Circle would have looked at it and added it to the campaign and modified the costs and time (TU's) needed to rear such an animal. But WOTC must have something up there sleeves in regards to this matter for the Circle to take the stand they have.
Timlagor 02-09-07, 11:08 PM	This was hashed over in other threads a few months back. The 2 Trained for War critters have more HD and different stats than a regular of its kind. So that entails more than just a trick or 2 being trained. I repeat: WAR HORSES are not different due to training but breeding. They are born different. "Trained for war" is clearly a matter of training -it's right there in the phrase!
Mithreinmaethor 02-09-07, 11:26 PM	If you go read the Warbeast template it pretty much explains all that. Its all in the breeding and the training. And I think the biggest problem is that people read too much into the choice of words the writer used. Trained for War could have easily been replaced with Bred for War. But by saying Trained for War and not explaining how that is done or how it could be done has caused the confusion. The above mentioned Warbeast (unfortunate its a 3.0 book) actually talks about the rearing and training of such creatures. We will just have to see what WOTC has up their sleeve. We wont get anything from the circle on this until then. So put away your stick and leave this dead horse alone for awhile
Britt 02-09-07, 11:29 PM	But is it the dead horse trained for war? Cause I want to know if my dead horse can wear barding without taking a penalty on attacks.
Mithreinmaethor 02-09-07, 11:32 PM	You know Britt I will catch you at some BK con and kick you in the shin. Barding or no barding it will hurt I tell you. And if I find you have access to Adamantine Shin Guards of Deflection I know that the Circle cheated for you
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 11:41 PM	But is it the dead horse trained for war? Cause I want to know if my dead horse can wear barding without taking a penalty on attacks. Just have it wear mithril chain shirt barding and then you don't have to worry about the penalty on attacks. You might have to worry how much it costs, but if you weren't worrying then its a sure sign that you're doing something wrong... -James
Bold 02-09-07, 11:44 PM	But is it the dead horse trained for war? No, but upon its death a horse automatically receives the "Goad" feat, forcing everyone in the area to beat it.