Handle Animal [Archive] - Wizards Community

Handle Animal [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Shieldhart91
08-20-06, 09:57 PM Alright, so I have a Light Warhorse. Do I need Handle Animal? Or would Ride be the only thing I need here?

Thanks,
Rick
Arvagor
08-20-06, 10:39 PM What do you plan on using him for?
Howie23
08-20-06, 10:59 PM Alright, so I have a Light Warhorse. Do I need Handle Animal? Or would Ride be the only thing I need here?

you'll want Handle Animal as well.

To move him around the battlefield, you need nothing.

To do things covered by Ride checks (including attacking with the horse yourself, guiding w/your knees to use a shield and weapon or two handed weapon, taking cover, etc) you'll need Ride skill.

To get the horse to attack using the Attack trick (or to do anything else other than merely move around under your command), you'll want Handle Animal, and you'll want the animal trained in the appropriate tricks; you'll need Handle Animal to do the training as well.

Expect table variance wrt the training that a warhorse requires via tricks. It's a massive grey area due to the PHB description of warhorses and how that interacts with training for a combat purpose. Armor proficiency is also a bugaboo, but is not an issue if you are planning on using a horse merely as a cart.

David
Paul H
09-05-06, 12:26 PM Hi

And don't forget 5 ranks handle Animal grants +2 Synergy bonus to ride!

Druids can 'handle' their animal companion as a free action.
(And grants 'extra' tricks without having the Handle Animal prereq).

Cheers
Paul H

[Edit]
PS I normally take "attack" as the first trick, "wear armour" as second, etc. But there's probably plenty table variation out there.
chesspiece
09-05-06, 03:14 PM Playing in Ket, the ability to limit lethal damage and avoid killings (and jail-time) is important. Attack dogs are likely to leave opponents bleeding out.

One of my rulings as a LG Judge is that attack mounts don't usually need the Down trick. By my reading of the rules, the rider's ability to control the position of their mount is absolute. So, if a warhorse (or riding dog) is performing an Attack command, all you need to do to disengage them is to move (rider & mount) so that the enemy is out of your mount's reach. I also allow riders to choose who gets to attack if they fail the Fight With Warhorse check - so you could deliberately fail the Ride check (along with your to Hit roll) if you needed to stop your mount's attacks without repositioning.

Cheers,

Stephen Martin
Howie23
09-06-06, 12:52 PM PS I normally take "attack" as the first trick, "wear armour" as second, etc. But there's probably plenty table variation out there.

Yes, there is. For example, there is no "wear armour" trick. :)

Any animal can wear armour/barding. You will get variation about proficiency with that armor. At the most conservative level, armor proficiency is provided by the appropriate feats. It is also provided if the animal is trained for war, but there is no definition about what constitutes trained for war. That last point is the root of what causes the most variance.

David
kenobi65
09-06-06, 04:08 PM but there is no definition about what constitutes trained for war. That last point is the root of what causes the most variance.

No kidding. I think I'm gonna bounce this particular issue to my Triad POC, for bubbling up to the Circle for next year's LGCS revision. I can't believe that it'd be a difficult thing to define the term, and it'd cut down on a whole lot of headaches and arguments.
ShinAkuma2
09-06-06, 06:30 PM I'd like to point out the "Warbeast" template of the Monster Manual II. An animal with said template is considered to be proficient with barding, among other things.

Warhorses and riding dogs are already considered to have this template.
Paul H
09-06-06, 07:21 PM Hi

That's the point - the Druid's companion is a heavy horse trained for war (his 'tricks'), not a heavy war horse.

Since a heavy horse isn't naturally trained to wear barding, that's why I mentioned it.

Cheers
Paul H
Howie23
09-06-06, 10:42 PM I'd like to point out the "Warbeast" template of the Monster Manual II. An animal with said template is considered to be proficient with barding, among other things.
Yep.

Warhorses and riding dogs are already considered to have this template.
Nope.

The passage in MMII specifically says that they do not have this template. The language is, "The Monster Manual describes a few 'war creatures' that have qualities similar to those of a warbeast, but differ from standard creatures of a given kind. These creatures are considered to already have a separate 'war template' and cannot have the warbeast template added. For example, one cannot apply the warbeast template to a heavy warhorse." (MMII, p. 219).

The 'war template' is undefined and has unknown benefits. While this might serve as the foundation for making the connection for trained for war, that would be a house rule, and therefore in the hands of Circle.

The listing for warbeast, other than not being the same as the 'war template' is in MMII, and therefore is not a core rule in LG in any case.

The basis for suggesting that animals that are trained for war might have armor proficiency is found in the Monster Manual in the appendix listing for Animal.
David
Cynric
09-06-06, 11:43 PM Which is why my druids animal companion has light armour proficieny as one of it's feats. Kinda saves on the confusion until this area is sorted out.
trollbill
09-07-06, 09:45 AM Which is why my druids animal companion has light armour proficieny as one of it's feats. Kinda saves on the confusion until this area is sorted out.

Of course, if you have your Animal Companion wear Leather Barding, Masterwork Studded Leather Barding or Mithral Chain Shirt Barding, having Light Armor Proficiency is a moot point since they suffer no penalty for wearing that armor even if they aren't proficient.
Lupo
09-07-06, 11:13 AM Of course, if you have your Animal Companion wear Leather Barding, Masterwork Studded Leather Barding or Mithral Chain Shirt Barding, having Light Armor Proficiency is a moot point since they suffer no penalty for wearing that armor even if they aren't proficient.

:) my druid's dire-bat animal companion switched DOWN from leather barding to padded armor barding. the critter's dexterity just gets insanely high (dex 24 with a 9th level druid). so the max allowed dex for a leather armor (+6) was to low.

ciao

martin m.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shieldhart91 08-20-06, 09:57 PM	Alright, so I have a Light Warhorse. Do I need Handle Animal? Or would Ride be the only thing I need here? Thanks, Rick
Arvagor 08-20-06, 10:39 PM	What do you plan on using him for?
Howie23 08-20-06, 10:59 PM	Alright, so I have a Light Warhorse. Do I need Handle Animal? Or would Ride be the only thing I need here? you'll want Handle Animal as well. To move him around the battlefield, you need nothing. To do things covered by Ride checks (including attacking with the horse yourself, guiding w/your knees to use a shield and weapon or two handed weapon, taking cover, etc) you'll need Ride skill. To get the horse to attack using the Attack trick (or to do anything else other than merely move around under your command), you'll want Handle Animal, and you'll want the animal trained in the appropriate tricks; you'll need Handle Animal to do the training as well. Expect table variance wrt the training that a warhorse requires via tricks. It's a massive grey area due to the PHB description of warhorses and how that interacts with training for a combat purpose. Armor proficiency is also a bugaboo, but is not an issue if you are planning on using a horse merely as a cart. David
Paul H 09-05-06, 12:26 PM	Hi And don't forget 5 ranks handle Animal grants +2 Synergy bonus to ride! Druids can 'handle' their animal companion as a free action. (And grants 'extra' tricks without having the Handle Animal prereq). Cheers Paul H [Edit] PS I normally take "attack" as the first trick, "wear armour" as second, etc. But there's probably plenty table variation out there.
chesspiece 09-05-06, 03:14 PM	Playing in Ket, the ability to limit lethal damage and avoid killings (and jail-time) is important. Attack dogs are likely to leave opponents bleeding out. One of my rulings as a LG Judge is that attack mounts don't usually need the Down trick. By my reading of the rules, the rider's ability to control the position of their mount is absolute. So, if a warhorse (or riding dog) is performing an Attack command, all you need to do to disengage them is to move (rider & mount) so that the enemy is out of your mount's reach. I also allow riders to choose who gets to attack if they fail the Fight With Warhorse check - so you could deliberately fail the Ride check (along with your to Hit roll) if you needed to stop your mount's attacks without repositioning. Cheers, Stephen Martin
Howie23 09-06-06, 12:52 PM	PS I normally take "attack" as the first trick, "wear armour" as second, etc. But there's probably plenty table variation out there. Yes, there is. For example, there is no "wear armour" trick. :) Any animal can wear armour/barding. You will get variation about proficiency with that armor. At the most conservative level, armor proficiency is provided by the appropriate feats. It is also provided if the animal is trained for war, but there is no definition about what constitutes trained for war. That last point is the root of what causes the most variance. David
kenobi65 09-06-06, 04:08 PM	but there is no definition about what constitutes trained for war. That last point is the root of what causes the most variance. No kidding. I think I'm gonna bounce this particular issue to my Triad POC, for bubbling up to the Circle for next year's LGCS revision. I can't believe that it'd be a difficult thing to define the term, and it'd cut down on a whole lot of headaches and arguments.
ShinAkuma2 09-06-06, 06:30 PM	I'd like to point out the "Warbeast" template of the Monster Manual II. An animal with said template is considered to be proficient with barding, among other things. Warhorses and riding dogs are already considered to have this template.
Paul H 09-06-06, 07:21 PM	Hi That's the point - the Druid's companion is a heavy horse trained for war (his 'tricks'), not a heavy war horse. Since a heavy horse isn't naturally trained to wear barding, that's why I mentioned it. Cheers Paul H
Howie23 09-06-06, 10:42 PM	I'd like to point out the "Warbeast" template of the Monster Manual II. An animal with said template is considered to be proficient with barding, among other things. Yep. Warhorses and riding dogs are already considered to have this template. Nope. The passage in MMII specifically says that they do not have this template. The language is, "The Monster Manual describes a few 'war creatures' that have qualities similar to those of a warbeast, but differ from standard creatures of a given kind. These creatures are considered to already have a separate 'war template' and cannot have the warbeast template added. For example, one cannot apply the warbeast template to a heavy warhorse." (MMII, p. 219). The 'war template' is undefined and has unknown benefits. While this might serve as the foundation for making the connection for trained for war, that would be a house rule, and therefore in the hands of Circle. The listing for warbeast, other than not being the same as the 'war template' is in MMII, and therefore is not a core rule in LG in any case. The basis for suggesting that animals that are trained for war might have armor proficiency is found in the Monster Manual in the appendix listing for Animal. David
Cynric 09-06-06, 11:43 PM	Which is why my druids animal companion has light armour proficieny as one of it's feats. Kinda saves on the confusion until this area is sorted out.
trollbill 09-07-06, 09:45 AM	Which is why my druids animal companion has light armour proficieny as one of it's feats. Kinda saves on the confusion until this area is sorted out. Of course, if you have your Animal Companion wear Leather Barding, Masterwork Studded Leather Barding or Mithral Chain Shirt Barding, having Light Armor Proficiency is a moot point since they suffer no penalty for wearing that armor even if they aren't proficient.
Lupo 09-07-06, 11:13 AM	Of course, if you have your Animal Companion wear Leather Barding, Masterwork Studded Leather Barding or Mithral Chain Shirt Barding, having Light Armor Proficiency is a moot point since they suffer no penalty for wearing that armor even if they aren't proficient. :) my druid's dire-bat animal companion switched DOWN from leather barding to padded armor barding. the critter's dexterity just gets insanely high (dex 24 with a 9th level druid). so the max allowed dex for a leather armor (+6) was to low. ciao martin m.