Armor Spikes on an animal [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor Spikes on an animal [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
arjomanes
03-15-07, 10:53 AM Can an animal become proficient with armor spikes by expending a feat, such as martial or exotic weapon proficiency?

Also, for an animal companion, can you substitute a feat for the default feat the animal comes with in the MM, or do you need to wait until the animal advances Hit Dice?
tarkin
03-15-07, 11:48 AM Yes, an Animal can become proficient with Armor Spikes, if they take the feat.

I would let you substitute a feat when you found the animal, but not afterwards. Afterwards, you would need to upgrade their HD to get a feat.
Grug the Just
03-15-07, 11:50 AM The problem I see here is that animals lack the intelligence to "learn" much else aside from tricks. As such teaching a wolf to use armor spikes would be like teaching a bear to wield a greatsword. Really, I think the couldn't conceive the idea of a weapon as we see it. In game however, there is little saying you cannot, but I think common sense should prevail here. Also, switching out the first feat, I always assumed that those first feats represented an animals innate abilities. How much sense does it make to take the scent feat away from a wolf, what did it not learn how to smell?
FrostWolf
03-15-07, 11:52 AM Porcupines. A dire one. More than likely, it knows ALL about armor spikes. Or a hedgehog...
arjomanes
03-15-07, 12:08 PM Thanks for the replies.

@ Grug: Would it be appropriate then to create a trick for attacking with the armor spikes (a martial weapon) instead of a natural weapon? Or do you think that as long as the animal has a 2 intelligence it cannot use them? Also, the scent ability if I recall correctly, is a special quality. The feats I was looking at possibly replacing were endurance and run.

In particular, I was looking at using a horse in this instance.
ClementWillowbreaker
03-15-07, 02:10 PM The problem I see here is that animals lack the intelligence to "learn" much else aside from tricks...how much sense does it make to take the scent feat away from a wolf, what did it not learn how to smell?

I didn't realize their was an Int requirement for Martial Weapon Proficiency. As long as the weapon can be wielded by the creature (and armor spikes don't require hands), it can use them, and become proficient with a feat. And Scent is not a feat- it is a special quality. Like racial skills bonuses, racial bonus feats, and movement modes. They represent the innate ability of animals. The HD feats are what they pick up to round them out because they have the slots. You don't have to go to school to learn Endurance. You just try to avoid being eaten until you get good at it. Or you get specifically trained for some other purpose that results in you being more likely to fatigue than an average member of your species.
tarkin
03-15-07, 02:17 PM Dogs wear spiked collars all the time.

I can easily see them being trained to use them proficiently.

The problem with teaching a bear to use a Great sword is mainly in getting them to HOLD onto the Great Sword, which is not a problem here.

Bears lack dexterity, which is why they did not evolve into tool wielders before the Monkeys did.
Krusk
03-15-07, 03:33 PM @grug

A familiar with a higher int than the player -sorceres- would have a much easier time learning how to use a greatsword by that logic. So would the palidins mount which also ends up with a higher int much of the time. By your logic the palidin and sorcerer should not be able to use a greatsword.
Grug the Just
03-15-07, 04:12 PM That last post was rife with mistakes now with a full stomach I tackle my position again...

Animals in DnD are dumb, Intelligence of 1 or 2.

Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).(Though I don't doubt the exsistence of exceptions to a rule, there always seems to be one.)

Now, they are also difficult to train, in fact the hardest thing to teach an animal to do, according to the PHB would be to attack.

Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.

Please note the highly overlooked two tricks for attacking ANY type of creature.

Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick with one week of work and a successful Handle Animal check against the indicated DC. An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can learn a maximum of six tricks. Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following.

Now it would take two tricks to have it attack everything, using it's natural attack. To teach it to use something that is not of it's body as a weapon would take at least another trick. So, that in mind, an animal with an Int of 1 could learn to attack with this, and nothing else not even stop attacking. I could only assume it would take at least one trick or a great amount of training to wear armor. Sadly the skill doesn't state this, as far as I read.

Now realistically most animals have no concept of a weapon. The easiest way to have them use one is to apply it to how they attack normally, I'm thinking of razors on chickens legs on this one. So I could easily see applying spikes to a yak's dense bone skull. Teaching it to body check something would take a lot of work.

All that in mind, I don't think it's practical at all. Assuming you'd still want it, I'd say you need the attack trick before-hand and a Handle Animal DC 30+ at least.

As for the changing of feats. I still wouldn't allow it, I feel that they are innate racial descriptions rather than aqcuired traits. Take the black bear for example, I doubt it should be any less likely to survive a winter (Endurance) because it has the ability to wear armor, even if it didn't wear it during said winter merely the fact that it CAN.

As for familiars and paladin's mounts, those are essentially magicial beasts, it says so in both descriptions. Hell, the paladin mount could become easily smarter than it's owner.
arjomanes
03-15-07, 05:25 PM So your argumant is that this feat is more difficult to learn than other feats that the animal would qualify for. Keep in mind the feat description doesn't list an intelligence minimum, though to be fair the rules probably assume an intelligence of 3+ since they're written for PC's.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare feats with tricks here. The training for a feat represents a greater ability than any trick, which is why it has to expend a feat, whereas with a trick you only need a DC 20 usually to train the animal.

Nevertheless what happens if, when the animal increases in HD, it gets a higher intelligence? Then it could learn more tricks, and learn some of these more complicated feats. Is it then not an animal, and thus doesn't qualify for anything with the animal type?
tyrecian
03-15-07, 06:01 PM Yes, i think this is feasible. One reason for the increase in HD and the gaining of feats (not necessarily intelligence, as a fighter with an intel of 5 gains feats but no intel) in my mind (and in my campaigns) is the same logic as HP... Experience yields greater familiarity with party, fighting and social skills of PCs and their immediate NPC's, cohorts, followers, etc.

Over time, an animal could be trained to use armor spikes. Oxen use plows, dogs can fetch and do tricks even heard sheep, Elephants have long been used in both construction and war. The idea that the animal could be raised (increase in HD) to do things with armor is not as far-fetched as it may seem.

That being said, they are still animals, and so i would suggest that a wolf could not "trade in" his improved trip, nor a bear his improved grapple, for an immediate armor feat. It would be solely a learning experience with its time spent with the character, therefore only increases to HD post pet acquisition would be able to be learned in terms of what armor/feats could be used... On a wild animal that is.

If a PC wanted to go into a circus and acquire a bear trained to ride a unicycle, then so be it, but that would cost extra. I.e. the war ranger/animal trainer working for the army outside of town might have a bear capable of wearing Heavy armor and using armor spikes, instead of improved grapple, but it would certainly cost the character a pretty penny to acquire such a beast... It wouldnt be a forrest find for a ranger or a druid.

That is probably the best way to deal with this whole affair. Rhinos with spikes do 2x damage on charge? probably, yes. Horses with armor "spikes" (or any improvement as it were, perhaps a bladed muzzle to replace a bite) could attack and get the better dice. I think that is reasonable, and makes the core animals more feasible at higher end play, when without armor a tiger becomes a -10 liability for a druid, etc.
zook1shoe666
03-15-07, 10:43 PM Dogs wear spiked collars all the time.

I can easily see them being trained to use them proficiently.

i agree, i'd definitely let you train your horse to use its armor spikes, as long as it used the proficiency feat for the spikes.
Grug the Just
03-16-07, 01:39 AM Over time, an animal could be trained to use armor spikes. Oxen use plows, dogs can fetch and do tricks even heard sheep, Elephants have long been used in both construction and war. Animals are easy to train to use and do things, however, those tasks have to be associated to actions that animals normaly do. Oxen move forward, dogs catch animals, elephants do normally move things and trample things, the only difference between natural abilities and a trick is when they are used. My overall point is that realisticly teaching any creature the doesn't move in a way that would make use of armor spikes inadvertently would have a hell of a time being trained to use them. The only creature I can think of offhand that would be easy to train to use armor spikes is a male elephant seal. They routinely chest-butt each other for territory. I am not implying that by the R.A.W. it couldn't work, in fact by the R.A.W. there is nothing wrong with it. What I am doing is applying reason and logic to the R.A.W. which should really be the skeleton of the game rather the the body, mind, and soul.
Krusk
03-16-07, 02:07 AM Plenty of animals head butt on a regular basis. The armor spike could go on the helmat.

No one said it has to go on the chest-plate did they?

wasnt that actually a commonly done thing to horses in mideval times? maybe it was just for show to make them like unicorns? but i have definatly seen pictures of horses with metal horns on their heads.
Grug the Just
03-16-07, 02:24 AM Granted Krusk, in fact I made that point in my second post. I mean it should come down to an animal by animal basis.

I'm not sure if this was made clear enough, my friend said I should reinforce this point. I understand the rules of the game, by the R.A.W. animals can certainly do this assuming they gain the hit dice for feats, however, my general opinion is that they should not, for the following reasons; it's impractical not to use natural attacks for the most part, it's mind-boggling to me to think of how to train, let's say, a horse to use armor spikes intentionally, and why spend a feat on that?
pathwalker
03-16-07, 02:30 AM If the problem is intelligence for an animal to use the spikes, then the solution would be a headband (or in this case, collar) of Intellect. I'm sure if Sparky suddenly has an Int of 4 or 6, he would be smart enough to eventually learn how to use spiked armor. And assuming the collar wasn't bought from the bargain bin at S-Mart, probably would beat the party's Barbarian at checkers too.
Krusk
03-16-07, 02:31 AM Its terribly impractical not to use natural weapons, your right.

Unless they needed magic weapons for some reason. awakened animal pc or something.

its mind boggling to me to train an elephant to stand on a ball and run around inside a tent. But ive seen it done.

no idea why someone would spend a feat on it, but its their feat, not mine.
Grug the Just
03-16-07, 03:28 AM Very true one man's feat is another man's spike laden boar.
zook1shoe666
03-17-07, 11:31 PM in the Dragon #349 they have a tiger wearing spiked barding, and talk about it.
Moccanime
03-18-07, 11:49 AM and a helm with biga$$ horns, while eating a curative steak.

349 was a good issue.
RavingDork
03-18-07, 11:56 AM I do this for all of my mounts, actually.

For anything trained in armor, there is little reason not to--even if they aren't proficient with the spikes themselves. (even if you take a -4 penalty to attack rolls with the armor spikes, you can still make ALL of your natural attacks as secondary attacks anyways.)

It works particularly well with High Hit Dice animal companions that get multiple attacks for high BAB.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
arjomanes 03-15-07, 10:53 AM	Can an animal become proficient with armor spikes by expending a feat, such as martial or exotic weapon proficiency? Also, for an animal companion, can you substitute a feat for the default feat the animal comes with in the MM, or do you need to wait until the animal advances Hit Dice?
tarkin 03-15-07, 11:48 AM	Yes, an Animal can become proficient with Armor Spikes, if they take the feat. I would let you substitute a feat when you found the animal, but not afterwards. Afterwards, you would need to upgrade their HD to get a feat.
Grug the Just 03-15-07, 11:50 AM	The problem I see here is that animals lack the intelligence to "learn" much else aside from tricks. As such teaching a wolf to use armor spikes would be like teaching a bear to wield a greatsword. Really, I think the couldn't conceive the idea of a weapon as we see it. In game however, there is little saying you cannot, but I think common sense should prevail here. Also, switching out the first feat, I always assumed that those first feats represented an animals innate abilities. How much sense does it make to take the scent feat away from a wolf, what did it not learn how to smell?
FrostWolf 03-15-07, 11:52 AM	Porcupines. A dire one. More than likely, it knows ALL about armor spikes. Or a hedgehog...
arjomanes 03-15-07, 12:08 PM	Thanks for the replies. @ Grug: Would it be appropriate then to create a trick for attacking with the armor spikes (a martial weapon) instead of a natural weapon? Or do you think that as long as the animal has a 2 intelligence it cannot use them? Also, the scent ability if I recall correctly, is a special quality. The feats I was looking at possibly replacing were endurance and run. In particular, I was looking at using a horse in this instance.
ClementWillowbreaker 03-15-07, 02:10 PM	The problem I see here is that animals lack the intelligence to "learn" much else aside from tricks...how much sense does it make to take the scent feat away from a wolf, what did it not learn how to smell? I didn't realize their was an Int requirement for Martial Weapon Proficiency. As long as the weapon can be wielded by the creature (and armor spikes don't require hands), it can use them, and become proficient with a feat. And Scent is not a feat- it is a special quality. Like racial skills bonuses, racial bonus feats, and movement modes. They represent the innate ability of animals. The HD feats are what they pick up to round them out because they have the slots. You don't have to go to school to learn Endurance. You just try to avoid being eaten until you get good at it. Or you get specifically trained for some other purpose that results in you being more likely to fatigue than an average member of your species.
tarkin 03-15-07, 02:17 PM	Dogs wear spiked collars all the time. I can easily see them being trained to use them proficiently. The problem with teaching a bear to use a Great sword is mainly in getting them to HOLD onto the Great Sword, which is not a problem here. Bears lack dexterity, which is why they did not evolve into tool wielders before the Monkeys did.
Krusk 03-15-07, 03:33 PM	@grug A familiar with a higher int than the player -sorceres- would have a much easier time learning how to use a greatsword by that logic. So would the palidins mount which also ends up with a higher int much of the time. By your logic the palidin and sorcerer should not be able to use a greatsword.
Grug the Just 03-15-07, 04:12 PM	That last post was rife with mistakes now with a full stomach I tackle my position again... Animals in DnD are dumb, Intelligence of 1 or 2. Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).(Though I don't doubt the exsistence of exceptions to a rule, there always seems to be one.) Now, they are also difficult to train, in fact the hardest thing to teach an animal to do, according to the PHB would be to attack. Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks. Please note the highly overlooked two tricks for attacking ANY type of creature. Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick with one week of work and a successful Handle Animal check against the indicated DC. An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can learn a maximum of six tricks. Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following. Now it would take two tricks to have it attack everything, using it's natural attack. To teach it to use something that is not of it's body as a weapon would take at least another trick. So, that in mind, an animal with an Int of 1 could learn to attack with this, and nothing else not even stop attacking. I could only assume it would take at least one trick or a great amount of training to wear armor. Sadly the skill doesn't state this, as far as I read. Now realistically most animals have no concept of a weapon. The easiest way to have them use one is to apply it to how they attack normally, I'm thinking of razors on chickens legs on this one. So I could easily see applying spikes to a yak's dense bone skull. Teaching it to body check something would take a lot of work. All that in mind, I don't think it's practical at all. Assuming you'd still want it, I'd say you need the attack trick before-hand and a Handle Animal DC 30+ at least. As for the changing of feats. I still wouldn't allow it, I feel that they are innate racial descriptions rather than aqcuired traits. Take the black bear for example, I doubt it should be any less likely to survive a winter (Endurance) because it has the ability to wear armor, even if it didn't wear it during said winter merely the fact that it CAN. As for familiars and paladin's mounts, those are essentially magicial beasts, it says so in both descriptions. Hell, the paladin mount could become easily smarter than it's owner.
arjomanes 03-15-07, 05:25 PM	So your argumant is that this feat is more difficult to learn than other feats that the animal would qualify for. Keep in mind the feat description doesn't list an intelligence minimum, though to be fair the rules probably assume an intelligence of 3+ since they're written for PC's. It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare feats with tricks here. The training for a feat represents a greater ability than any trick, which is why it has to expend a feat, whereas with a trick you only need a DC 20 usually to train the animal. Nevertheless what happens if, when the animal increases in HD, it gets a higher intelligence? Then it could learn more tricks, and learn some of these more complicated feats. Is it then not an animal, and thus doesn't qualify for anything with the animal type?
tyrecian 03-15-07, 06:01 PM	Yes, i think this is feasible. One reason for the increase in HD and the gaining of feats (not necessarily intelligence, as a fighter with an intel of 5 gains feats but no intel) in my mind (and in my campaigns) is the same logic as HP... Experience yields greater familiarity with party, fighting and social skills of PCs and their immediate NPC's, cohorts, followers, etc. Over time, an animal could be trained to use armor spikes. Oxen use plows, dogs can fetch and do tricks even heard sheep, Elephants have long been used in both construction and war. The idea that the animal could be raised (increase in HD) to do things with armor is not as far-fetched as it may seem. That being said, they are still animals, and so i would suggest that a wolf could not "trade in" his improved trip, nor a bear his improved grapple, for an immediate armor feat. It would be solely a learning experience with its time spent with the character, therefore only increases to HD post pet acquisition would be able to be learned in terms of what armor/feats could be used... On a wild animal that is. If a PC wanted to go into a circus and acquire a bear trained to ride a unicycle, then so be it, but that would cost extra. I.e. the war ranger/animal trainer working for the army outside of town might have a bear capable of wearing Heavy armor and using armor spikes, instead of improved grapple, but it would certainly cost the character a pretty penny to acquire such a beast... It wouldnt be a forrest find for a ranger or a druid. That is probably the best way to deal with this whole affair. Rhinos with spikes do 2x damage on charge? probably, yes. Horses with armor "spikes" (or any improvement as it were, perhaps a bladed muzzle to replace a bite) could attack and get the better dice. I think that is reasonable, and makes the core animals more feasible at higher end play, when without armor a tiger becomes a -10 liability for a druid, etc.
zook1shoe666 03-15-07, 10:43 PM	Dogs wear spiked collars all the time. I can easily see them being trained to use them proficiently. i agree, i'd definitely let you train your horse to use its armor spikes, as long as it used the proficiency feat for the spikes.
Grug the Just 03-16-07, 01:39 AM	Over time, an animal could be trained to use armor spikes. Oxen use plows, dogs can fetch and do tricks even heard sheep, Elephants have long been used in both construction and war. Animals are easy to train to use and do things, however, those tasks have to be associated to actions that animals normaly do. Oxen move forward, dogs catch animals, elephants do normally move things and trample things, the only difference between natural abilities and a trick is when they are used. My overall point is that realisticly teaching any creature the doesn't move in a way that would make use of armor spikes inadvertently would have a hell of a time being trained to use them. The only creature I can think of offhand that would be easy to train to use armor spikes is a male elephant seal. They routinely chest-butt each other for territory. I am not implying that by the R.A.W. it couldn't work, in fact by the R.A.W. there is nothing wrong with it. What I am doing is applying reason and logic to the R.A.W. which should really be the skeleton of the game rather the the body, mind, and soul.
Krusk 03-16-07, 02:07 AM	Plenty of animals head butt on a regular basis. The armor spike could go on the helmat. No one said it has to go on the chest-plate did they? wasnt that actually a commonly done thing to horses in mideval times? maybe it was just for show to make them like unicorns? but i have definatly seen pictures of horses with metal horns on their heads.
Grug the Just 03-16-07, 02:24 AM	Granted Krusk, in fact I made that point in my second post. I mean it should come down to an animal by animal basis. I'm not sure if this was made clear enough, my friend said I should reinforce this point. I understand the rules of the game, by the R.A.W. animals can certainly do this assuming they gain the hit dice for feats, however, my general opinion is that they should not, for the following reasons; it's impractical not to use natural attacks for the most part, it's mind-boggling to me to think of how to train, let's say, a horse to use armor spikes intentionally, and why spend a feat on that?
pathwalker 03-16-07, 02:30 AM	If the problem is intelligence for an animal to use the spikes, then the solution would be a headband (or in this case, collar) of Intellect. I'm sure if Sparky suddenly has an Int of 4 or 6, he would be smart enough to eventually learn how to use spiked armor. And assuming the collar wasn't bought from the bargain bin at S-Mart, probably would beat the party's Barbarian at checkers too.
Krusk 03-16-07, 02:31 AM	Its terribly impractical not to use natural weapons, your right. Unless they needed magic weapons for some reason. awakened animal pc or something. its mind boggling to me to train an elephant to stand on a ball and run around inside a tent. But ive seen it done. no idea why someone would spend a feat on it, but its their feat, not mine.
Grug the Just 03-16-07, 03:28 AM	Very true one man's feat is another man's spike laden boar.
zook1shoe666 03-17-07, 11:31 PM	in the Dragon #349 they have a tiger wearing spiked barding, and talk about it.
Moccanime 03-18-07, 11:49 AM	and a helm with biga$$ horns, while eating a curative steak. 349 was a good issue.
RavingDork 03-18-07, 11:56 AM	I do this for all of my mounts, actually. For anything trained in armor, there is little reason not to--even if they aren't proficient with the spikes themselves. (even if you take a -4 penalty to attack rolls with the armor spikes, you can still make ALL of your natural attacks as secondary attacks anyways.) It works particularly well with High Hit Dice animal companions that get multiple attacks for high BAB.