having said that, the dog I concede is in something I'd consider heavy armor, but none of the horses. And I've seen most of those armors before.
Possibly, but, most of the unarmored bits are smaller targets, and, as has been pointed out before, D&D is not realistic in it's weapons/armor. So, given that we have a 'fudge factor' built into weapons and armor (especially since armor really never kept you from getting hit, it just kept the damage from getting through), I think it would introduce too much complication to make rules for 'heavy armor for mounts based on type of mount or size or coverage'.
Easier to just say they get the effects. They are already easier to hit for being big, so that will even out the 'coverage factor'.
|
Heavy armor barding have always been allowed in 3.5 and Pathfinder.
and I'm not trying to get rid of it, but horses aren't proficient with it nor should they be in my opinion. I didn't say they shouldn't be able to get it, just not for free. They aren't proficient in it. Nothing prevents you from using the rules already built in to AnCo's to give them feats for armor proficiency, and they should get an armor proficiency to make up for the lack of spells, I just don't think it should be heavy armor, as I said, I think it should be light from the beginning and maybe medium around 8th to 10th level. Then if you want to plate mail up your horse and have him still attack at his full bonus, then you need to raise his int and give him heavy armor proficiency.
Errr... just for the record, the horse's intelligence has nothing to do with getting Heavy Armor Proficiency. The armor proficiency feats have no stat requirements, and the only other way intelligence relates to feats is that creatures with no intelligence score do not get feats from hit dice. Since any animal companion eligible to be a mount has an intelligence score of 2 at the minimum, they can take the armor proficiency whenever they qualify.
|
|
I found this under the PRD: (you guys probably know already but I thought I'd share just in case; bold emphasis mine...)
=====================
Animal
An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture. Animals usually have additional information on how they can serve as companions. An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted).
• d8 Hit Die.
• Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
• Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
• Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for animals: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim.
Traits: An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
• Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
• Low-light vision.
• Alignment: Always neutral.
• Treasure: None.
• Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore treats its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature's attack rolls, and the animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.
• Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.
• Animals breathe, eat, and sleep.
==========================
Under Handle Animal skill we have:
Combat Training; and
Fighting.
...but no "war"... I assumed they meant Combat Training nets an animal all armor proficiencies too...
|
|
Errr... just for the record, the horse's intelligence has nothing to do with getting Heavy Armor Proficiency. The armor proficiency feats have no stat requirements, and the only other way intelligence relates to feats is that creatures with no intelligence score do not get feats from hit dice. Since any animal companion eligible to be a mount has an intelligence score of 2 at the minimum, they can take the armor proficiency whenever they qualify.
ah I missed armor proficiency in the feat list they can take, even simpler then. teach me to post without checking the list twice. but it remains that if you want them in armor you can do it, and I even support them getting it partially for free. Just not heavy.
|
|
I assumed it meant that they couldn't take armor proficiency feats unless trained for combat, not that they get them for free.
...but no "war"... I assumed they meant Combat Training nets an animal all armor proficiencies too...
I don't think so... each monster type tells you if a creature is proficient or not due to its type... it's either listed as proficient or not proficient. This time, it's proficient conditional to being trained for war, which I think is a carry over term from 3.5 (I think it should now read "combat training")
|
Understanding it's a fantasy game and everything goes, I really do not want to see horses in heavy armor, it's just silly.
Silly? Try quite historically accurate.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure.
I'd still class those as Medium armors.There's still a lot of exposed flesh there.
The individual pieces are strong, heavy plates, but they don't cover the whole body, so it drops a step.
Just like the distinction between full-plate and breastplate for the rider.
The individual pieces are strong, heavy plates, but they don't cover the whole body, so it drops a step.
No such rule. By that logic, removing the gauntlets from full plate makes it medium armor. Yay for barbarians!
The individual pieces are strong, heavy plates, but they don't cover the whole body, so it drops a step.No such rule. By that logic, removing the gauntlets from full plate makes it medium armor. Yay for barbarians!
Yay, breastplate as heavy armor! Oh, wait...
That's a really awesome idea. Right now, the Cavalier's mount doesn't really get anything special like the paladin and ranger pets get (druids have 8 billion spells they can give their pets, which counts as something special to me). This would be a cool way to give the cavalier something without verging over into the supernatural.
So maybe giving his mount "Armor Training". Maybe letting the armour training replace some other tihng the mount gets. Could make it feel a bit less like a druid companion transferred to the Cavalier and more like a Cavalier's proud battle mount.
Just my reasoning.
Some of my reason to suggest it too. I feel a bit sad for the Cavalier's mount working too much like a druid-like companion, and I would love to see it get a "benefit of it's own", that none of the other companions get. It would, in my eyes, make it much more "cavalieristic" and work on the same no-spell/magic-like stuff as it's rider. I could - very much - see the idea in "well and combat trained (mount type), but nothing to do with supernatural".
About the armor feats and speed - once again exactly my reasoning that it will grant the mount a really valuable bonus compared to what a "Cavalier" does. I mean, where the fighter relies a lot on his own movements, one of te things that makes the Cavalier "not a fighter" is that thee Cavalier is much more based on being mounted. Why not make that mount awesome? It's actually quite the benefit for the Cavalier's movement (though the problem with "bringing the mount into the dungeon" still arises in my mind) and since all combats where the mount can go will most likely have the Cavalier mounted if possible, I beleive it's a "significant enough to be worth it" type of ability, but not at all too strong.
|
while they are all good protection I can point out in each pic (except the dog pic) several, repeat several areas of exposed horse flesh, compare that to the humans riding them in half and full plate and tell me the amount of exposed flesh you see. just because the armor looks similar doesn't mean it provides the same cover and protection. And that's where I'm coming from, admitedly that dog is pretty well armored, but those horses aren't wearing heavy armor in my opinion. Just because they are wearing plates of armor, as far as I'm concerned the type of armor is based on the amount of coverage, and those horses aren't encased in armor as an equivalent human would be.The only medium armor that represents the use of metal plates is a single Brestplate
Breastplate: Covering only the torso, a breastplate is made up of a single piece of sculpted metal.
Splintmail, banded mail, half-plate and full-plate are all heavy armors.
Arguing that it doesnt cover the horses entire body doesnt change the makeup of the armor. A horses legs move very differently to a humans and if you notice the front dress part of the plate has a wide outwards curve to enable the full movement of a horses legs during a gallop. THE ONLY armors that would protect a horses legs where long chain or leather coats but these where left loose to allow movement and offered little if any protection.
Lastly have you ever seen someone try and shoe a horse. the task isnt that easy and requires a firm grip. The person shoeing a horse risks being kicked by the horse which I know from experience can break a mans leg. It would be next to impossible to attach intricate plate guards to a horses legs without great personal risk to the person dressing the horse.
I have no problems with horses riding in full plate. I would consider plate covering the head neck and chest with a chain coat to protect the rear as half-plate but most of the images presented is most definately full-plate within the limits of the creature wearing it.
so chalk +1 from me for advocating a cavaliers horse gaining all armor proficiencies.
Yes actually I own 3
Lastly have you ever seen someone try and shoe a horse.
I owned one myself when I was younger. Man, shoeing was a major pain.
I bought trailblazer and when I saw their 'spine' analyze, I just did not comprehend what they were talking about and moved on.
I just said way to much for me.
That being said, I do not know how much armour training is worth, would just tacking it on make them 'too powerful' or just keep them at par.
But I like this idea, I will say I have not yet play tested with the bloke because I haven't had the group together I could just go through a few encounters with my bro but that is likely going to be boring who knows.
The whole 'feel' I get of him is very similar to that of the knight from PHB2.
Before someone gets on the high horse (see I can make it relevent to the class) I don't think anyone is stealing or that it is bad because blah blah.
Also as Jason has said you can't always take your horse with you, though we do aye Moto Moto.
And having armour training will allow you to make up for some of your lost ground there in as far as you can always have your steed.
Over all it feels right I mean here are these people, they trained for combat to be in the thick of it and not just that to be the center of play.
Tell me you would think you may learn how to take a blow or two if you were going to be standing center stage.
Anywho those are my thoughts.
I already stated that an armor training style ability could do something like increasing AB (instead of increasing Max Dex you know?) of medium and heavy armor.