| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
I was curious if mounts require the Armor Proficiency feats in order to use armor effectively? For some reason I also think I recall reading somewhere that combat trained mounts gain all the Armor Proficiencies, but I can't find that in the rules any where.
Is this covered in the rules somewhere?
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I disagree. Mounts only need the armor proficeincies if they don't want to suffer the armor check penalty to attack rolls in addition to skill checks. So, put leather barding or MW studded leather barding on a mount, and no difference if you have the proficiency or not.
Or, put full plate barding, on, and if you care more about your mount surviving and not so much about it hitting in combat, you don't need the feat on the mount either.
I disagree. Mounts only need the armor proficeincies if they don't want to suffer the armor check penalty to attack rolls in addition to skill checks. So, put leather barding or MW studded leather barding on a mount, and no difference if you have the proficiency or not.
Or, put full plate barding, on, and if you care more about your mount surviving and not so much about it hitting in combat, you don't need the feat on the mount either.
Just don't try to jump a ditch or put on a show with your mount while he's wearing barding, if he's not proficient.
|
I can't point to the specific rule, but yes, mounts require purchase of armor proficiency before they can use barding.
As a related rule which explains this rule, Cavalier mounts get Light Armor proficiency specifically noted as a "Bonus Feat".
But when you read the Handle Animal Skill:
Combat Training (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 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 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. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way. (An animal trained in this way counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor. See FAQs and Animal Type.)
Can you point to an actual rules source for the bolded section (It's not in the Core Rules or the PRD.) I've seen numerous threads with people asking if Combat Training grants armor proficiency, but I haven't found any that were officially answered by anyone at Paizo.
I understand the inference that since only animals that are "trained for war" are proficient in any armor, they therefore are then proficient once trained, but it's still a rules leap to me.
(I love to power game, but I prefer to do so when I have a rule or quotation solidly on my side of the argument. This just seems a little too reaching on it's own.)
|
Combat Training (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 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 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. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way. (An animal trained in this way counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor. See FAQs and Animal Type.)
I think this is a case of the d20pfsrd having discordant information than the PRD. The PRD's language states:
Combat Training (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 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 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. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way.
Nowhere does it mention proficiencies in all armor. The Cavalier class specifically mentions a bonus feat of light armor proficiency for their specific combat trained mounts. At this point I would argue that the D20SRD text is wrong.
|
|
If you need feats for your mount to ware armor without the armor check penalty, I assume you can swap endurance for light armor proficiency, but can you swap the bonus feat run for medium armor proficiency?
Also, unfortunately a heavy horse has only two hit dice because it uses the advanced simple template rules in the bestiary. Thus a heavy warhorse also only has one feat and it's bonus feat run. So no heavy warhorse could never achieve heavy armor proficiency (and likely medium armor proficiency) - per the rules.
|
|
Combat Training (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 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 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. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way. (An animal trained in this way counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor. See FAQs and Animal Type.)I think this is a case of the d20pfsrd having discordant information than the PRD. The PRD's language states:
Combat Training (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 6 weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat by spending 3 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. Many horses and riding dogs are trained in this way.Nowhere does it mention proficiencies in all armor. The Cavalier class specifically mentions a bonus feat of light armor proficiency for their specific combat trained mounts. At this point I would argue that the D20SRD text is wrong.
Further to your point. The quotation given in d20pfsrd's FAQ does not even address the issue:
War Trained(11/25/09)
Q: The bestiary description of the Animal creature type states that they are "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war". How is this defined?
A: (James Jacobs 11/25/09) War trained is actually detailed in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook under the description of "Handle Animal," on page 98. Of course, there it's called "Combat Training." It's one of the "general purpose" trainings you can give an animal. As detailed on page 177 of the Bestiary, horses in particular gain a special benefit once they're combat trained-their hooves are from that point treated as primary weapons, not secondary ones.In any case, once the Cavalier goes to print, the language in the class about "war trained" will be cleaned up. (source - http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/warTrainedHorsesInBestiary&page=1#7)
|
|
So I think this is now a question that requires developer intervention.
According to James, they expected to address this issue in the APG and Cavalier class but didn't do so. In fact, with the addition of the Cavalier class and their mount's "bonus feat" in addition to Combat Training, it's pretty easy to argue that Combat Training does not grant armor proficiency.
So does the Cavalier need updating (I would think that allowing Cavalier mount access to better armor sooner could be dangerous), or does the handle animal section need updating? In either case, I think the official answer is "no they do not get armor training" because of what's in the APG, but that might be contrary to the RAI.
|
|
So I think this is now a question that requires developer intervention.
According to James, they expected to address this issue in the APG and Cavalier class but didn't do so. In fact, with the addition of the Cavalier class and their mount's "bonus feat" in addition to Combat Training, it's pretty easy to argue that Combat Training does not grant armor proficiency.
So does the Cavalier need updating (I would think that allowing Cavalier mount access to better armor sooner could be dangerous), or does the handle animal section need updating? In either case, I think the official answer is "no they do not get armor training" because of what's in the APG, but that might be contrary to the RAI.
If I were seeking a way to house-rule this effectively, I'd change the handle animal description to add a line similar to: "A combat-trained animal replaces its (1-Hit Die) feat with Armor Proficiency (Light)" (This would be Endurance for horses, and Skill Focus (Perception) for dogs.) This would have no effect on animal companions, as they're feats are selected by the character.
It seems like it would strike a good game balance.
The alternative to characters who don't want to spend a feat this way is to simply equip the animal with armor that has no armor-check penalty. (Leather or mw Studded Leather, or Mithral shirt).
|
|
What about Pathfinder Society play, can we just swap out the feat (endurance for light armor proficiency) if we have an armored horse or do we stick with the standard mounts (since this is society play) and take the horse as written in the bestiary? Thus no horse aside from a druids or cavilers horse would have any type of armor proficiency.
Time to write a mod where the players can get access to a fallen cavilers mount. ;-)
|
|
What about Pathfinder Society play, can we just swap out the feat (endurance for light armor proficiency) if we have an armored horse or do we stick with the standard mounts (since this is society play) and take the horse as written in the bestiary? Thus no horse aside from a druids or cavilers horse would have any type of armor proficiency.
Time to write a mod where the players can get access to a fallen cavilers mount. ;-)
Unfortunately, barring a ruling from Paizo, no, you can't.
A horse is a horse (of course [of course) and nobody can armor a horse of course unless the horse is a mount or companion called Mr. Ed].
Where'd it go!? I was looking at it not but a week ago and it clearly said that combat trained mounts were proficient in all armor types.
Was it errata'd out?
(And I use the official Pathfinder SRD too.)
|
|
Where'd it go!? I was looking at it not but a week ago and it clearly said that combat trained mounts were proficient in all armor types.
Was it errata'd out?
(And I use the official Pathfinder SRD too.)
Well, if you'd take that mask off... <g>
The bit about trained mounts being proficient AFAIK is only on the third party site. So it's just his interpretation of the rule, which doesn't even jibe with the quote that he gives from James Jacobs.
|
|
It looks like the path forward is that no Pathfinder Society war-mount (aside from animal companions) will have any armor proficiency, with the assumption that players can not swap out endurance for light armor proficiency. So as a GM if we see a player with a barded mount we would need to ensure they are taking any potential armor check penalties on their attack rolls.
It's unfortunate as the d20pfsrd has this information in it, "An animal trained in this way (combat) counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor" which will make the task more difficult for players to understand. A clear rule that we GM's could point to would be helpful. Something simple like, the players can swap out feats (including bonus feats) at the time they purchase combat trained mounts. That would take care of light and medium armor proficiency. Or combat trained mounts may not exchange there current feats for armor proficiency.
Finally for Pathfinder Society games perhaps a mod with a fallen cavilers mount that has light, medium and heavy armor proficiency be made available for non caviler players. Even a great warhorse could be made available in Society play. The Great war horse could simply be a heavy warhorse with one racial hit dice added giving it a third feat.
I have found another source:
Bestiary I:Traits of Animal Type:
Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.
Yeah I saw that too, but didn't say anything because I thought it had already been mentioned. Perhaps I was wrong.
I think that is where the PSRD guys get their interpretation (and I'm inclined to agree with it).
This is the one that we've been arguing about. The "Trained for War" phrase is what's causing most of the confusion. "Trained for War" isn't defined in any book, anywhere.
Though I know it won't be true for everybody, it seems pretty obvious to me that a combat trained animal (as per the Handle Animal skill) is an animal that has been trained for war.
|
|
Though I know it won't be true for everybody, it seems pretty obvious to me that a combat trained animal (as per the Handle Animal skill) is an animal that has been trained for war.
Unfortunately it's not obvious. Read here for a detailed explanation of the problem.
Essentially it boils down to conflicting information from various sources. The specific ability "War Trained" is never officially defined, where the ability "Combat Training" is. Add to that the new APG Cavalier class, that gets a Combat Trained mount and an additional "bonus feat" for their mount's light armor proficiency would actually imply that "War Training" doesn't cover proficiencies (which we don't know because it's not defined).
Though I know it won't be true for everybody, it seems pretty obvious to me that a combat trained animal (as per the Handle Animal skill) is an animal that has been trained for war.Unfortunately it's not obvious. Read here for a detailed explanation of the problem.
Essentially it boils down to conflicting information from various sources. The specific ability "War Trained" is never officially defined, where the ability "Combat Training" is. Add to that the new APG Cavalier class, that gets a Combat Trained mount and an additional "bonus feat" for their mount's light armor proficiency would actually imply that "War Training" doesn't cover proficiencies (which we don't know because it's not defined).
Thanks for the link, but I still think I'm right in this.
The APG is already rife with errors. This is just another one.