|
| 36 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate doing this, but since the other thread didn't gain the traction we needed to get developer attention, I'm hoping this title does (hey I didn't write James' name did I?).
We have a question/discrepancy between a comment made by James Jacobs back a few months ago regarding mounts, their barding proficiencies, and clarifications that were going to be in the APG (as far as we can tell they are not). Here's the background.
The way the wording of Combat Training under the Handle Animal skill in the Core Rulebook now right now is:
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 armor proficiency as any kind of bonus trait. At the time, somebody else noticed that the Bestiary uses the wording "War Training". It was questioned exactly what the definition of War Training was in relation to Combat Training. A subsequent thread by James Jacobs found here said:
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.
Well now that the APG has come out, the definition of "War Training" still remains unanswered, and more importantly now the Cavalier class abilities has muddied the waters a bit more. The Cavalier class ability of Mount now states:
A cavalier does not take an armor check penalty on Ride checks while riding his mount. The mount is always considered combat trained and begins play with Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. A cavalier’s mount does not gain the share spells special ability.
Herein lies the problem. The Cavalier would indicate again that Combat Training does not provide armor proficiency as it is granted as a bonus feat for the Cavalier class. Specifically, why would it be a "bonus feat" if Combat Training = War Training and the mount came proficient in all armors?
In addition to the fundamental question, this creates additional problems because how exactly does one train their mount in extra feats (specifically armor training) when the Handle Animal skill does not indicate anything about it. It would seem (at least for now), achieving Medium or Heavy armor proficiency would be impossible for a non-specialist mount (by specialist I mean any mount which would gain levels like a PC). Any kind of advice from the Paizo folks would be appreciated.
Normally I'd just house-rule it, but it is a question that has come up in society play, and since Josh would just move it here anyway, I thought I'd be proactive.
|
Just trying to keep this thread alive.
Bestiary I, page 307 under animal type: "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war".
That would indicate that combat trained mounts are proficient in all armor as is indicated below.
D20PFSRD (unofficial): http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/handle-animal , Under the heading, Combat Training (DC 20): "An animal trained in this way counts as trained for war, and becomes proficient with all forms or armor."
Life was good, but then the Advanced Players Guide came out with this line on page 33 second paragraph: "The mount is always considered combat trained and begins play with Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat."
That indicates that a mount is not proficient in all forms of armor proficiency. We players would like just a bit of clarification on the subject as it relates to Pathfinder Society games where standardization is the key to fair play.
Is the rule simply that purchased combat trained mounts have three bonus feats in (light, medium & heavy) armor proficiency while companions earn the feats (if desired) by advancement, slowly over time?
It is my opinion that the APG, being rife with errors already, is wrong in regards to the Cavalier's mount's bonus feat.
Combat trained obviously equals trained for war as far as I'm concerned.
You have presented the issue very well and I hope Paizo responds to this.
In a related manner, I'd also like to ask what the "combat trained" special quality a horse animal companion gets at 4th level does. Horse animal companions treat the bite as a primary attack and hooves as secondary attacks starting at 1st level. Do they get the 6 tricks that combat training gives for free (as bonus tricks)? Do they just get the ones they don't yet know (taking up regular trick 'slots')? What if the druid has already trained the horse in other ways, and there isn't room for the combat training tricks? And, of course, the above question about armor proficiency fits here also.
I see no reason why "Combat Training" should give the animal any kind of armor proficiency. It doesn't say that it does, which is a pretty good indication.
Also, "Combat Riding" in 3.5 uses the exact same language. The 3.5 FAQ states that animals trained for combat still take the penalties for not being proficient with armor. (It also says that many DMs would houserule that they would be proficient). The 3.5 statblock for Warhorse also doesn't mention anything about armor proficiencies.
So, if you want barding on your horse, that horse will take the penalties for not being proficient unless your DM rules otherwise.
Creative Director
|
| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is something that we need to clear up. Tag the question as a FAQ question and hopefully we'll get it worked out.
Part of the problem is that, right from the start, the way that training animals for combat works was never really properly thought out, alas. To a certain extent because I went on a crusade to NOT have 8 different mostly identical stat blocks for horses/ponies/mules/donkeys/warhorses/light horses/heavy horses/warponies/etc., while the Core Rulebook didn't take into account that this was my plan and assumed that there'd be nearly a dozen horse-style stat blocks in the Bestairy.
Personally... I'd rather have this current problem with a bit of confusion about what "war-trained" actually means and wasting pages of the Bestiary on what basically amounts to copy/paste stat blocks.
For now, though, it's safe to assume that a mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free, but needs to spend feats to get better armor. This does mean that most normal horses will never be able to get heavy armor training, and I'm kind of okay with that.
|
|
For now, though, it's safe to assume that a mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free, but needs to spend feats to get better armor. This does mean that most normal horses will never be able to get heavy armor training, and I'm kind of okay with that.
James,
It kind of sounds like a light warhorse would get light armor proficiency as a bonus feat and a heavy warhorse would get medium armor proficiency as a bonus feat. keeping in mind that both a light and heavy warhorse are just 2 hit die animals and a heavy war horse dose not earn an additional feat for it's advancement.
Alternately, could you mean that players can swap out the feat endurance for medium armor proficiency which would mean both light and heavy warhorses could have light and medium armor proficiency?
Scott.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For now, though, it's safe to assume that a mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free, but needs to spend feats to get better armor. This does mean that most normal horses will never be able to get heavy armor training, and I'm kind of okay with that.James,
It kind of sounds like a light warhorse would get light armor proficiency as a bonus feat and a heavy warhorse would get medium armor proficiency as a bonus feat. keeping in mind that both a light and heavy warhorse are just 2 hit die animals and a heavy war horse dose not earn an additional feat for it's advancement.
Alternately, could you mean that players can swap out the feat endurance for medium armor proficiency which would mean both light and heavy warhorses could have light and medium armor proficiency?
Scott.
Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. You should be able to buy "specialty" horses with unusual feats anyway; maybe one with Toughness and Lightning Reflexes. Swapping out the feats is a cool way to model different horse breeds, in fact.
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
can animal companions wear barding?
do they need a proficiency to wear it?
if they get "combat trained" through handle animal skill or bonus tricks do they get armour proficiency for free too?
I would love to see my velociraptor wearing leather or chain barding
but if someone doesn't have the apg, they would assume combat training gives all barding proficiency
Why would they assume that?
|
|
James,
Would this light armor prof count towards all combat trained animal companions? Could you have them combat trained and have sized for unusual creatures? For instance, my druid has a T-Rex animal companion that has combat training. Could he be fitted with chain shirt armor sized for him at 4x the normal cost?
|
|
James,
Would this light armor prof count towards all combat trained animal companions? Could you have them combat trained and have sized for unusual creatures? For instance, my druid has a T-Rex animal companion that has combat training. Could he be fitted with chain shirt armor sized for him at 4x the normal cost?
That's what James just ruled. All critters with Combat Training get light armor proficiency as a bonus feat, it's just spelled out that way specifically for the Cavalier.
|
|
but if someone doesn't have the apg, they would assume combat training gives all barding proficiency
I don't know about that. Somebody with just the core rulebook (and therefore no references whatsoever to Combat Training) wouldn't see anything about armor proficiency and would likely assume that the mount gets none. This question was asked in relation to a lot of different references that a group of us had to put together to build the story I presented.
|
|
That's what James just ruled. All critters with Combat Training get light armor proficiency as a bonus feat, it's just spelled out that way specifically for the Cavalier.James,
Would this light armor prof count towards all combat trained animal companions? Could you have them combat trained and have sized for unusual creatures? For instance, my druid has a T-Rex animal companion that has combat training. Could he be fitted with chain shirt armor sized for him at 4x the normal cost?
Would this ruling apply to Pathfinder Society characters as well?
|
|
can animal companions wear barding?
Yes. Just like normal, everyday animals, animal companions and mounts can wear armor (whether or not they're proficient in it is another question).
do they need a proficiency to wear it?
If they have the appropriate armor proficiency feat they take no penalties on attacks, if they do not have the appropriate feat they do.
if they get "combat trained" through handle animal skill or bonus tricks do they get armour proficiency for free too?
As James just stated. Yes, they get light armor proficiency for free as part of combat training.
I would love to see my velociraptor wearing leather or chain barding
A combat trained velociraptor could wear leather barding with no issues, that same creature would require a medium armor proficiency to wear chain barding (which can be done by swapping out one of the other feats that the velociraptor has).
|
|
Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. You should be able to buy "specialty" horses with unusual feats anyway; maybe one with Toughness and Lightning Reflexes. Swapping out the feats is a cool way to model different horse breeds, in fact.
Thanks James for clearing this up. One last question on your comment above. Can the bonus feat RUN be swapped out? My guess is that it can't..., but maybe it can?
This is the only verbiage I have found describing bonus feats (core rule book page 12).
Feat: A feat is an ability a creature has mastered. Feats often allow creatures to circumvent rules or restrictions. Creatures receive a number of feats based off their Hit Dice, but some classes and other abilities grant bonus feats.
Finally, this is just in reference to Pathfinder Society play, otherwise I would not be pestering James, but my Kingmaker DM. ;-)
Scott.
Can the bonus feat RUN be swapped out?
Bonus feats can't be swapped. They're a feature of the creature itself, rather than of the creature being trained in a specific way.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
can animal companions wear barding?
do they need a proficiency to wear it?
if they get "combat trained" through handle animal skill or bonus tricks do they get armour proficiency for free too?
Animal companions can indeed wear barding.
They don't need proficiency to wear it (this goes for ALL creatures; remember that if you wear armor you're not proficient in, the armor penalty applies to attack rolls and all that, so if your animal's not attacking, it might not NEED those proficiencies), but they can certainly take the proficiencies.
I would say that an animal companion would NOT get any free bonus feats from being "Combat trained," because they're special cases. Unlike most animals, an animal companion is going to be getting a HUGE amount of feats as you gain levels, so there's not really a need for a "band aid" to sneak ways of getting the armor proficiency in there for the animal. And since most animals already have good natural armor scores, and thus since putting armor on them makes them REALLY good, it's important for there to be a cost for that significant benefit. Spending one to three feats on the armor proficiency is a good way to make that cost happen.
EDIT: Yah; bonus feats cannot be swapped out at all. They're hardwired into a creature's DNA.
saying that (one aspect of) a creature trait (combat training) doesn`t apply to some creatures because those creatures will get more feats eventually seems wonky (+definetely more word-count to spell out this difference). certainly the companions of NPC druids / rangers / animal clerics / etc who probably will be killed by the PCs aren`t going to gain more traits.
given that combat training is clarified to only grant LIGHT armor proficiency, anybody who wants their companion to have have heavy armor will still be spending 2 FEATS, a signifigant cost.
given that a companion wearing heavy armor will suffer the same penalty to attacks (AND PHYSICAL SKILLS AFFECTED BY ACP) whether they have NO armor proficiency or just light proficiency (from combat training), I don`t see the need to single out companions from getting a benefit that normal creatures get. and after all, it`s not even an offensive ability, it`s just making them slightly harder to kill. Since companion classes don`t get any extra wealth by level, they don`t really have the $$$ to deck their companion out in actual level-appropriate defensive gear... so let`s not rub it in their face, OK? ;-)
|
Creative Director
|
saying that (one aspect of) a creature trait (combat training) doesn`t apply to some creatures because those creatures will get more feats eventually seems wonky (+definetely more word-count to spell out this difference). certainly the companions of NPC druids / rangers / animal clerics / etc who probably will be killed by the PCs aren`t going to gain more traits.
given that combat training is clarified to only grant LIGHT armor proficiency, anybody who wants their companion to have have heavy armor will still be spending 2 FEATS, a signifigant cost.
given that a companion wearing heavy armor will suffer the same penalty to attacks (AND PHYSICAL SKILLS AFFECTED BY ACP) whether they have NO armor proficiency or just light proficiency (from combat training), I don`t see the need to single out companions from getting a benefit that normal creatures get. and after all, it`s not even an offensive ability, it`s just making them slightly harder to kill. Since companion classes don`t get any extra wealth by level, they don`t really have the $$$ to deck their companion out in actual level-appropriate defensive gear... so let`s not rub it in their face, OK? ;-)
Well... animal companions already follow very different creation rules than normal animals. Compare an animal companion tiger to a monster tiger, and you'll see right away that the stats end up quite different. So applying the armor training rules to animal companions differently isn't all that unusual.
It's also important to remember that pet classes (druids, rangers, and summoners mostly, but also cavaliers and paladins) who get free companions can really REALLY quickly get out of control if the animal companion rules aren't tight. You effectively get two characters under your control, and that's an enormous benefit. Sure, you have to spend extra money to outfit your companion, but if you did, we'd have to reduce the power of the companions even more to keep them from being TOO dominant.
So if it feels like we might be at times singling out companions... that's absolutely right. Because having a second character is a HUGE benefit.
|
|
For now, though, it's safe to assume that a mount that's trained for war gets Light Armor proficiency for free, but needs to spend feats to get better armor. This does mean that most normal horses will never be able to get heavy armor training, and I'm kind of okay with that.&
Feats are ALWAYS swap outable. You should be able to buy "specialty" horses with unusual feats anyway; maybe one with Toughness and Lightning Reflexes. Swapping out the feats is a cool way to model different horse breeds, in fact.
Speaking in regards only to purchased warhorses (combat trained - mounts) it looked like the comments above indicated the result below.
Bonus feat: run
feat (granted by combat training): light armor proficiency
Optional feat (chose one): endurance, medium armor proficiency, toughness, lightning reflexes, etc, etc, improved natural armor, weapon focus (hooves) and multiattack.
I'm just trying to understand how the purchased horse looks and can be played in the Pathfinder Society.
No rush, stop working so hard, it is Sunday and I assume you have family you could be with. I'm now going to try and leave this dam computer and be with mine...
Sure... I still think it`s excessively wonky if Combat Training`s description needs to have a clause saying the Armor Proficiency aspect doesn`t apply to Animal Companions. I think the rules are simpler and work better when you can expect that every creature with a given Special Quality has the same features... 2 Feats vs. 3 Feats to get Heavy Proficiency doesn`t seem worth complicating the rules over.
Not to mention the case where a PC wants to ´adopt´ (Companion-ify) a nearby COMBAT TRAINED animal. ¨Why did he fight better before? (without ACP) Does he not like me?¨
If anything, I think it would be better if Combat Training gave EVERY creature (incl. Companions) Light Armor Proficiency WITH THE RESTRICTION that it doesn`t count towards other Armor Proficiency Feats, so if they want Medium, Heavy, etc, they have to buy Light Proficiency ¨for real¨. I don`t know if that addresses your concerns... It`s kind of wonky itself, but at least it would be a consistent rule.
[Animal companions] don't need proficiency to wear [armor] (this goes for ALL creatures...
Except for eidolons. :(
|
theres nothing i can see that prohibits them from wearing armor, unless they choose the "armor" bonus, and not natural armor[Animal companions] don't need proficiency to wear [armor] (this goes for ALL creatures...Except for eidolons. :(
Nope there is a section specifically dictating that eidolons cannot wear armor.
An eidolon cannot wear armor of any kind, as the armor
interferes with the summoner’s connection to the eidolon.
Yeah but it's the exceptions to all normal rules that makes them badly done.
That's exactly it. The mechanics would have been much more streamlined if there weren't so many exceptions to the general rules.
They can't wear armor, they can't be ridden as mounts without the right evolution, they speak only the languages of the summoner even though they are intelligence creatures in their own right, they interfere with the summoning of other creatures even though no other class faces such a restriction, etc.
The list goes on and on and on. There has to have been a better way.
/end off-topic mini-rant.
|
|
[
So if it feels like we might be at times singling out companions... that's absolutely right. Because having a second character is a HUGE benefit.
so let me see if I get this right - a cavalier & paladin get a mount with combat training with free light armour proficiency but druids, rangers etc dont?
if I am right how is the mount not a "second character" as you put it since it can also go into combat plus you get the benefit of riding as a normal size humanoid yet as a human druid I cant ride my velociraptor & I dont get free light armour proficiency even though I spent the time & checks to get it Combat trained?
animal companions are a class feature same as a mount so why do they need to get penalised more than the other classes. It would be better to make the rule simple & straight forward without causing more exceptions to the rules - ie. combat training grants free light armour proficiency. you still have to pay for the armour to be made & find someone to make it - that is enough of a penalty & light armour is not going to break the game - having to spend 2 further feats out of not alot is going to be a penalty as well
|
|
Eidolons are already good enough.[Animal companions] don't need proficiency to wear [armor] (this goes for ALL creatures...Except for eidolons. :(
you are entitled to your opinion but I actually think the eidolon got nerfed too much or summoner class whichever way you weant to look at it. As ravingdork said the summoner has more exceptions than any other class without good reason. my one major peeve with the class is that the companion goes away when the summoner is unconcious or asleep - WHAT other pet class has this restriction??
the summoner seems to have been changed from the final playtest rules but never really thought out properly before it was printed leaving many questions - some of the rules for the final playtest were left in but no longer applied or something else was changed but still left problems or worse yet made problems that did not exist before - to me it needs to be re-written & corrected to fix the class & close loopholes/errors/mistakes/vague rulings
I could re-write the class to fix alot of problems I believe
and as Ravingdork also said
/end rant
Please, let this not become an Eidolon/Summoner Class thread...
Agree with Quandary - I just want the horse mess straightened out. Let's leave the Summoner stuff for a separate thread.
|
|
Agree with Quandary - I just want the horse mess straightened out. Let's leave the Summoner stuff for a separate thread.
+1 As originator of the thread, I would beg you not to turn it into anything but a mount thread.
I want to make sure we're clear then. We can "Combat Train" any mount, but different types of mounts will get different benefits.
Combat Training for all regular no-frills non-companion mounts comes with a free proficiency in light armor.
Combat Training for Cavalier mounts comes with light armor proficiency as a bonus feat because the class specifically states it does.
Paladin divine bond mounts, druid/ranger animal companions, and any other "companion" creature (Eidelon's excluded) must spend their level-up feats on armor proficiency as they are already "pretty darned powerful".
Interesting ruling. I guess I see it as more of a band-aid than a full blown fix though. It's a little muddled and I'm not a fan at how you have to know the weird specifics of each class' interactions with Combat Training. I can't complain too much though as that's a whole lot clearer than it was.
The easiest (and clearest) would be to say that combat training doesn't give proficiencies. Then all mounts are equal (except the Cavalier's, which specifically grants proficiency).
|
|
question though - since the cavalier's mount functions as a druid’s animal companion according to the APG why should it be different to a druid's animal companion for rules? or ranger etc
One reason is because the class ability specifically states it is different. The Cavalier is the only class where the ability text says that it gains Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat.
|
|
You then have to give a definition and a means for 'trained for war' which DOES give proficiency under the animal section of the bestiary.
This is something that has been in there since the beginning if I recall correctly and hasn't officially been addressed. For awhile before this we had James saying that training for a purpose would count this way. But it's an off the cuff fix much like what he's saying now (though it's tweaked again).
...
Perhaps a template is the best solution, combined with a pricing option for those animals it could be applied to that have prices. Beware of 'battle cattle' and the like if its a template of course..
This is the core issue of the problem. 'Trained for War' needs a definition beyond "provides proficiency in armor" (note that it doesn't even provide a description of which armor proficiencies are trained). I'm willing to work with what James has posted now (although I do think it's a tad silly that regular mounts with simple combat training get proficiency in everything up to heavy barding), but you're right, it is a stop-gap measure. The template scenario would fix the issue of giving PC mounts free feats they don't want the PC mounts to have though.
I agree that a template could fix it; the other fix would be to add "Trained for War" as a Handle Animal option outside of "Combat Trained". Another DC 20 (or even as difficult as DC 25) check which allows you to add armor proficiencies to your mount. This way the cavalier would get part of the training for free, and the other classes could either train their mounts normally or buy the feats.
I do think though that adding a template is the superior solution (even with the risk of battle-cattle or worse, battle-dire-cattle). Doing so would prevent the PC classes from getting the feat and training for free, but it could be applied freely to purchased mounts (with GM approval). Cavaliers would still get their bonus proficiency too, which would make their mounts at least a little special.
You then have to give a definition and a means for 'trained for war' which DOES give proficiency under the animal section of the bestiary.
Ah, right. Hmm.
I think a good solution would be to add another trick to the Handle Animal skill, so you'd have "Combat Trained" and "War Trained" separately. "War Trained" would require a mount to already be combat trained, and would add Light Armor Proficiency, with an increased DC for Heavy Proficiency.
How does that sound?
Edit: I see MisterSlanky had the same idea :)
Would it not have been easiest to have light horses and heavy horses and ponies that have certain AC and armor proficiencies, which then essentially get upgraded upon combat training, unless the horse/pony is a special variety (Druid/Paladin/Cavalier mounts) in which case it gets stamped with a new war training template/trick; making a clear and logical distinction between not only basic and trained horses, but also combat and war training.
That was a very long sentence.
|
I've always been of the opinion that the combat training should give the 6 tricks it entails, no more and no less. It would be much easier just to errata out that rubbish about combat training giving it all the armour proficiency...
And thus the cavalier gets a small bonus in that his horse gets light armour as a bonus feat.
Rather than the 'bonus' being redundant.