| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Does a combat trained mount gain the ability to wear barding? And if so, all 3 weightclasses (lt. med. hvy.)?
Hmmm. How does a horse, for example, go about getting additional feats? Do you just "trade in" the ones it already has?
|
Does a combat trained mount gain the ability to wear barding? And if so, all 3 weightclasses (lt. med. hvy.)?
This has been undefined going back to 3.5. It tends to be particularly troublesome in organized play.
The typical argument for claiming that combat trained mounts gain proficiency with armor stems from the description of the animal type. The animal train list includes, "proficient with no armor unless trained for war." How this relates to combat training and whether it grants bonus feats, whether 1 or all 3, whether a creature trained for war instead has the feats....this is all unclear.
A mount does not have have proficiency in armor to wear it. If a mount or any other creature wears armor that it is not proficient in, it gains penalties on some skills and to attack. A horse with no armor proficiency can wear masterwork studded barding or mithral chainshirt barding with no penalties, for example.
Cavalier mounts gain the bonus feat armor proficiency (light). While not every cavalier mount would be combat trained, the feat is pretty pointless for most cavalier mounts if combat training grants armor proficieny on its own.
An animal is listed in the beastiary with typical feats. You can give a certain animal different feats. You can build your world so that the famed BattleMounts of Merdekian are a breed that all have certain feats.
*********************************************
FWIW, as a home rule in 3.5, I give armor proficiency (light) to any creature trained with combat riding or fighting. In PF because of the Cavlier bonus feat, I give combat trained creatures armor proficiency (light), and give cavalier mounts that are combat trained both (light) and (medium).
|
Hmmm. How does a horse, for example, go about getting additional feats? Do you just "trade in" the ones it already has?
That would be a GM call. The feats listed for creatures in the bestiary are for generic, assembly-line versions of the creatures. An individual member of a particular race or species could have completely different feats, though it helps to have a backstory to explain why. As long as your GM agrees, there's no reason why you can't exchange the feats listed for the creature in the bestiary for a totally different set.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
Did you try the SF? There was a thread, were James Jacobs chimed in saying something concerning additional/changing feats for mounts by exchanging listed feats.
So you could exchange Endurance for Armor Proficiency (light), but that's about it.
Bonus feats were excluded from this kind of feat trading.
I am not sure, this is supported by RAW anywhere.
I would, as already mentioned above advise to either take a class with an animal companion or houserule, that "standard" animals also gain levels to gain extra feats or that the combat trained animal gets the appropriate armor proficiency feat as a bonus feat (maybe change price accordingly).
Ruyan.
I think you're allowed to swap out an animals feats, but it would mean a normal horse could never get heavy armor proficiency.
Your best bet is probably to get your critter masterwork studded leather which has ok armor, but no armor check penalty, hence no penalty for being non proficient except spell casting.
At higher levels you can get a mithril shirt made, albeit expensively, through the same trick: its light armor that doesn't have an armor check penalty.
|
Interesting thread. For lack of unambiguous official rules, I think if this comes up in my upcoming campaign I'll treat barding proficiency as a chain of tricks that can be taught using the Handle Animal skill. I'll probably assign a DC of 15 for light and 20 for medium and heavy (and of course light would be the prerequisite for medium, and medium for heavy).
ETA: Actually that might be a bit too expensive considering most animals get only six tricks. Better make that one trick for light and medium barding and a second for heavy. That leaves four or five tricks free for attack, defend, come, stay, guard etc.
What about barding for dogs, lions, bears and other anamals used in combat?
My war dogs would like sum spiked leather barding.
|
|
What about barding for dogs, lions, bears and other anamals used in combat?
My war dogs would like sum spiked leather barding.
It's the same issue.
The big thing to keep in mind is that lack of proficiency doesn't mean "Fido can't wear armor." Rather, it means, "Fido suffers potential negative effects when he wears armor."
The negative effects of non-proficiency are 1)ACP on all movement oriented skills (most of them already have ACP), and 2)ACP penalty on attacks. If the ACP is low enough, you may not care.
A few examples of armor that can be worn with no proficiency and no penalty:
leather barding: ACP of 0; armor bonus +2
mwk studded leather barding: ACP of 0; armor bonus +3
mithral chain shirt barding: ACP of 0; armor bonus +4
From 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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From 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.
The text you have provided in bold does not appear in the 2nd printing of the core rulebook. It does not appear in the errata from 2nd to 4th printing. It does not appear in the PRD.
The only place that it appears that I can find is at d20pfsrd.com, where it appears to be content provided by the website editors. It references a James Jacobs post, which doesn't say this.
The only place that it appears that I can find is at d20pfsrd.com, where it appears to be content provided by the website editors. It references a James Jacobs post, which doesn't say this.
Ok my bad i took it from the site assuming it was right
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The post from James Jacobs from 2009 is not correct. This is when he said "trained for war counts as training in all armor". I asked this identical question right after the APG came out because of the updated text used in the Cavalier definition. James was kind enough to respond with an updated ruling. This response has also been confirmed by Jason back in October. You can find James' the original thread where he confirms that Combat Training a mount does not confer training in all types of armor.
He also addresses the whole feat question further down in the thread.
Please tag that thread with the FAQ flag so we can get this on the official FAQ page.
|
|
This is one of those rulings that I would say needs to be corrected. I'm probably gonna get static for this, but it's true.
Would you train a fighter to attack but not see to his or her own defense? No? then why on earth would you train an animal that the fighter would ride into combat to attack with him without the same benefit?
Yes, I've heard all about the fact that horses shouldn't be used by anyone that doesn't have animal companion or a similar ability at higher levels, and I think that's similarly flawed. That's saying that no normal cavalryman would ever take his horse into combat after a certain level (a soldier, not just the character class).
If you can train an animal to fight, an animal can get better with more fights, just like a person does. Otherwise, you couldn't train it to begin with.
I'm not saying that the ability Animal Companion should not be valuable, just that feats should not be the only way that an animal gets better at it's purpose. If it's gonna be trained to fight, it should be trained with the necessary accessories of a battle (armor being the most obvious one).
Is there any way to correct this obvious oversight without destroying game balance?
Unless I am missing what you guys want the Official FAQ already has an entry for this very issue located HERE.
Does training an animal using Handle Animal to be Combat Trained (pg 98 in the Core Rulebook) grant it Light Armor Proficiency?
No, using Handle Animal to train an animal, or mount, in this way does not grant it a free bonus feat. It is not unreasonable, however to assume that an animal specifically designed to be ridden (such as a horse or dog) could be purchased with Light Armor Proficiency as one of its feats (swapping out Endurance or Skill Focus respectively) for the same cost. (JMB, 10/21/10)
|
|
Unless I am missing what you guys want the Official FAQ already has an entry for this very issue located HERE.
Does training an animal using Handle Animal to be Combat Trained (pg 98 in the Core Rulebook) grant it Light Armor Proficiency?
No, using Handle Animal to train an animal, or mount, in this way does not grant it a free bonus feat. It is not unreasonable, however to assume that an animal specifically designed to be ridden (such as a horse or dog) could be purchased with Light Armor Proficiency as one of its feats (swapping out Endurance or Skill Focus respectively) for the same cost. (JMB, 10/21/10)
You're not missing anything. We're merely blind and/or ignorant. :)
|
|
You're not missing anything. We're merely blind and/or ignorant. :)Unless I am missing what you guys want the Official FAQ already has an entry for this very issue located HERE.
Does training an animal using Handle Animal to be Combat Trained (pg 98 in the Core Rulebook) grant it Light Armor Proficiency?
No, using Handle Animal to train an animal, or mount, in this way does not grant it a free bonus feat. It is not unreasonable, however to assume that an animal specifically designed to be ridden (such as a horse or dog) could be purchased with Light Armor Proficiency as one of its feats (swapping out Endurance or Skill Focus respectively) for the same cost. (JMB, 10/21/10)
Talk about ignorant, I didn't even know there was a FAQ page until he linked to it!
|
|
this should be simpler; never before have we needed to buy armor proficiency for war mounts. this sucks. War/Combat Trained should = all armors capable.
In 3.5, it was all a matter of house rule and interpretation. If you were used to it working a particular way in 3.5, that's cool. But this was a mess in 3.5.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Until there is official clarification, I will go by RAW: (Animal type, Bestiary)
"Proficient with no armor unless trained for war."
Which means trained for war = proficient with armor.
Thank you.
The errata, if required, belongs in the Cavalier mount section.
That doesn't follow. It would be valid to conclude:
Trained for war = can be proficient with armor. It would gain such proficiency by the usual rules for creatures, which give a standard horse two feats. Gaining a class level that grants proficiency in armor would also work.
The Bestiary text explicitly establishes:
Not trained for war = Cannot have Armor Proficiency feats unless by a specific exception.
|
|
Until there is official clarification, I will go by RAW: (Animal type, Bestiary)
"Proficient with no armor unless trained for war."
Which means trained for war = proficient with armor.
If you want to see it as that cut and dried, go for it. The issue is notorious for being unclear.
There is FAQ on this: found here. It was the direct result of the cavalier having combat trained mount who also had bonus feat of Armor Proficiency (light armor).
If you're waiting for errata, that's your choice. My point for providing the references is more for the others reading this. Good Gaming!
|
|
you're wrong because you're extrapolating
"Proficient with no armor unless trained for war."
means
"Proficient with armor if trained for war."
That is absolutely, undeniably, grammatically correct. (Whether it's what the designers intended is another matter.)
Negative-exclusivities are trolls under the bridge which lay in ambush for the unwary reader AND writer.
the FAQ is wrong as well.
It erroneously delve in the question of bonus feats, whereas it should steer the reader in the area of whether Animal Type grants armor proficiency or not (in the same way the Outsider Type or Dragon Type does or does not, respectively)
O.o
Yeah, now you're just reaching. Either that or you just think very highly of yourself.
The FAQ is wrong? By definitition, the FAQ is right until overturned, rescinded, or updated by the developers. And it's pretty clear in this case, even with originally confusing text found elsewhere. You can try to justify your position with as many "they didn't answer the right questions" as you'd like, but you'd still be wrong, and this matter will still have been settled; get off that high horse which, incidently, is not proficient in the use of armor just because it's combat trained. Live with it, or houserule it.
EDIT I think I need to get some sleep soon. My snark levels are reaching their maximum.
|
|
You use a lot of words but say little. What exactly is your position in regards to this? What is your analysis? I think I summarized the situation very well, but reading your response, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
His position (and mine) is that when the creators of the game say how something works in an official document (like a FAQ) they are, by definition correct.
You can, of course, ignore them, but doing so constitutes a House Rule. That's fine, but it doesn't mean the FAQ is wrong. An official FAQ can't be wrong.
|
An official FAQ can't be wrong.
Ah, this is where we disagree. I believe official FAQs can be wrong at times, as they try to offer a "patch" to a known problem. If you put a patch on a flawed assumption, both the assumption and its patch remain flawed.
Here, the patch was brought in to "bring everything else in line with the Cavalier", whereas it should have been the Cavalier that should have been brought in line with everything else.
My humble opinion anyhow: I'm not trying to offend anyone. Not a major difference here, but the Cavalier's specific reference to armor feats for war mounts is a departure from the Bestiary.
|
|
My humble opinion anyhow: I'm not trying to offend anyone.
I'm not offended. I've just been through a number of these conversations over the years (the same issue existed in 3.5), and I don't think the issue is as clearcut as you view it. That's fine. I can go to sleep even when someone is wrong on the internet. ;)
I'm not strongly motivated to get involved again after going through it a couple of times. Some of the issues have been have been addressed in PF in the rules, in FAQ, and in developer posts. They are:
1) What makes an animal war 'trained for war?' Does Combat Riding do this, such that it enables an animal to gain armor proficiency feats, or does it actually grant the feats/proficiency? I know your answer to this. I know Paizo's answer to this. The answers aren't the same.
2) What makes an animal war-trained w/regard to the Ride skill? Is this the same as 'trained for war?'
3) The grammatical approach to the "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war," feature for animals may get you to one answer. The logic of the same situation does not. The reasons have to do with the nebulosity of causation in the original sentence, and because armor proficiency isn't binary as a game mechanic. Essentially, the negation of "proficient with no armor" logically is not "proficient with armor"; it is some member of the options "proficient with some armor," "proficient with all armor," as well as "may be proficient with some armor, "may become proficient with some armor" and their "...all armor" variants.
*********************************
What armor proficiency was granted, if any, by any sort of Handle Animal trick training, was unclear. The developers have answered the question in the FAQ. The answer is: "none." The FAQ is only 'wrong' if you take a particular variation (or subset of variations) of what 'trained for war' provides regarding armor proficiency as being the only answer(s). Rather, PF developers have effectively said that intended variation is a different variation.
That all said, the developers have taken liberties with other aspects of the animal features regarding intelligence. For all practical purposes, the animal type is currently a confused mess. :)