Mount spell questions

[Howie23]

Avh wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

Or does the fact that those mounts can be intelligent (3+) and able to understand or even speak a language override the fact that they are not war-trained per RAW?

Being intelligent override the need for Handle animal (actually, prevent it, as it's only usable on 1-2 magical creatures, and most animals become magical creatures when they got 3 INT or more, with the exception of Animal Companion if I remember well), but not the need for Ride.

This is not correct if you are using the Intelligent Animal blog linked above. I can appreciate that some people either may either not like the Intelligent Animal blog and/or do not view it as modifying RAW. That's cool.

If you don't, you need to come up with your own rules regarding:

what happens to an animal that has an Int of 3+ (there is nothing that specifies it becomes a magical beast, and the RAW animal description says animals can only have an Int of 1 or 2),

what if anything is needed for an animal to gain the ability to understand and/or speak a language (rank in Linguistics or automatic, speech requires not only Intelligence but physical capability for speech),

decisions about the limited language capacity of an Int 3+ (complexity of communication is generally considered an attribute of intelligence, not an on/off switch)

the potential of a character hopping on the back of a random Int 3 creature; (by RAW, you cannot use Diplomacy on a creature with Int 3, but Handle Animal can only be used with creatures that have an Int of 1 or 2, so Int of exactly 3 is subject to neither Diplomacy nor Handle Animal)

These are holes in the RAW. The Intelligent Animal blog plugs those holes. If you don't use the Intelligent Animal blog, they don't go away, they just have to be plugged by your own house rules in substitution for the blog.

[Howie23]

Thornborn wrote:

If we start postulating where the horse came from and bringing in royal assassin-stabler hit-squads, or even just requiring skill checks to use your own spell, the lowbie's value in the spell is lost. Please in your deliberations, consider the guy who's just using the spell as it was intended. Should his value get shaved down to nothing so you can restrain the Gnome or the Magus?

I say no.

Too often (because even once is too often) reasonable use is forbidden because of fear of unreasonable use. Please, give your speeders speeding tickets. Don't put a governor on every car. Or Mount.

I haven't seen anything in this thread that shuts down the value of the lowbie's use of the the spell in it's intended use (getting from point A to point B).

[Devilkiller]

If you really want a combat mount at low levels you could consider going to the store and buying a heavy warhorse. I think it costs 300gp, and it can be pretty handy in a low level fight. If you have a high Handle Animal skill and a bunch of free time you can buy a regular horse and train it for combat. I wonder if you can train an 8gp mule for combat and what stats it would use. It is already a bargain bin animal for pulling carts and wagons.

Is it legal to give a Horse companion combat training via the bonus tricks even though being combat trained is part of its 4th level advancement? If so do you "get back" the bonus tricks you spend when you reach 4th level, or is that particular companion just a couple of tricks short forever?

[Djelai]

Thornborn wrote:

Please in your deliberations, consider the guy who's just using the spell as it was intended.

[...]
Too often (because even once is too often) reasonable use is forbidden because of fear of unreasonable use. Please, give your speeders speeding tickets. Don't put a governor on every car. Or Mount.

My point exactly.

I don't see any unreasonable use of the mount spell in letting the caster ride (and only ride) his mount in combat as part of the spell effect (for me, the "willingly and well" part covers this use), especially when knowing all the "borderline" possibilities of the spell.

Devilkiller wrote:

If you really want a combat mount at low levels you could consider going to the store and buying a heavy warhorse.

Yes, I know it can be done for 140gp (light horse, combat-trained + riding saddle), but again, combat-trained means more than "skip the DC20 ride check to control your mount in combat". That's why my concern is: "why is it so unreasonable to let a 1st-level spell do half of 140gp already allow you to do?"

Or let put it this way: "if I know this specific horse from the store I just visited is combat-trained, why can't I summon a manifestation of this specific horse with the mount spell?"

Spoiler:

In the rules, what does that prevent you to summon or call a specific creature (as long as you know it)?

[LazarX]

Devilkiller wrote:

Can the horse be used as a beast or burden with Handle Animal, or is it a horse which will only let you ride it? I'd imagine that it won't fight, but would you need a DC20 Ride check to control it in combat? I guess maybe you could cast the Wartrain Mount spell on the horse from Mount to get a combat capable mount - would that work?

It's the "Summon Mount" spell, Not "Summon General Beast of Burden" spell. Spells only allow what they specifically allow. In fact this spell specifically says that it will ONLY function as a mount for the person it was summoned for. That is the ONLY use you can get out of the creature. You can't haul a wagon with it, you can't even give it to someone else to ride.

[Howie23]

I'm stepping out of the discussion at this point. This appears to have become a discussion between what the spell is contrasted with what some people want the spell to be.

Good gaming!

[Tarantula]

Djelai wrote:

My point exactly.

I don't see any unreasonable use of the mount spell in letting the caster ride (and only ride) his mount in combat as part of the spell effect (for me, the "willingly and well" part covers this use), especially when knowing all the "borderline" possibilities of the spell.

Personally, I think the "willingly and well" aspect is the most open to interpretation of the spell. Allowing the caster to ride on his magic mount during combat and avoid the ride check is not a serious issue and I can see allowing that. My problem comes from when the caster then wants the mount to fight as well as move around. As soon as you start asking to have your horse fight, I will start asking for handle animal checks.

Its a little unclear, because some people assume that if they don't have to make the ride check for riding it in combat, then obviously the horse is war-trained so why should they have to make a check to have it attack.

My games, they can ride it in combat for movement without checks, but they cannot have it attack without making the appropriate handle animal checks to push it to do so. (And the ride checks for "control mount in battle").