Is train animal terrible?

[Martialmasters]

I have 2 players who will be looking to train animals.

One is a leshy druid who wants to ride a dog (I said I could fiat training it as giving it the mount trait for him specifically) and the other is a ranger who will have an animal companion already but wants to train animals as well.

I thought this might get overpowered or bothersome in some way of I ended up with a couple more players doing this as well. Then I looked at train animal.

Am I missing something? How do you make this not terrible? These are new players and more I'm worried about them becoming frustrated with their characters, concepts and as a consequence the game itself.

[shroudb]

What do you find terrible about the feat?

[Martialmasters]

shroudb wrote:

What do you find terrible about the feat?

I think it would be easier for you to tell me how it's useful lol.

Good example is the druid wanting to ride a dog. I expect this to work very poorly and he's going to be spending all his time on paying for and training new dog's as they do keep dying outright eventually. Which I'm sure will upset the player and make him not want to play the game he doesn't yet fully understand

[Themetricsystem]

Train Animal is fundamentally, NOT there to allow you to train Animals to assist in you Combat, if it were then it would 100% be a min/max requirement for all PCs the moment they have the opportunity to spend a Feat on it. The whole 1 Action for 1 Action functionality of Command an Animal is there so you cannot just spend money on raising your effective level by increasing your battlefield presence and get more Actions via Coin and Downtime spent training a bunch of cheap-AF dogs or other Animals.

It is limited and weak by design and if you're intent is to Train animals to use as a Mount inside combat you're going to be sorely disappointed as it's really not aimed at making that feasible of "competitive" versus other options.

[graystone]

The feat is more for you to train new skills like a monkey to pick pockets or climb in a window to open a door from the inside or a teaching a cockatoo an insult. For basic skill use, it's better, IMO, to take assurance in Nature.

[shroudb]

Martialmasters wrote:

shroudb wrote:

What do you find terrible about the feat?

I think it would be easier for you to tell me how it's useful lol.

Good example is the druid wanting to ride a dog. I expect this to work very poorly and he's going to be spending all his time on paying for and training new dog's as they do keep dying outright eventually. Which I'm sure will upset the player and make him not want to play the game he doesn't yet fully understand

well, if you stick to a weak animal as you level up, doesnt it make sense that, well, it'll be weak?

Nothing forbits you from training higher level animals, but yes, "a dog" would be terribly matched vs the dragons you may come across at level 15.

If your players want scaling pets, then they can always pick up feats for Animal companions, with beastmaster they are open to every class now.

If he's a new player, especially since he's playing Druid, explain to him the difference in "plain animal" and "animal companion", and i'm sure he wont be upset.

[Staffan Johansson]

IMO, the main point of Train Animal is to provide a baseline against which Animal Companion can shine.

[Martialmasters]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

IMO, the main point of Train Animal is to provide a baseline against which Animal Companion can shine.

that sounds like a debugging tool for game balance not a tool to be used by a player.

i guess i need examples of where this would be useful to understand it.

[Deriven Firelion]

I have the skill feat. I have never used it. This is one of those feats you would have to build to use for it to be useful.

[Martialmasters]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I have the skill feat. I have never used it. This is one of those feats you would have to build to use for it to be useful.

what would be your suggestion to build for it?

[Timeshadow]

It is good for characters who want mounts that are not animal companions just for the movement benefits wile travailing, having a mount that will fetch things or stay put when left or even defend itself is a good thing. Train a few guard dogs to watch the camp. (Obv if a creature of the party's lvl showed up the dogs are toast or will run away) There are RP reasons as well and it gives a reason to use nature to earn income training animals to sell.

[Deriven Firelion]

Martialmasters wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I have the skill feat. I have never used it. This is one of those feats you would have to build to use for it to be useful.

what would be your suggestion to build for it?

Make a powerful animal friend if your DM allows it. Then keep it happy traveling with you. Then make Command An animal checks to have it attack.

This feat is very DM dependent.

[The Ronyon]

Can you train an animal companion?
Could you for example train the Mount ability into it?

[HumbleGamer]

It's a skill feat and not a class feat ( which progression requires 4/5 other feats on the run to lvl 20 ).

It is obvious it's not meant to be strong in combat and out of combat, but it might sometimes help. Also, it's a flavour stuff.

If you want an animal companion there are different options:

- Start with a specific class ( Druid, Ranger, Paladin )
- Take a dedication ( Beastmaster, Animal Trainer, Cavalier )

but you have to expend feats.
Class feats.

[graystone]

The Ronyon wrote:

Can you train an animal companion?

Sure, but it doesn't DO anything most times. You already don't have to make checks for your animal companion and it already knows the actions that do not "critical thinking".

The Ronyon wrote:

Could you for example train the Mount ability into it?

"You can either select a basic action the animal already knows how to do (typically those listed in the Command an Animal action) or attempt to teach the animal a new basic action."

Mount isn't a basic action.

[Megistone]

When you find the nest of the roc you had to kill, being able to train the little ones isn't that bad. Now I don't know how long it takes for young rocs to grow, but I guess they will be large enough to carry a medium-sized PC quite soon.
Of course if you are still using level -1 dogs when you are level 10, you will only be able to employ them in non-combat situations.

[HumbleGamer]

Also, given the archetypes and class archetypes, I think that if somebody goes for train animal skill is just because he doesn't want to expend class feats, which are limited ( and because so try to exploit the system by using a skill feat, in order to submit larger animals the more you proceed in the adventure, using them to fight ).

Cleary a tentative of exploiting the system if you ask me ( but then it's up to the DM not to allow a character to do so ).

I might allow, as the feat suggest, a character to train a roc as a mount ( without the mount feature of course ) by level 15+ ( legendary nature ).

This will require a character to expend its first legendary skill by lvl 15 ( it's a waste to increase nature as first skill, and it's ok as a tax ), having a lvl 9 creature as mount which has:

+21 attack vs an average 38 AC against lvl 15 ( 18+ to hit on its first attack )

27 AC vs an average +34/35 hit ( critted with 12/13 roll )

Not an ally, and because so instant death when it reaches 0 HP

Pretty balanced in my opinion, and most important not worth the taxes ( time spent, legendary nature, skill feat ), but it's right this way.

[shroudb]

I find it fine as a skill feat to be used for miscellaneous utility.

Like training your mount to run away with a command (at battle start) and return to you with a whistle (battle end)

Or for some quirky concepts like training a monkey to do simple stuff for you. Fetch, open, some interact actions, etc

But for a simple skill feat, its combat capabilities are limited.

Even then though, you can still train more exotic and fierce animals as you level up to have as disposable pawns in actual combat.

[graystone]

Megistone wrote:

When you find the nest of the roc you had to kill, being able to train the little ones isn't that bad. Now I don't know how long it takes for young rocs to grow, but I guess they will be large enough to carry a medium-sized PC quite soon.

Of course if you are still using level -1 dogs when you are level 10, you will only be able to employ them in non-combat situations.

It doesn't really alter the creatures attitude to you, so it doesn't do anything for the roc. I'm not sure off-hand how you tame an animal without an ability like Wild Empathy.

[Staffan Johansson]

Martialmasters wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

IMO, the main point of Train Animal is to provide a baseline against which Animal Companion can shine.

that sounds like a debugging tool for game balance not a tool to be used by a player.

i guess i need examples of where this would be useful to understand it.

"Hey GM, it says here that guard dogs cost 2 sp each. And they have 8 hp and attack at +6 for 1d4+1 damage. Can I get a bunch of those and bring adventuring with me?"

"Sure, here are the rules for using pets in combat."
"Man, those suck! What if I want something that's actually useful in combat?"
"Here are the rules for animal companions. You need to be a druid or ranger, or take one of the archetypes that gives you one."

[Wheldrake]

It still doesn't seem entirely uselss for a 1st or 2nd level PC to use a guard dog. Sure, it eats into his actions, and will die very quickly, but having your guard dog die may be better than having the PC die.

[Themetricsystem]

Wheldrake wrote:

It still doesn't seem entirely uselss for a 1st or 2nd level PC to use a guard dog. Sure, it eats into his actions, and will die very quickly, but having your guard dog die may be better than having the PC die.

They are also fantastic at helping to keep watch if resting in a potentially unsafe location during even short breaks where players would otherwise be occupied with their 10-minute break tasks as well as full-rest at night.

You could also use it for a million and one RP and narrative purposes as well though such as a PC who owns some land and raises livestock and crops or to raise "Carrier Pidgeons" that don't rely on magic or other supernatural methods to get messages to others. Even something as simple as training an Ox to pull a plow is something that you'd need to teach the animal, and the same thing goes for "Herd Dogs" that help out on a ranch.

[The Ronyon]

Could you train a swarm?

[Wheldrake]

I would think not, not only because common sense thinks it's absurd, but because of the "swarm mind" definition: "This monster doesn’t have a single mind (typically because it’s a swarm of smaller creatures), and is immune to mental effects that target only a specific number of creatures. It is still subject to mental effects that affect all creatures in an area."

Command or train an animal works on *one* critter at a time. One = a specific number.

I believe you need spells to direct swarms.

[pjrogers]

I put together an orc PC, bard with champion dedication at level 2. For fun, I picked the race feat Beast Trainer because the character is a champion of Cayden Cailean whose sacred animals are hounds. Long story short, I got a dog, and the skill feat is mechanically useless. It is fun for RP purposes, and when I get to level 6, my noble mastiff, Everclear, will become my "steed" and become somewhat useful. However, I suspect this particular build is a long, long way from min/maxing, which is fine with me.