On the Legality of Warbeasts

[Urpriest]

I've seen it suggested several times that a Druid can train up their animal companion as a Warbeast after selecting it. Depending on whether it's appropriate to the thread I sometimes try to refute this interpretation. However, I've begun to realize that I'm the only person making the following argument, so I have to wonder: are people aware of this argument? Or is there some really clear refutation of it?

Here's the thing: the section on training a Warbeast begins

A warbeast can be reared and trained just as the base creature can.

It then goes on to give a series of DCs and training times, which are identical to the 3.0 (and remember, Warbeast is from 3.0) DCs and training times for training and rearing the base creature. The only slightly different entry is that for training a domestic animal, which is the same as the DC and time for training it for an unusual task. Furthermore, it says that warbeasts based on vermin are mindless and untrainable, despite being candidates for the template.

At the end of this section it says that

A trained warbeast is capable of carrying a rider into battle, and it gains the combative mount special quality.
This is supported in the description of the combative mount ability earlier in the entry.

So it is abundantly clear from this that there are two types of warbeasts with different abilities, trained and untrained, and that the Training a Warbeast section gives instructions for turning an untrained warbeast into a trained warbeast. There seems to be no evidence whatsoever that the Training a Warbeast section is giving rules to turn a non-warbeast into a warbeast. And yet, this latter interpretation seems much more common. What evidence do people have for this interpretation? In particular, what evidence clear enough to explain why almost nobody besides me makes the above argument?

[stainboy]

Because the warbeast template comes from domesticating an animal and training it for war, it follows that no wild animal is a warbeast. However, the template includes rules for rearing and training a wild animal as a warbeast.

The rules for wild animals list separate times and DCs for rearing and training a warbeast. It looks to me like a domesticated animal is born a warbeast, but a wild animal becomes a warbeast after it is domesticated by the Rear a Wild Animal use of Handle Animal (with DC and time defined in the warbeast template). The additional time spent to train the animal gives it Combative Mount.

Not a warbeast: Baby Tyrannosaur
Warbeast: Tyrannosaur reared for 1 year (Handle Animal DC33)
Warbeast with Combative Mount: Warbeast Tyrannosaur trained for 2 months (Handle Animal DC38)

[Urpriest]

Because the warbeast template comes from domesticating an animal and training it for war, it follows that no wild animal is a warbeast. However, the template includes rules for rearing and training a wild animal as a warbeast.

The rules for wild animals list separate times and DCs for rearing and training a warbeast. It looks to me like a domesticated animal is born a warbeast, but a wild animal becomes a warbeast after it is domesticated by the Rear a Wild Animal use of Handle Animal (with DC and time defined in the warbeast template). The additional time spent to train the animal gives it Combative Mount.

Not a warbeast: Baby Tyrannosaur
Warbeast: 1-year-old Tyrannosaur + Handle Animal DC33
Warbeast with Combative Mount: 14-month-old Warbeast Tyrannosaur + Handle Animal DC38

The template explicitly gives rules for rearing and training a warbeast based on a wild animal, not one that actually is a wild animal. Warbeasts are also, according to the fluff you seem to be taking into account, "Bred for exceptional strength...", and thus born that way.

[stainboy]

Yeah, I agree that's a bit ambiguous.

However, rearing an animal specifically refers to turning a wild animal into a domesticated one:



Rear a Wild Animal

To rear an animal means to raise a wild creature from infancy so that it becomes domesticated. A handler can rear as many as three creatures of the same kind at once.

A successfully domesticated animal can be taught tricks at the same time it’s being raised, or it can be taught as a domesticated animal later.


Rear a Wild Animal or a Beast: To rear an animal or beast means to raise a wild creature from infancy so that it is domesticated. A handler can rear up to three creatures of the same type at once. A successfully domesticated animal or beast can be taught tricks at the same time that it's being raised, or can be taught as a domesticated animal later.

If an animal has been bred for exceptional strength, then it's already a domesticated animal, and the Warbeast template's rules for rearing it make no sense.

E: If you just want to stop the druid cheese, you could argue that "bred for exceptional strength" just means a wild animal with a higher than average Strength score, which makes it ineligible to be an animal companion. You could also say that a baby animal isn't "typical for its kind," meaning an animal young enough to be Reared can't be a companion.

E2: It really doesn't help that the Handle Animal rules don't use the dictionary definition of "domesticated." You can't domesticate an individual wild animal. A wolf that lives in your house is tamed. A dog whose ancestors were wolves is domesticated.

[Urpriest]

Normally you don't rear a domesticated animal, true. This is why the warbeast template lists the specific exception that I quoted in the OP: warbeasts, despite being domesticated, are reared and trained like the base creature. That's what that text does.

[stainboy]

A warbeast can be reared and trained just as the base crearure can. If the base creature is a domestic animal, the creature need nor be specially reared, but it must be trained for two months (Handle Animal DC 20) to develop its abilities.

There is no such exception; the template even clarifies that the rules for rearing do not apply to domesticated animals.

[Urpriest]

There is no such exception; the template even clarifies that the rules for rearing do not apply to domesticated animals.

Again, that refers to the base creature. As the first quote in my post shows, the warbeast is trained/reared as the base creature, not as whatever it is post-template.

[stainboy]

A domesticated animal is never a wild base creature or vice versa. Monster Manual entries aren't wild or domesticated; individual creatures are. For example:


The statistics presented here describe a fairly small dog of about 20 to 50 pounds in weight. They also can be used for small wild canines such as coyotes, jackals, and African wild dogs.

The Dog entry covers both wild and domesticated creatures; the entry itself isn't wild or domesticated.

When you apply a template, you apply it to an individual creature, not a Monster Manual entry. If my level 11 elf wizard becomes a lich, we take my individual character sheet and change all my hit dice. We don't look up Elf in the Monster Manual and apply Lich to Elf, 1st Level Warrior. Likewise if my Tiny character wants a warbeast dachsund, I don't apply Warbeast to Dog the Monster Manual entry, I apply warbeast to that particular dachsund.

For purposes of a template, and D&D's implicit redefinition of "domesticated," my pet triceratops is just as domesticated as my pet dog. The fact that you commonly see dogs in cities and not triceratopses never enters into the equation.

[Urpriest]

Just because a given MM-entry can represent either a domesticated or wild animal does not mean that each statblock is not one or the other. If you ran into a Dog statblock in an adventure, it would either be wild or domesticated.

The fact that you apply Lich to your character and not the generic elf is also irrelevant, because the same applies to inherited templates. You don't apply Half-Dragon to an elf warrior if you want a Half-Dragon sorceror.

Basically, you have shown that there exist domesticated dogs and wild dogs. So either can be the base creature. Thus, you can have warbeast domesticated dogs and warbeast wild dogs, and they will have different stats (in that they will have different training times). Just because a statistical difference isn't in the SA or SQ section doesn't mean it isn't part of the creature's stats.

Look, I can definitely see that there's ambiguity here. But you do have to wonder why the DCs line up the way they do if they aren't intended to exactly match the DCs to rear/train the base creature. And it's odd that nobody else picks up on this interpretation.

[stainboy]

Just because a given MM-entry can represent either a domesticated or wild animal does not mean that each statblock is not one or the other. If you ran into a Dog statblock in an adventure, it would either be wild or domesticated.

You seem to be agreeing with me here. A dog statted in a module is wild or domesticated; Dog the Monster Manual entry is neither.


Basically, you have shown that there exist domesticated dogs and wild dogs. So either can be the base creature.

"Wild dogs" and "domesticated dogs" aren't the base creature. Fido the puppy sitting in front of me is the base creature. We don't care about Dog the Monster Manual entry, or all dogs, or any other category of dogs. Just Fido.

Fido is either wild or domesticated, and that's all there is to it. There's no way he can be both a domesticated animal and a wild base creature.


What do you mean about DCs, by the way?

E: If you want more reasons not to use warbeast companions in char op threads, just the fact that we're having this argument means it doesn't convert cleanly to 3.5. The 3.5 version would say either "inherited template" or "acquired template" and then we'd know for sure.

[Urpriest]

You seem to be agreeing with me here. A dog statted in a module is wild or domesticated; Dog the Monster Manual entry is neither.



"Wild dogs" and "domesticated dogs" aren't the base creature. Fido the puppy sitting in front of me is the base creature. We don't care about Dog the Monster Manual entry, or all dogs, or any other category of dogs. Just Fido.

Fido is either wild or domesticated, and that's all there is to it. There's no way he can be both a domesticated animal and a wild base creature.


What do you mean about DCs, by the way?

Fido the puppy sitting in front of you isn't the base creature, and neither are wild or domesticated dogs. Fido, the statblock+description+etc., is the base creature. Fido is a game mechanical construct. But yes, the individual dog is the base creature. This is true even if the template were half-dragon rather than warbeast, even though half-dragon is inherited. You stat up Fido, choose whether he is wild or domesticated, then apply the template, which may change whether he is wild or domesticated.

As for the DCs, I mean that the DCs for "turning an animal into a warbeast" as you interpret them happen to be exactly the same as the 3.0 DCs for raising and training the base creature. It seems odd that it takes no extra effort to turn a creature into a warbeast.

[stainboy]

But yes, the individual dog is the base creature. This is true even if the template were half-dragon rather than warbeast, even though half-dragon is inherited. You stat up Fido, choose whether he is wild or domesticated, then apply the template, which may change whether he is wild or domesticated.


Then to recap:

-Only domesticated animals can be warbeasts.
-Wild animals are never domesticated, and therefore cannot be warbeasts.
-There are rules provided for rearing warbeasts.
-Only wild animals can be reared, and the text of the template reinforces that.
-Therefore the only thing rearing a warbeast can do is turn a non-warbeast into a warbeast.



As for the DCs, I mean that the DCs for "turning an animal into a warbeast" as you interpret them happen to be exactly the same as the 3.0 DCs for raising and training the base creature. It seems odd that it takes no extra effort to turn a creature into a warbeast.

Ah. Yeah, that's odd, and highly suspicious.

For what it's worth I agree with your larger point that druids warbeasting their companions is pretty shady. The template doesn't work as written in 3.5 (it's neither inherited nor acquired, and it references the Beast type). You have to houserule a conversion, and using it for 3.5 char op assumes the conversion goes the way you want.

[Salanmander]

Then to recap:

-Only domesticated animals can be warbeasts.
-Wild animals are never domesticated, and therefore cannot be warbeasts.
-There are rules provided for rearing warbeasts.
-Only wild animals can be reared, and the text of the template reinforces that.
-Therefore the only thing rearing a warbeast can do is turn a non-warbeast into a warbeast.


I dispute your first claim. The only thing that seems to suggest that only domesticated animals can be warbeasts is the statement in the general description


The warbeast is a creature born and raised to serve as a rider's mount. Bred for...

That does indicate some amount of domestication, but it's also /flavor text/. As far as actual rules text goes, it says


"Warbeast" is a template that can be added to any Medium-size or larger Animal, Beast, or Vermin...

Are there wild animals? Yes. Warbeast is a template that can be added to any animal. Therefore it can be added to wild animals.

Further, there is absolutely no text anywhere that indicates you can turn a non-warbeast into a warbeast. It talks about rearing a warbeast, indicating that, when you rear it, it is already a warbeast.

I'm going to have to go with the OP on this: there are no rules for adding the warbeast template to an existing specific creature.

[stainboy]

The limits on applying a template are almost never exhaustive. My fighter meets all the prerequisites for the Winged and Tauric templates, but that doesn't mean he can turn into a flying rhinotaur whenever he feels like it. The conditions for applying a template are inseparable from the template's fluff in almost every case I can think of.

[Coidzor]

WoTC would be making even less sense than usual if Warbeasts were warbeasts without being trained for it and the template's benefits could only be added on to creatures that already had the template's benefits except for one.

Thus, regardless of the RAW, I avoid the headache illustrated by the thread by just houseruling the situation until it makes sense.

[Salanmander]

The limits on applying a template are almost never exhaustive. My fighter meets all the prerequisites for the Winged and Tauric templates, but that doesn't mean he can turn into a flying rhinotaur whenever he feels like it. The conditions for applying a template are inseparable from the template's fluff in almost every case I can think of.

However, your fighter /could/ have been a flying rhinotaur if you'd started him out that way. What's going on there is that most templates can't be added to an existing creature.

Can you give me an example of a case where flavor text further restricts the kinds of creatures a template can be applied to beyond what the rules text does?

[NeoSeraphi]

However, your fighter /could/ have been a flying rhinotaur if you'd started him out that way. What's going on there is that most templates can't be added to an existing creature.

Can you give me an example of a case where flavor text further restricts the kinds of creatures a template can be applied to beyond what the rules text does?

The Dragonborn of Bahamut template requires you sit in an egg for a year, so you couldn't just apply that template whenever you wanted. Also, the Monster of Legend template requires divine selection and a specific task, so not every minotaur can be a Monster of Legend.

[Zaq]

The Dragonborn of Bahamut template requires you sit in an egg for a year, so you couldn't just apply that template whenever you wanted. Also, the Monster of Legend template requires divine selection and a specific task, so not every minotaur can be a Monster of Legend.

Dragonbornifying yourself actually only takes about two days, for what that's worth.

[NeoSeraphi]

Dragonbornifying yourself actually only takes about two days, for what that's worth.

You're right. Definitely need to start fact-checking before I post so I stop sounding like an idiot. Thanks Zaq.

[stainboy]

Can you give me an example of a case where flavor text further restricts the kinds of creatures a template can be applied to beyond what the rules text does?

I still like my original example: that becoming a flying rhinotaur takes awhile and can't happen in the middle of combat because I say so.

Here are some others:

Zombie: Doesn't require you to be dead.
Lich: Doesn't require you to create a phylactery, just that you could if you wanted to.
Half-Golem: Doesn't require any kind of grafting process.
Spellstitched: Doesn't require any spellstitching.

This is a pretty random sampling, I basically just took the SRD and MM2 and took the first not-obviously-inherited templates I saw. None of these are problems - it's pretty obvious that you don't become a half iron golem unless someone replaces parts of your body with iron. They only become problems if write off anything that doesn't immediately follow "Creating a Whatever" as flavor text.

[Salanmander]

The Dragonborn of Bahamut template requires you sit in an egg for a year, so you couldn't just apply that template whenever you wanted. Also, the Monster of Legend template requires divine selection and a specific task, so not every minotaur can be a Monster of Legend.

The dragonborn restriction is specifically called out in very obviously rules text (Prerequisites:, Time:, and Cost:), but I'll give you the monster of legend. However, I'm talking about restriction on the creatures it can possibly be applied to, not how it is applied.

Stainboy is asserting that warbeast can never be applied to any wild animal, /despite/ the text calling out what happens if it's applied to a wild animal. A similar restriction would be if Monster of Legend could never be applied to any creature living in organized society (like a Harpy living in a large group of Harpies).

[stainboy]

Stainboy is asserting that warbeast can never be applied to any wild animal, /despite/ the text calling out what happens if it's applied to a wild animal. A similar restriction would be if Monster of Legend could never be applied to any creature living in organized society (like a Harpy living in a large group of Harpies).

I said no such thing. You can turn a wild animal into a warbeast, but the process also domesticates the animal. That's why you have to rear the animal first, and that's the text you're referring to that describes what how you apply the template to a wild animal.

It's up to you whether this means you can never find a warbeast in the wild, or any warbeast you find in the wild already counts as a domesticated animal. I believe the second interpretation would satisfy you that the template must be applicable to any Medium+ animal or vermin.

[Salanmander]

I said no such thing. You can turn a wild animal into a warbeast, but the process also domesticates the animal. That's why you have to rear the animal first, and that's the text you're referring to that describes what how you apply the template to a wild animal.

What can't happen is that you find a wild animal that is already a warbeast.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. So you're saying that "rearing a warbeast" means "taking a creature and turning it into a warbeast", not "taking a warbeast and domesticating it".

My response to that is that that is /not/ what "rearing" means. That's why the SRD talks about "rearing a wild animal", not "rearing a domesticated animal". The thing you talk about rearing is the thing that it was /before/ you started the rearing process, not the thing that it will be at the end. So "rearing a warbeast" is like "chopping down a tree", not like "building a cabinet".

[Cieyrin]

I should point out that newborn creatures don't come domesticated, so you essentially have to rear everything if you expect it to be domesticated in its adult life.

[stainboy]

My response to that is that that is /not/ what "rearing" means. That's why the SRD talks about "rearing a wild animal", not "rearing a domesticated animal". The thing you talk about rearing is the thing that it was /before/ you started the rearing process, not the thing that it will be at the end. So "rearing a warbeast" is like "chopping down a tree", not like "building a cabinet".

I disagree with this. If I say I'm rearing a seeing eye dog, you know what I mean, right? If I did it your way and said "I'm rearing a puppy that runs into traffic," we've lost important information.

The rules for rearing a warbeast have to say "rearing a warbeast" to indicate that the final product is a warbeast. If they just said "rearing a rhinocerous" or whatever, then we don't even know what that text has to do with the template.

Also, you caught me editing in your quote above.

[Salanmander]

I disagree with this. If I say I'm rearing a seeing eye dog, you know what I mean, right? If I did it your way and said "I'm rearing a puppy that runs into traffic," we've lost important information.

The rules for rearing a warbeast have to say "rearing a warbeast" to indicate that the final product is a warbeast. If they just said "rearing a rhinocerous" or whatever, then we don't even know what that text has to do with the template.

It's true, I would understand what you mean with the seeing eye dog. However the closest usage comparison we have is with the SRD, that says "rearing a wild animal".

How do you respond to the parallelism between "rearing a wild animal" and "rearing a warbeast"?

[stainboy]

That it doesn't matter, and that both sentences were constructed for clarity rather than consistency. If we had a bunch of other instances in other rules where "rearing X" means "rearing X into Y" and not "rearing Z into X", then you'd have something to go on.