Any One got any rules on this?

[readordie18]

I'm looking at getting an Ape as an animal companion for my druid in a 3.5 campaign and I've been looking everywhere for an official ruling and can't find it, can an animal companion ape learn to use a weapon like a club with one of his feats?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm looking at getting an Ape as an animal companion for my druid in a 3.5 campaign and I've been looking everywhere for an official ruling and can't find it, can an animal companion ape learn to use a weapon like a club with one of his feats?

RAW, yes. None of the weapons proficiency feats has any kind of requirement outside Exotic's BAB requirement.

Don't be suprised if your DM says no though. An ape companion is only of animal intelligence and as such your DM may deem it incapable of learning how to properly wield a weapon.

I think one of the expanded uses of handle animal might cover it though, which would mean you could definitely get it if you're okay with blowing a trick known for it. But don't quote me on that.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hmm, nothing specific, but the heading to the animals section in Monster Manual mentions that

Animals are not capable of detailed reasoning, although with
the Handle Animal skill it is possible to tame an animal and teach
it to perform certain tricks.

So maybe it could get a trick to learn to wield a weapon. IMHO, the irl fact that apes are capable of tool use and have opposable thumbs might imply weapon use, but RAW doesn't support these ape abilities at all.

But never fear. There are magic weapons that grant proficiency to the wielder, though I can't remember the name of the enchant (seems to me I am remembering a 3.0 version whenever I try to remember it). Sure someone else is probably about to mention this....

[Kelb_Panthera]

Hmm, nothing specific, but the heading to the animals section in Monster Manual mentions that


So maybe it could get a trick to learn to wield a weapon. IMHO, the irl fact that apes are capable of tool use and have opposable thumbs might imply weapon use, but RAW doesn't support these ape abilities at all.

But never fear. There are magic weapons that grant proficiency to the wielder, though I can't remember the name of the enchant (seems to me I am remembering a 3.0 version whenever I try to remember it). Sure someone else is probably about to mention this....

Skillful enhancement; complete arcane.

Good catch.

[Phelix-Mu]

RAW, yes. None of the weapons proficiency feats has any kind of requirement outside Exotic's BAB requirement.


Hmm, I see a complicated argument involving metagame (is that the right term?) about a distinction that might exist involving possessing a feat and having the ability to use that feat. Nothing prevents the creature from taking a weapon proficiency, but does this imply actual ability to wield the weapon? I might have a character give her wolf animal companion Simple Weapon Proficiency, and now the wolf can wield a weapon without the non-proficient penalty, but the wolf clearly can't take advantage of the feat.

So now we need to form a basis of what distinguishes the dire ape from the wolf. By RAW, nothing. At least as far as I can see. Please correct me if you know otherwise.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Hmm, I see a complicated argument involving metagame (is that the right term?) about a distinction that might exist involving possessing a feat and having the ability to use that feat. Nothing prevents the creature from taking a weapon proficiency, but does this imply actual ability to wield the weapon? I might have a character give her wolf animal companion Simple Weapon Proficiency, and now the wolf can wield a weapon without the non-proficient penalty, but the wolf clearly can't take advantage of the feat.

So now we need to form a basis of what distinguishes the dire ape from the wolf. By RAW, nothing. At least as far as I can see. Please correct me if you know otherwise.

I have no counter-argument to that and indeed invoked something similar myself.

Logically, an ape has posable thumbs and they're known to use primitive tools in nature. Proficiency should enable them to wield the weapon with no issues.

The metagame question is whether or not weapon proficiency feats (and other feats that may or may not require complex thought processes) should require sapience to actually learn.

[Phelix-Mu]

Logically, an ape has posable thumbs and they're known to use primitive tools in nature. Proficiency should enable them to wield the weapon with no issues.


Not sure "logically." Perhaps "realistically." But pandas have also been known to use their opposable digit to hold bamboo in a similar way. Does my wolf only need a thumb to wield a weapon? Can I get an item for that? A graft?

If we baleful polymorph someone down to a house cat, but they keep their Intelligence, can they use weapon proficiencies? What about if their intelligence decreases to animal intelligence?

Also for consideration, removal of a normal humanoid's thumb has zero impact on their ability to wield weapons. In game, thumbs are thus poorly defined.

Interesting stuff to consider.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not sure "logically." Perhaps "realistically." But pandas have also been known to use their opposable digit to hold bamboo in a similar way. Does my wolf only need a thumb to wield a weapon? Can I get an item for that? A graft?
If you can get his intelligence up to the point it's unquestionably legal for him to be proficient, the gloves of man item in SS turns the paws, tentacles, talons, etc at the end of the fore-legs into humanoid type hands; complete with thumbs.

If we baleful polymorph someone down to a house cat, but they keep their Intelligence, can they use weapon proficiencies?Definitely, providing they can do something about the lack of thumbs.
What about if their intelligence decreases to animal intelligence?Independently of the polymorph, I'd say yes. They still have thumbs and they already have the feat as well as a bit of experience in using the weapon. If it's in conjunction with the polymorph effect, though, probably not, thumbs are really important and most weapons were designed to be wielded by creatures with thumbs or some rough equivalent. A cat doesn't have anything approximating a thumb.


Also for consideration, removal of a normal humanoid's thumb has zero impact on their ability to wield weapons. In game, thumbs are thus poorly defined. To be fair, there's no RAW way to remove a creatures thumbs or any other extremety that's not their head.


Interesting stuff to consider.

Quite so.

[Chilingsworth]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but grenade-like weapons (tanglefoot bags, alchemist's fire, thunderstones, etc) require no proficency to use properly. Just appendages that can hold and toss them. Apes certainly have those.

If absolutely nessicary, commission special ones that are shaped like poo. :smalltongue:

[Sziget Pengék]

Simple weapons yes, martial weapons no. A fair suggestion, i think. Honestly i think it using a weapon is usless as their natural ones are pretty bitchin as-is. In the case of magic items, you would have to activate them for the ape.


I think that the use of martial weapons is far outside the mental capacity of an ape, while simple ones are just off-shoots of a big branch, a sharp stick, a sharp rock, ect. poke a thing with this, smash a thing with this. possibly even bludgeoning or piercing only, as most slashing weapons take some understanding of combat to use proficiently without chance of getting stuck.

Simple weapons, which are a thing any human knows how to use intuitively would be difficult for an ape(lesser intelligence) to use without requiring training; a martial weapon, which is difficult for a human to use without training, would be likely far outside of an ape's cognition.

[Gotterdammerung]

Your companion gets feats. If he meets the prerequs for the feats he can take them. So by raw yes. It doesn't take any extra tricks, you don't have to teach him anything, thats what the feat does.


Yes your GM might change it, but GM's can do that to EVERYTHING RAW.

Ive seen fullplate apes and Greatsword wielding Elementals in my day.

[limejuicepowder]

If your DM needs convincing, just show him this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxdsXNdjLto)

@Gotterdammerung: Eh, not sure about that logic. The feat doesn't give the ability to use the weapon/armor, it just takes away the penalty for using it. As far as I know though, there isn't any rule saying animals CAN'T use weapons - it seems to have been left as an unwritten, isn't-that-totally-obvious-rule....either that or the makers just aren't as inventive as we are.

I'd allow simple bludgeoning weapons, just based on real-life knowledge and lack of rules specifically saying otherwise. Apes do have hands after all, and that definitely sets them apart from most other animals.

[Gwendol]

Apes are known to use (and fashion) simple tools, and may pick up a stick to beat someone with it.

[Vaz]

Not sure "logically." Perhaps "realistically." But pandas have also been known to use their opposable digit to hold bamboo in a similar way. Does my wolf only need a thumb to wield a weapon? Can I get an item for that? A graft?

If we baleful polymorph someone down to a house cat, but they keep their Intelligence, can they use weapon proficiencies? What about if their intelligence decreases to animal intelligence?

Also for consideration, removal of a normal humanoid's thumb has zero impact on their ability to wield weapons. In game, thumbs are thus poorly defined.

Interesting stuff to consider.

http://radbot.net/pix/663.jpg

There was a picture in, I think, Savage Species, which had a Dinosaur carrying a sword. I couldn't find it on the webs, so this will do instead.

[HunterOfJello]

Primates (I think it was Orangutangs) have been viewed using spears to catch fish in rivers. Teaching a primate as intelligent as an ape to learn how to use an extremely simple weapon like a club, isn't too farfetched.

[Darrin]

In Dragon #323: Class Acts - "Teach Your Old Companion New Tricks", there was a "Throw" trick (DC 25) where you could teach your animal companion (presumably one with hands) to throw weapons at a specified target or square with a -4 "non-proficiency" penalty. Range increment is 5', or 10' for gorillas/monkeys.

However, the author doesn't seem to be aware that according to the PHB, grenade-like weapons do not require any proficiency to use. PHB p. 158, under "Throw Splash Weapon":

"To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Thrown weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don’t take the –4 nonproficiency penalty."

So, there's an argument that by RAW, gorillas already know how to throw acid flasks or alchemist's fire.

[Yuki Akuma]

I'd say most animals would require a trick to learn to throw weapons - throwing things is one of those things that humans are really good at compared to most animals, but people tend to ignore because they're used to being able to throw things.

Other apes have been known to hurl things, though, so maybe apes would be automatically proficient in that trick?

(Of course, this is part of a whole rant about how humans have plenty of evolutionary advantages other than "large brains" and "thumbs" but most RPG systems tend to ignore...)

[TopCheese]

Ape boxing... Ape animal companion with spiked gauntlets that are enchanted... Yes... :D

[Fouredged Sword]

I would hat it take improved unarmed strike so it doesn't loose any natural attacks. Though the idea of a large angry monkey with a heavy stick isn't to far off from the party barbarian.

[readordie18]

first of all, thanks for not only being quick with responses, but very friendly too boot! so I thank you for that. Let me get down to the real story then, I'm making a Beastmaster ranger variant (ranger levels minus spells, druid limits on armor, druid quality pet at lvl 1) and the character is in the image of the Chinese myth, the monkey king. Because of this my dm had no problem with my first pet at lvl 2 to be a baboon. It's really the baboon I want to teach how to use a club. And seeing every ones responses here makes me think It would be more then doable.

As for weapons, the only pre-req i've seen for any weapon is you have to have hands, every weapon says it needs this many "Hands" to wield, so I think it's fair to say any weapon can be used by anything with "Hands." what do you guys think.

['Able' Xanthis]

Silverback Gorilla grappleing with vampiric spiked armor.

[Firest Kathon]

I'd say most animals would require a trick to learn to throw weapons - throwing things is one of those things that humans are really good at compared to most animals, but people tend to ignore because they're used to being able to throw things.

Other apes have been known to hurl things, though, so maybe apes would be automatically proficient in that trick?

I can't find any sources right now, but I have read that apes can only throw things (e.g. stones, or poo) in the general direction of their target, while precise aim, especially on a moving target, is a feat that only humans have mastered.

On the other hand, apes do use clubs in the wild, so one could argue that they would be able to use Simple Weapon Proficiency for a club.

[Gotterdammerung]

Ah i see. A Sūn Wùkōng character. Yes you can give your pet proficiency feats and yes any creature with hands can use weapons. The only limitation on what can use weapons is the presence of hands. You technically don't even need training in a weapon to pick it up and use it, you just take a -4 proficiency penalty. Intelligence is not a factor. Heck, there are even creatures in D&d who have - int and still fight with weapons (zombies/skeletons for example).


P.S. just out of curiousity, how are you emulating the Monkey Kings many fabled powers? (teleportation, supa speed, clones, stretchy staff, ability to change into any form, ect)

[Darrin]

On the other hand, apes do use clubs in the wild, so one could argue that they would be able to use Simple Weapon Proficiency for a club.

Chimps have been documented as using clubs. There isn't a lot of documented evidence of other types of apes using weapons. There were some anecdotal reports of baboons throwing stones defensively, but there was considerable skepticism about this once someone pointed out that their arms are physiologically incapable of making overhand throws.

[readordie18]

Mostly through magical items, a necklace that can cast the nimbus cloud spell, I'm making my mission to find the staff as an epic enchanted weapon, i started at a dex of 20 as it is, so there's some speed for you, lol most of the other powers will likely not be used much.

This would be the idea for the weapon http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ruyi_Jingu_Bang_(3.5e_Equipment) and Instead of "Heir" I'd more like be the incarnation of him.

[Zubrowka74]

"One-handed weapons" implies you need one hand (not paw) to use. If your animal has one hand, it can wield it - with the proper feat of course. I'd limit animal intelligence to simple weapon, as it has been mentioned.

[Phelix-Mu]

Ah i see. A Sūn Wùkōng character. Yes you can give your pet proficiency feats and yes any creature with hands can use weapons. The only limitation on what can use weapons is the presence of hands. You technically don't even need training in a weapon to pick it up and use it, you just take a -4 proficiency penalty. Intelligence is not a factor. Heck, there are even creatures in D&d who have - int and still fight with weapons (zombies/skeletons for example).


So, I think for practical purposes, it is agreed that the rules allow animals to take weapon proficiency feats, excluding exotic unless they meet the BAB.

However, I'd like to explore this a bit more. As Kelb Pantera mentioned, thumbs can't be removed in RAW, nor can any other extremity but the head. It seems to me that presence or non-presence of thumbs is therefor relegated to fluff in terms of relevance to wielding a weapon. A character could be created that was born without thumbs as part of the character's story, but that has zero impact on his/her ability to take weapon proficiency feats or wield weapons, by RAW. Likewise, we could make a new race and fluff it by saying they have no thumbs, and this wouldn't impact their ability to use weapons unless we introduced some new trait to quantify this.

It does seem that "hands" are necessary, see the intro to the weapons section in the PHB, where it describes how many hands are used to hold the different weapon types and how it affects damage. By RAW, however, it's not clear what qualifies as a "hand". Hand is never mentioned in the entry for apes or dire apes, which have claws.

Theoretically, a hand is a paw that is capable of gripping and manipulating an object, but all kinds of animals can do this irl, and moreover, hands aren't the only appendages capable of fine manipulation. Again, using RAW and using irl anecdotes about what animals can do are incompatible without the assistance of DM ruling, which, among other things, can make sword-wielding, winged t-rexes possible as well, and thus isn't much help in this discussion.

In real life, you can teach an ape sign language, but I'm not sure this is possible in game. Likewise, elephants and apes can paint pictures and make art, but it's not clear to me that this should make Craft available on their skill list. It's an understatement to say that the impact of very low mental skills on a creature's actual abilities is EXTREMELY poorly defined, really having zero impact on anything not requiring a mental ability-based check until a creature drops into a coma-esque stat upon reaching a mental score of 0 via ability drain or damage. This forces the use of "logic," which is particularly ill-suited to dealing with fantasy world issues like the one we are discussing, or any that involve any kind of magic or supernatural abilities. Then we need to base our logic on the limits of magic as set out in the rules, another area where the rules are often woefully sparse.

[readordie18]

Personally, if I can get my baboon to wield even a simple Club, it would be better in the long run then it's bite attack, mostly due to it being easier to enchant, and If i'm not mistaken, he can still use his bite attack even while using a club, but that i'm not sure about.

[Yuki Akuma]

He totally can - most natural weapons don't need free hands to use.

Heck, he can even use them both as part of a full attack, taking a -5 penalty on the bite attack.

[readordie18]

He totally can - most natural weapons don't need free hands to use.

Heck, he can even use them both as part of a full attack, taking a -5 penalty on the bite attack.

yeah that's what i thought, and with multi attack he gets later, it becomes a -2 right?

[Phelix-Mu]

Personally, if I can get my baboon to wield even a simple Club, it would be better in the long run then it's bite attack, mostly due to it being easier to enchant, and If i'm not mistaken, he can still use his bite attack even while using a club, but that i'm not sure about.

And not only can the animal do this, but if you have a dire ape or other larger creature later on, you can slap the sizing enchantment on the coolest weapon you can find, and now the animal can wield that weapon to greatest effect. Also nice to stack with animal growth.

[Ashtagon]

I'd rule that an animal-intelligence creature that has hand-like paws (primates and bears, for most practical purposes) could wield a Simple Light or One-Handed (not Two-Handed) weapon that is bludgeoning and/or piercing - not slashing. "Hold the stick-thing", "swing or stab with the stick-thing", "aim at the gribbly over there" is already hitting the limits of animal intelligence. Add to that "keep the edge, not the flat, of the blade facing forwards" is just one piece of thought too many to hold in their heads simultaneously.

I would also rule that they can't take any Weapon Proficiency feat; instead, each such weapon is a trick for animal training purposes.

Exception of course is made for any creature whose description already allows for proficiency with a weapon.

I'd also let such a creature throw grenade-like missiles; in effect, they can aim for a space, not not a creature. However, their range increment is halved, reflecting that they don't have true human levels of manual dexterity. Again, this is a skill trick, plus an additional skill trick for each different ammunition type they are expected to distinguish between ("No Cornelius, the acid flask, not the holy water!").

[readordie18]

ok, expanding upon the original question, how about armor? could you see it wearing armor? (custom made of course) and do you think a Feat would be needed for it to use the armor.

[Phelix-Mu]

I believe barding (armour for animals...originally intended for mounts) of various kinds is available in the PHB, and I don't think any feat is necessary to use it. On the other hand, animals that wear it are normally trained to do so (warhorses), so the DM could sensibly require that one of your tricks be dedicated to training the animal to act normally while wearing armour. Otherwise a lot of animals would probably spend about half their free time trying to take it off.

[Yuki Akuma]

ok, expanding upon the original question, how about armor? could you see it wearing armor? (custom made of course) and do you think a Feat would be needed for it to use the armor.

Barding for animals is totally a thing that exists in D&D, and it requires the same proficiency feats to avoid the increased armour check penalty.

Alternatively, just give it armour with no armour check penalty and suddenly being nonproficient doesn't matter at all.

[Ashtagon]

Animals simply don't have the manual dexterity or agility to don or remove their own armour (barding).

There is no rule that prevents a sufficiently restrained animal from being dressed in barding by its handlers.

There is no RAW difference between warhorses or any other type of horse regarding their ability to wear armour. Warhorses (and riding dogs) have the "combat riding" animal trick suite, but that doesn't affect their barding potential. Additionally, warhorses do not have any Armour Proficiency feats.

I'd allow an animal to acquire the Armour Proficiency feats normally (although they can't generally acquire feats).

An animal that is not proficient in an armour suffers the normal penalties for armour non-proficiency. In addition, they will probably resist, and may panic, when their handlers attempt to dress them in the barding. Once dressed, a non-proficient animal may get baulky or attempt (futilely) to remove the armour. Plan on severe penalties to Handle Animal and Ride checks for such animals.

It seems a really odd omission for a warhorse to be unable to wear armour proficiently. As a house rule, I'd make "wear barding" an animal trick, which is automatically included in the "combat riding" animal trick suite (no extra cost for the suite). This "wear barding" trick is suitable for all armour types.

[Fouredged Sword]

Yes on the bite as a secondary attack, though you treat the bite as an offhand attack, so only .5xstr to damage. Still.

Improved unarmed strike give another natural attack to stick at the end of your attack pattern as well.

Warbeasts are trained in the use of all armor. Per the warbeast template. Warhorses are expressly the warbeast version of the horse, also per the warbeast template. Thus they are proficient in all armor.

Use handle animal and you can train your chimp to be a warbeast as well using handle animal. It's a nice power boost that grants a few HD and armor prof.

[Ashtagon]

Yes on the bite as a secondary attack, though you treat the bite as an offhand attack, so only .5xstr to damage. Still.

Improved unarmed strike give another natural attack to stick at the end of your attack pattern as well.

Warbeasts are trained in the use of all armor. Per the warbeast template. Warhorses are expressly the warbeast version of the horse, also per the warbeast template. Thus they are proficient in all armor.

Use handle animal and you can train your chimp to be a warbeast as well using handle animal. It's a nice power boost that grants a few HD and armor prof.

Good catch. That sounds a lot better than making "wear barding" a trick.

[readordie18]

which book has the war beast templates? if you don't mind me asking

[Phelix-Mu]

Unless they reprinted a 3.5 version, the Monster Manual 2 has the warbeast template in the back of the book, in the Appendix that has the templates.

[Urpriest]

Use handle animal and you can train your chimp to be a warbeast as well using handle animal. It's a nice power boost that grants a few HD and armor prof.

No you can't. This is a common misconception. The Handle Animal DCs in the template are for training a Warbeast, not training a non-Warbeast Animal so that it becomes a Warbeast. Compare them to the 3.0 Handle Animal rules, taking into account that, as the template says, Warbeasts are trained as the base creature.

[readordie18]

ah fair enough, no biggy, Asking about it may have given my dm a headache anyway lol

[Ashtagon]

Okay, if you can't use Handle Animal to apply the warbeast template (seemed iffy tbqh), then I'd definitely make a "wear barding" animal trick, and add that trick in as part of the "combat riding" animal trick suite.

[readordie18]

well reading up on it, it says that you can convert any animal be it wild or domesticated into a war beast, this is the text verbatim
"TRAINING A WARBEAST:
A warbeast can be reared and trained just as the base creature
can.
If the base creature is a domestic animal, the creature
need not be specially reared, but it must be trained for
two months (Handle Animal DC 20) to develop its abilities.

A warbeast based on a wild animal must be reared for one
year (Handle Animal DC 15 + HD of the warbeast), then trained
for 2 months (Handle Animal DC 20 + HD of the warbeast)."
It would take a long time in game to train a druid pet (assuming it's considered wild) to be a warbeast, but that's strait from the book, sounds doable to me.
however these might just be finding a warbeast quality animal in the wild to begin with, and not training a normal animal into a war beast, still unsure.

though to be perfectly honest, it seems Warbeasts are kinda just mounts, and thus making my original idea not in the same vain anyway, and therefore pointless to argue either way, so question remains,

Armor feat for Baboon/Ape?

[Vaz]

Warbeasts can certainly be applied to mounts; the War Rhino is given as an example, but there is no reason whatsoever that a War Snake, or War Octopus
or War Raven or War Toad.

I think, anyway.

[Phelix-Mu]

No you can't. This is a common misconception. The Handle Animal DCs in the template are for training a Warbeast, not training a non-Warbeast Animal so that it becomes a Warbeast. Compare them to the 3.0 Handle Animal rules, taking into account that, as the template says, Warbeasts are trained as the base creature.

I think you all are still misreading warbeast, as per Urpriest's comment.

Moreover, applying templates to animal companion might render it a creature that can't legally be an animal companion, since only unmodified animals can usually be animal companions. Not sure here, but similar discussion on other threads has turned up more or less this conclusion.

[Zubrowka74]

War Snake

Metal Snakes (http://youtu.be/v5HKs6h4RsM) ?

[Ketiara]

At what point does the fighter loose the ability to use his weapon and/or the relevant prof feats? 2intelligence? Or can he use his weapons eventhough he is less intelligent than an animal?

[Ashtagon]

At what point does the fighter loose the ability to use his weapon and/or the relevant prof feats? 2intelligence? Or can he use his weapons eventhough he is less intelligent than an animal?

The feats have no minimum Intelligence requirement, and so are not lost when the fighter gets all stupid.

Within RAW, most animals cannot normally acquire feats. Offering individual Simple Light/1H B/P weapons as animal tricks (provided they have human-like hands/paws) is a way to provide a minimal weapon use ability to such higher animals.

[readordie18]

oh animal companions gain feats every 3HD, it says so, to quote strait from the book:

"Bonus HD: Extra eight-sided (d8) Hit Dice, each of which gains a
Constitution modifier, as normal. Remember that extra Hit Dice improve
the animal companion’s base attack and base save bonuses. An animal
companion’s base attack bonus is the same as that of a druid of a level
equal to the animal’s HD. An animal companion has good Fortitude and
Reflex saves (treat it as a character whose level equals the animal’s HD).
An animal companion gains additional skill points and feats for bonus
HD as normal for advancing a monster’s Hit Dice (see the Monster
Manual)."

this means if your pet started at 1 HD and you hit a lvl 3 druid level and you add 2 HD to your pet, it gains a feat.

[Ashtagon]

oh animal companions gain feats every 3HD, it says so, to quote strait from the book:

"Bonus HD: Extra eight-sided (d8) Hit Dice, each of which gains a
Constitution modifier, as normal. Remember that extra Hit Dice improve
the animal companion’s base attack and base save bonuses. An animal
companion’s base attack bonus is the same as that of a druid of a level
equal to the animal’s HD. An animal companion has good Fortitude and
Reflex saves (treat it as a character whose level equals the animal’s HD).
An animal companion gains additional skill points and feats for bonus
HD as normal for advancing a monster’s Hit Dice (see the Monster
Manual)."

this means if your pet started at 1 HD and you hit a lvl 3 druid level and you add 2 HD to your pet, it gains a feat.

Well yes, animal companions do. But animal companions are not "most animals".

When I write fixes, I don't just write them for druids, but also for the king's army. I want to be certain that the Queen's Dragoon Guards (cavalry regiment, not some bouncy footsoldier with a big stick) can have warhorses with barding.

[Fouredged Sword]

Have them take the wild cohort feat. Gives any class a mini animal companion, and warhorse is an option.

[Ashtagon]

Have them take the wild cohort feat. Gives any class a mini animal companion, and warhorse is an option.

The cavalryman would still need to reach 9th level for his cohort to acquire enough feats to wear heavy armour barding proficiently. Which doesn't really make historical reality playable.

[Fouredged Sword]

Or just let the horse soak a -8 to hit from plate barding until the knight reaches that level. A mount suffers surprisingly little from non-prof armor. They get you from one place to another just as well.

[Telonius]

I'm looking at getting an Ape as an animal companion for my druid in a 3.5 campaign and I've been looking everywhere for an official ruling and can't find it, can an animal companion ape learn to use a weapon like a club with one of his feats?

I'd allow a side quest to find a Feat-granting monolith.

[Darius Kane]

If a bear can use a stick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghgg_fukbvU), why not an ape.

[Ashtagon]

If a bear can use a stick (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghgg_fukbvU), why not an ape.

You'll note that I allowed for both bears and primates to use simple weapons with the training tricks I proposed.

[Darius Kane]

You'll note that I allowed for both bears and primates to use simple weapons with the training tricks I proposed.
:smallconfused: Good for you.

[TuggyNE]

Within RAW, most animals cannot normally acquire feats.

... what? Every single one of the Animal type creatures listed in MMI has one or more feats (excluding bonus feats), usually Alertness, Run, Weapon Finesse, Endurance, or some combination thereof, but not always. Additional feats are gained with additional HD, as usual for advancing monsters.

It's mindless creatures that can't gain feats or skill points, not animals.