Riding dogs and tripping

[Gwendol]

Riding dogs are the alpha's of low level druid animal companions when it comes to fighting stats.

Reading their MM entry however puts into doubt they always have their much touted tripping attack (see MM wolf), due to the fact that tripping is not listed as a special attack in the stat block, but rather in the fluff description:

Combat

If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry). A riding dog can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check.

How then is the animal "trained for war"? It's an ill-defined term, but checking with the required skill seems like a good idea. Indeed, under Handle Animal we find the following entry:


Combat Riding (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 six weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three 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. Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose.

Bolded emphasis mine. Contrary to my initial belief, there seems to be support for the interpretation that riding dogs are already combat trained (and so should in practice have the trip special attack if trained for riding).

How then does this interact with the Druid AC or a Wild Cohort? IMO, the druid AC uses the base statistics for the animal, which in case of the riding dog means no tripping (until trained for combat). By consequence the same is true for the Wild Cohort.

[eggynack]

Bolded emphasis mine. Contrary to my initial belief, there seems to be support for the interpretation that riding dogs are already combat trained (and so should in practice have the trip special attack if trained for riding).
I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that the riding dog needs to be further trained for riding. The game doesn't say that riding dogs start out with just combat training, but that they are trained to, "Bear riders into combat." That covers both the combat half of the equation, and the riding half of the equation. They have both, in other words.


How then does this interact with the Druid AC or a Wild Cohort? IMO, the druid AC uses the base statistics for the animal, which in case of the riding dog means no tripping (until trained for combat). By consequence the same is true for the Wild Cohort.
I don't see much support for the idea that riding dog cohorts or companions lack the training held default by other riding dogs, and I similarly don't see much support for the idea that riding dogs have only combat or only riding instead of just straight combat riding. Mostly, I think you're just drawing the wrong conclusion from that one sentence of combat riding, under the assumption that it only grants access to half of the full capability of the skill.

[Coidzor]

I believe that's mostly there so that if one find's one's PCs in a Saint Bernard kennel that those dogs wouldn't have the trip ability despite being much larger than Small size.

[Gwendol]

No Eggy, that's not the basis for my argument. It is the monster statblock where under special attack you have nothing.
A reared and trained dog a PC buys from a kennel however should also be able to trip.

[Coidzor]

No Eggy, that's not the basis for my argument. It is the monster statblock where under special attack you have nothing.
A reared and trained dog a PC buys from a kennel however should also be able to trip.

So... replacement Animal Companion/Wild Cohort Riding Dogs would need to be trained for combat, is what you're saying, then?

[eggynack]

No Eggy, that's not the basis for my argument. It is the monster statblock where under special attack you have nothing.
Yeah, but they're still a riding dog, and riding dogs have this particular training by default. You obtain the dog, and the game says it's already trained. It's not even a particularly absurd thing, as it's not like you're poofing this riding dog out of thin air (though I think you can also do that, technically).

[torrasque666]

The Combat Riding training only means that they don't balk in combat like a normal mount does.


As a move action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#moveActions), you can attempt to control a light horse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#horseLight), pony (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/pony.htm), heavy horse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#horseHeavy), or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies.

Heavy warhorses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#warhorseHeavy), light warhorses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#warhorseLight) and warponies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ponyWar.htm) can serve readily as combat steeds. Light horses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#horseLight), ponies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/pony.htm), and heavy horses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/horse.htm#horseHeavy), however, are frightened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#frightened) by combat. If you don’t dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/ride.htm) check each round as a move action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#moveActions) to control such a horse. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions) after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full round action and you can’t do anything else until your next turn.

Note the major difference in both areas is that Warhorses(the ones already trained for combat riding) do not need to be controlled in combat while regular ones do. The closest you can really get for "trained for war" is the trained for fighting usage of the Handle Animal skill. Riding Dogs/Warhorses are already and not-really Trained for Combat Riding, and thus can still benefit from the Trained for Fighting.

I know that mounted combat is odd and all, but did the giants of the playground really never look at it?

[eggynack]

The Combat Riding training only means that they don't balk in combat like a normal mount does.

Note the major difference in both areas is that Warhorses(the ones already trained for combat riding) do not need to be controlled in combat while regular ones do. The closest you can really get for "trained for war" is the trained for fighting usage of the Handle Animal skill. Riding Dogs/Warhorses are already and not-really Trained for Combat Riding, and thus can still benefit from the Trained for Fighting.

I know that mounted combat is odd and all, but did the giants of the playground really never look at it?
The thing of it is, I disagree with your assessment that trained for fighting is somehow closer to trained for war than trained for combat riding is. Fighting basically just has stay over combat riding, after all, and combat riding has come, defend, guard, and heel. In other words, a bunch of war stuff. It also seems notable that not balking in combat is the exact sort of thing I'd want out of a creature trained for war.

As further support for combat riding as trained for war, you may note that most creatures with this special designation as one trained in combat riding by default have the special designation as a "war" creature. Particularly, this set of warhorses. Not exactly airtight evidence, but definitely more than is possessed by the idea of trained for fighting in this position.

In conclusion, while there isn't really any perfect answer to this question, the question of what exactly "trained for war" means, it seems like combat riding is the best answer. Fighting, the likely next best answer, has a significantly lower variety of combat tricks, and lacks any of the special designations that combat riding has. True, none of these designations are the words "trained for war", but fighting training lacks such a designation as well, so that's a bit of a wash.

[ace rooster]

I don't have the book to hand, but 'trained for war' is defined in the warbeast template. The warbeast template cannot be applied to riding dogs, as riding dogs have the effects of war training already defined (it grants trip), but the rules for war training still apply. It is perfectly easy to train an animal for combat riding without training it for war, and takes less time. War training also requires dc 20 checks all the time, and combat riding can be done in part by dc 15 checks, ie apprentices. War training requires more than twice the work from experienced trainers, so there is no RAW extrapolation reason to assume it is default.

There is also no RAW to support the idea that war training is default. War training is not mentioned anywhere in the purchase of riding dogs, and default in the MM entry is that they are not. If default was that they were war trained then the MM entry would say that riding dogs not trained do not have trip).

Combat riding is a must if you are selling mounts that do not run away by default, simply because the rider must be able to control their mount if it attacks something. If a riding dog is only trained for ordinary riding, and a fight breaks out, then the dog becomes uncontrolable and might join in. This is not a safe creature to sell as a mount, and most mounts will be for civilian use. We cannot extrapolate being trained for 'combat riding' to being intended for combat.

I can't find any level that I would assume that riding dogs are trained for war. Certainly I would let PCs send their dogs away for war training, but as a default they would not be.


Incidently, you can train a normal horse for combat riding, and it does not become a war horse. A druid's animal companion would be fairly useless if you couldn't. War horses are trained for combat riding and war trained by default, because that is the whole point.

[Gwendol]

Right, I was getting around to the Warbeast template eventually:
http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/warbeast.shtml

My understanding of the Druid AC (and consequently, the Wild Cohort) is that the creature you start from is always the MM statblock, after which it can be adjusted through the HD addition and whatnot.
The riding dog statblock does not mention tripping, hence it is not by default trained for war.

[lytokk]

Right, I was getting around to the Warbeast template eventually:
http://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/warbeast.shtml

My understanding of the Druid AC (and consequently, the Wild Cohort) is that the creature you start from is always the MM statblock, after which it can be adjusted through the HD addition and whatnot.
The riding dog statblock does not mention tripping, hence it is not by default trained for war.

This was my whole point behind the discussion on the previous thread. Trained for combat riding is different than being trained for war. Combat in an of itself is part of war, but war encompasses much more than simple combat. Group tactics is prevalent, staying in formation and the like. Wolves have trip by default as they are pack hunters, meaning they understand the purpose of formations and tactics. Granted, dogs are related and in many cases even descendants of wolves, but that's where the similarities stop.

The biggest problem here is that training for war is an undefined term in game speak. The closest would be either combat riding or fighting, the only difference between the two being fighting learns the trick stay. But, as has been stated, the riding dog is already trained to bear a rider into combat, and has the combat riding template. It also says that the riding dog doesn't have trip. It can learn it, but doesn't have it. Not in the statblock. What is in the statblock under special attacks is a -, meaning nothing. It has no special attacks until it is trained for it, and the only one it can learn is trip, if its trained for it, which it isn't, even with the combat riding training.

[HighWater]

Ah, to trip or not to trip?... I think its fair to say that this is a DM's call: the Monster Manual vs Player's Handbook ruling is just not clear. The unclear ability of the riding dog is likely the result of a game-design-choice that sought to simplify the Monster Manual...

The Player's Handbook passage (warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat) is likely inserted to ensure that PC-purchased, Paladin Mount and Animal Companion "Riding Dogs" can actually function as mounts and protect players from DM nastiness of the type "but its untrained in combat muhahaha!"

The MM passage (if trained for war) is likely a desire from the side of the designers to avoid having to make a bunch of entries for "dog". The process perhaps went along the following lines:
>"We need dogs! Let's make dog-stats!"
<"But darn it, a Great Dane is so much different than a Dachshund, and there's this trope of small characters riding dogs..."
>"Oh, well, let's just make two statblocks then! One for small dogs and one for dogs big enough to be ridden by small characters!"
<"Yeah, that sounds cool. We'll call the small ones 'dogs' and the big ones 'riding dogs' to indicate which could be used as mounts and which can't."
>"Awesome... Wait, I read this article once about wardogs used to break open the enemy shield wall by biting soldiers and dragging them to the ground. Our "riding dogs" can't do that, do we need stats for that?"
<"And add another dog to the monster manual? People will think it page-filler! No, let's just add a line to the big dog's description... What did we call it again? Riding dog? Funny name really. Oh well, let's just add a descriptionline that says that any riding dog that is trained for war can try to trip on a successful bite attack and call it a day! There we have a war dog without needing a new entry, our customers will be so grateful"

We can see in the entry for "riding dog", that it actually covers two different kinds of dogs, and likely even three:
- it tries to cover dogs that are big (big enough so they could be ridden),
- it tries to cover dogs that are trained to be ridden (any "riding dog" purchased by a PC),
- it tries to cover dogs that attack and tear down soldiers in organised combat (Cry Havoc and release the dogs of war!).

It is this "catch-all" approach that causes trouble here:
It's ridiculous to assume that all big dogs are trained to be ridden into combat, this is a pretty unnatural thing for a dog and would require serious training-investment on behalf of the farmer or whoever else owns it. However, there is no separate entry for "big dog" that is not trained for combat riding... There is also no entry for "big dog, trained for attacking a shield wall". They are all lumped into this single entry, and then the Players handbook doesn't give a specific method to "train a dog for war" and does say that riding dogs are already "trained to bear riders into combat". This is all just very sloppy and when things get sloppy/ridiculous, it's the DM's task to clean it up.

I'd rule that any riding dog purchased by a PC (or NPC) to take into combat, also knows the trip technique. An "animal cohort" definitely falls under this category, because the word "cohort" already implies specialisation for protection and a war dog is the best protection you can have...

[eggynack]

I don't have the book to hand, but 'trained for war' is defined in the warbeast template.
I'm gonna need some kinda citation on that at some point. If we have a definition for "trained for war", that's pretty much the whole argument done with.


There is also no RAW to support the idea that war training is default. War training is not mentioned anywhere in the purchase of riding dogs, and default in the MM entry is that they are not. If default was that they were war trained then the MM entry would say that riding dogs not trained do not have trip).
The game has the authority to say it either way, as the two are equivalent in meaning. Whether they're equivalent in vague connotation is relatively irrelevant to the rules.



My understanding of the Druid AC (and consequently, the Wild Cohort) is that the creature you start from is always the MM statblock, after which it can be adjusted through the HD addition and whatnot.
The riding dog statblock does not mention tripping, hence it is not by default trained for war.
I'm kinda confused at this point. Do you, or do you not, think that being trained in combat riding is equivalent to being trained for war? If you don't think it is, then how do you get to trained for war?


The biggest problem here is that training for war is an undefined term in game speak. The closest would be either combat riding or fighting, the only difference between the two being fighting learns the trick stay. But, as has been stated, the riding dog is already trained to bear a rider into combat, and has the combat riding template. It also says that the riding dog doesn't have trip. It can learn it, but doesn't have it. Not in the statblock. What is in the statblock under special attacks is a -, meaning nothing. It has no special attacks until it is trained for it, and the only one it can learn is trip, if its trained for it, which it isn't, even with the combat riding training.
The game does not say that riding dogs don't have trip. It also doesn't say that riding dogs do have trip. What it says is that riding dogs have trip if they're trained for war. No more, and no less. Nothing indicates anything like a necessary default, or a requirement for extra training if they're already trained for war.

In any case, I think the real question is this one: If trained for war doesn't mean this, then what the hell does it mean? As far as I can see, it means either this or nothing, and the latter is entirely plausible.

[Segev]

Can this not simply and easily be handled by the taker of the feat to get the wild cohort, or the druid taking the animal companion, declaring, "I train mine for war?"

[ace rooster]

Can this not simply and easily be handled by the taker of the feat to get the wild cohort, or the druid taking the animal companion, declaring, "I train mine for war?"

Yes, if they have 2 months free and can make the handle animal check. It is not helpful for new companions, or summons. Incidently it also cannot be done on a wild animal that you did not raise, even if it is an animal companion.

Warbeast is MMII, and I'm pretty sure the link posted is accurate.

There is one example that I know of of a core 'war' creature, and that is the warhorse. An ordinary horse can be taught combat riding just fine, so combat riding does not equal war trained.

[eggynack]

Yes, if they have 2 months free and can make the handle animal check.
As before, going to need a citation on that one. I'm pretty sure it's just not a thing.

[lytokk]

I'm gonna need some kinda citation on that at some point. If we have a definition for "trained for war", that's pretty much the whole argument done with.

The game has the authority to say it either way, as the two are equivalent in meaning. Whether they're equivalent in vague connotation is relatively irrelevant to the rules.


I'm kinda confused at this point. Do you, or do you not, think that being trained in combat riding is equivalent to being trained for war? If you don't think it is, then how do you get to trained for war?

The game does not say that riding dogs don't have trip. It also doesn't say that riding dogs do have trip. What it says is that riding dogs have trip if they're trained for war. No more, and no less. Nothing indicates anything like a necessary default, or a requirement for extra training if they're already trained for war.

In any case, I think the real question is this one: If trained for war doesn't mean this, then what the hell does it mean? As far as I can see, it means either this or nothing, and the latter is entirely plausible.

I'm looking at the warbeast template right now, and while I haven't finished it all, I wonder if this is one of those missed holdovers from 3.0. I don't have access to any 3.0 content so it makes me wonder. And after having read the entry, I don't see any specific callouts for being trained for war. But since this template is 3.0, it was printed before anything for 3.5, so this may have been what the phrase "training for war" was referring to. Since I have no 3.0 books I really can't tell.

The fact that in the statblock riding dogs do not have trip is evidence that riding dogs do not have trip. If I can draw a parallel, they also don't have a flight speed, but by my assumptions on your logic they can fly. Table trumps text right?

[Troacctid]

Riding dogs are from the Monster Manual, warbeasts are from the Monster Manual II. Why would the "trained for war" line refer to a source that didn't exist yet?

[eggynack]

The fact that in the statblock riding dogs do not have trip is evidence that riding dogs do not have trip. If I can draw a parallel, they also don't have a flight speed, but by my assumptions on your logic they can fly. Table trumps text right?
I don't even really know what you're talking about here with a flight speed. The game says that riding dogs have trip if they're trained for war. The game says that riding dogs have combat riding by default. Thus, if combat riding is how we're defining trained for war, then riding dogs have trip by default. It's really as simple as that, and has nothing to do with things trumping other things, or with whatever your flight example was supposed to indicate. In this case, the fact that riding dogs don't have trip as part of their stat block tells us that riding dogs don't always have trip, because a given riding dog could be trained for an alternate purpose, and thus lose trip.

[WhamBamSam]

I'm looking at the warbeast template right now, and while I haven't finished it all, I wonder if this is one of those missed holdovers from 3.0. I don't have access to any 3.0 content so it makes me wonder. And after having read the entry, I don't see any specific callouts for being trained for war. But since this template is 3.0, it was printed before anything for 3.5, so this may have been what the phrase "training for war" was referring to. Since I have no 3.0 books I really can't tell.Warbeast is its own thing, and they're bred not trained (though you do have to train them if you wand orders followed). I had thought that train for war was described under handle animal, but I appear to have been mistaken. In absence of anything else, train for combat riding and/or train for fighting would seem the most logical things.


The fact that in the statblock riding dogs do not have trip is evidence that riding dogs do not have trip. If I can draw a parallel, they also don't have a flight speed, but by my assumptions on your logic they can fly. Table trumps text right?No. Text trumps table. I'm not sure where you heard otherwise.

[jiriku]

My interpretation is that while the default dog (one that is likely to see combat) has trip, the DM is encouraged to re-use the identical stat block for "noncombatant" dogs by simply removing trip. You see this a lot in the Animal section of the MM, where the author will note something like "this stat block for animal x can also be used to represent animals y, z, or other similar creatures".

I really don't see the value in making it difficult for PCs to get access to dogs that know how to trip. I mean, you could argue for that based on a narrow interpretation of the text, but then what have you got? You've managed to say "no" to your players. Not good DMing.

[lytokk]

Warbeast is its own thing, and they're bred not trained (though you do have to train them if you wand orders followed). I had thought that train for war was described under handle animal, but I appear to have been mistaken. In absence of anything else, train for combat riding and/or train for fighting would seem the most logical things.

No. Text trumps table. I'm not sure where you heard otherwise.

probably in my head switching me up on things.

My whole thought is that by default, according to the description of combat riding in the handle animal skill, is that Riding dogs are trained in that particular set of skills.

In the riding dog entry, it says that riding dogs must be trained for war in order to get the trip special attack. Since they are already trained for combat riding, but do not already have a trip special attack, then there is some additional training somewhere to gain that ability. Combat riding therefore doesn't cover tripping. Some other sort of training does, and warbeast would fit. Since it was printed in MM2, which is a 3.0 book, its possible that the writers of the 3.5 manual had that in mind when they wrote it, but we don't know for sure. Its also possible theres some mention of training for war under the handle animal skill for 3.0, but that didn't make it into the 3.5 manual. I don't have either a 3.0 MM or a 3.0 PH, so I can't tell.

The flight thing was an extension of my view of your logic, which I have realized to be pretty far off.

[eggynack]

In the riding dog entry, it says that riding dogs must be trained for war in order to get the trip special attack. Since they are already trained for combat riding, but do not already have a trip special attack, then there is some additional training somewhere to gain that ability.
Why would there need to necessarily be additional training? The game says that the riding dog needs to be one that is trained for war, rather than that you must take specific action relative to the riding dog. I don't see any actual book support for the idea that some form of bonus training is enforced.

[lytokk]

the book doesn't say they're trained for war.



If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry).


IF the riding dog is trained for war, it can make trip attempts. They've already been trained for combat riding.

[eggynack]

IF the riding dog is trained for war, it can make trip attempts. They've already been trained for combat riding.
If doesn't imply that it's not the default. It's just a conditional. If a creature is one trained for war, then tripping. If a creature is not one trained for war, then no tripping. It's not like it's impossible to have a riding dog without tripping within the rules with combat riding as trained for war. A creature can only be trained for one purpose, after all, so training the riding dog for a different purpose would immediately cause the riding dog to lose its tripping power. If you'd like, you can think of that phrase as very roughly rules equivalent to, "If the riding dog has four legs, it has the trip special ability." Any given riding dog you find is likely going to have the ability by default, but there could exist riding dogs that do not.

[lytokk]

If doesn't imply that it's not the default. It's just a conditional. If a creature is one trained for war, then tripping. If a creature is not one trained for war, then no tripping. It's not like it's impossible to have a riding dog without tripping within the rules with combat riding as trained for war. A creature can only be trained for one purpose, after all, so training the riding dog for a different purpose would immediately cause the riding dog to lose its tripping power. If you'd like, you can think of that phrase as very roughly rules equivalent to, "If the riding dog has four legs, it has the trip special ability." Any given riding dog you find is likely going to have the ability by default, but there could exist riding dogs that do not.

I agree, IF implies a condition. The thing is, animal companions and by extension, wild cohorts have to be the unmodified untemplated examples from the monster manual, or at least start that way. The unmodified riding dog from the monster manual does not have trip. Therefore, a wild cohort or animal companion riding dog would not have trip. Can it be trained? Yes. How is it trained? Not sure. But, a riding dog, unmodified untemplated, is trained for combat riding. My logic says that combat riding isn't the required training for trip attacks.

[eggynack]

I agree, IF implies a condition. The thing is, animal companions and by extension, wild cohorts have to be the unmodified untemplated examples from the monster manual, or at least start that way. The unmodified riding dog from the monster manual does not have trip. Therefore, a wild cohort or animal companion riding dog would not have trip. Can it be trained? Yes. How is it trained? Not sure. But, a riding dog, unmodified untemplated, is trained for combat riding. My logic says that combat riding isn't the required training for trip attacks.
The unmodified and untemplated examples from the monster manual have trip if they meet this condition. No more, and no less. Not all relevant factors to a creature's ability need be listed directly within the statblock. Moreover, it would make absolutely no sense to list trip in the riding dog's statblock, because even with combat riding as a default, they don't always have the ability.

[lytokk]

The unmodified and untemplated examples from the monster manual have trip if they meet this condition. No more, and no less. Not all relevant factors to a creature's ability need be listed directly within the statblock. Moreover, it would make absolutely no sense to list trip in the riding dog's statblock, because even with combat riding as a default, they don't always have the ability.


bolded for inquiry

the ability to trip or for combat riding?

Because according to the handle animal skill, Riding dogs are automatically trained for combat riding. And part of your argument up to this point was that combat riding should be enough to give the ever elusive "training for war" that is undefined in any source we've been looking at, which is the prerequisite for riding dogs tripping.

[eggynack]

the ability to trip or for combat riding?
Both. A default riding dog has both the ability to trip and combat riding, but all it would take is, say, five weeks of performance training, and the riding dog would lose both things. That's why they couldn't have feasibly written up the riding dog as they wrote up the wolf. Wolves have their tripping ability even if trained for a particular purpose, but the same is not true of riding dogs.

[Gwendol]

Not very convincing. All a DM needs to do (wrt AC or Wild Cohort) is to glance at the stat block and find nothing under special attack.
They'll likely say that after training it may get the trip attack, and if it's that you want you can always choose a wolf instead.

I just don't get what trained for war stands for.

[Troacctid]

It means trained for combat.

[eggynack]

Not very convincing. All a DM needs to do (wrt AC or Wild Cohort) is to glance at the stat block and find nothing under special attack.
I don't know why you're so stuck on the stat block. There's more to a creature's set of abilities than stuff in that really basic listing.


I just don't get what trained for war stands for.
I don't either, really. This is just my best guess, and I think it's a solid one. Definitely fits available evidence better than any other solution I've seen. If there's a way to do this that fits the RAW in a more logical way than combat riding, I'd be glad to hear it, but this argument from the way riding dogs are presented seems somewhat lacking.

[Gwendol]

Because it represents, in a brief, yet specific way the typical member of a race of beast/monster.

[eggynack]

Because it represents, in a brief, yet specific way the typical member of a race of beast/monster.
I don't think it doesn't have value, but that doesn't make it the end all and be all of determining what a default member of a race has. That's down to every aspect of a creature's listing, from languages, to the creature's specific variety of burrow, to abilities like this one.

[Gwendol]

Me neither, and in the case of the dogs I would assume that the PC's buy a dog trained for combat (or "war"). I'm talking about the case of the Wild Cohort (or Druid AC) :

Animal Companion Basics

Use the base statistics for a creature of the companion’s kind, but make the following changes.

I find it hard to argue that the trip special attack is glaringly missing from the base statistics, yet somehow should be included because all large dogs get combat riding training? Even those found in the wild?

[eggynack]

I find it hard to argue that the trip special attack is glaringly missing from the base statistics, yet somehow should be included because all large dogs get combat riding training?
Is combat riding missing from base statistics, and by extension, trip? Sure, it's not part of the stat block, but again, I don't think that's defined as the sole determinant of base statistics, unless I'm missing something.


Even those found in the wild?
Seems they do, yeah. Not really sure how that works, but I would vaguely assume that the training is part of what makes you a riding dog in the first place, or something like that. Alternatively, combat riding could be an innate part of their nature, or you could actually be stealing these dogs from loving owners with your sneaky druid magic. The first of those two actually makes a good deal of sense, as the game says that riding dogs just don't need additional training for combat riding. Might just be a completely automatic thing, still not listed in the stat block because it can be trained away.

[Gwendol]

See, the problem is that you are really just stating your opinion on how you think it should be right now. The fact is that the dog has no special attack listed, and in the text it says that if the dog is trained for war it can trip as a wolf.
Sure, the player can point to the handle animal skill description about training for combat riding, but the DM still has a very strong case of just saying no. It's not in the statblock, and the text under combat says the dog needs some specific training to trip.

[eggynack]

See, the problem is that you are really just stating your opinion on how you think it should be right now. The fact is that the dog has no special attack listed, and in the text it says that if the dog is trained for war it can trip as a wolf.
Sure, the player can point to the handle animal skill description about training for combat riding, but the DM still has a very strong case of just saying no. It's not in the statblock, and the text under combat says the dog needs some specific training to trip.
Well, the game does absolutely state that riding dogs are just automatically trained in combat riding, and it does absolutely state that riding dogs trained for war have trip. Neither of those things is particularly in doubt, by my estimation, and were combat riding out and out called war, I don't think there would be any real debate on this topic. Thus, I don't think it's just my opinion that, if such an equivalence between the two terms exists, then I'm correct that riding dogs have trip by default.

The only loose connection, the part definitely reliant on my opinion, is the connection between combat riding and war. It's mostly an opinion of convenience, as the alternative is that you just can't be trained in war, but I think that if we're assuming that being trained for war is a game object, then combat riding is the closest thing we have. And honestly, if there's some kind of mechanism that takes a riding dog from combat riding to war, then we're really back at square one here, as there is no such mechanism listed in game.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, the game does absolutely state that riding dogs are just automatically trained in combat riding, and it does absolutely state that riding dogs trained for war have trip.

This is only a partial truth. The Equipment section states that purchased Riding Dogs:
"This Medium dog is specially trained to carry a Small humanoid rider. It is brave in combat like a warhorse. You take no damage when you fall from a riding dog."

The MM entry for the riding dog says:
"If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry). A riding dog can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check."

Neither of those entries says anything about combat riding absolutely or otherwise, only the entry for combat riding mentions it:
"Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose."

I read this as having some consequences:
1) If you purchase a riding dog, it comes pretrained for combat riding, so you don't have to put the effort in. These dogs can trip.
2) If you raise a riding dog, it isn't yet trained for anything, these dogs can't trip.
3) If you retrain a riding dog for another purpose, it can no longer trip because it is no longer trained for combat riding (war).
4) The Druid/Ranger animal companion is customizable based on whatever tricks the character picks and whatever training they can provide. If this ends up being combat riding is entirely dependent on the trainer.

[eggynack]

This is only a partial truth. The Equipment section states that purchased Riding Dogs:
"This Medium dog is specially trained to carry a Small humanoid rider. It is brave in combat like a warhorse. You take no damage when you fall from a riding dog."

The MM entry for the riding dog says:
"If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry). A riding dog can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check."

Neither of those entries says anything about combat riding absolutely or otherwise, only the entry for combat riding mentions it:
Neither of those quotes says that riding dogs have combat riding, but neither do either of those quotes say that riding dogs do not have combat riding. In particular, neither contradicts the entry for combat riding, so that entry holds up as true unless contradicted elsewhere. And actually, come to think of it the equipment entry doesn't really state that this quality is specific to purchased riding dogs, rather than to


I read this as having some consequences:
1) If you purchase a riding dog, it comes pretrained for combat riding, so you don't have to put the effort in. These dogs can trip.
2) If you raise a riding dog, it isn't yet trained for anything, these dogs can't trip.
3) If you retrain a riding dog for another purpose, it can no longer trip because it is no longer trained for combat riding (war).
4) The Druid/Ranger animal companion is customizable based on whatever tricks the character picks and whatever training they can provide. If this ends up being combat riding is entirely dependent on the trainer.
1 and 3 are definitely accurate. The first in self evident fashion, and the second because, despite the default of combat riding, if you train away that skill you're no longer working with the default. On 2 though, it's harder to be sure, as the game does seem to state combat riding in all cases, unless specifically trained otherwise. It looks like, once you have a fully grown riding dog, you have a riding dog with combat riding, though it's hard to tell whether that's a consequence of an initial training in combat riding being necessary for a creature to be a riding dog, or because riding dogs just naturally know this stuff for some reason.

That brings things to 4, and I'm not really sure how accurate it is, particularly because it's hard to identify the scope. By my reckoning, a given riding dog animal companion will have its combat riding by default, and you can indeed customize it beyond that point such that it wouldn't have combat riding. The way I figure it, disproving that assertion would require two things. First, you would have to prove that we're working with something more akin to a "raised" riding dog than a "purchased" riding dog. It's a bit tricky, because I don't think that animal companions particularly fit into either category. You're not really raising this creature from scratch, after all, and neither are you picking it up from someone who explicitly created a particular product. Second, you would have to prove the accuracy of claim 2, which has the objections I noted above.