Handle Animal

[MukkTB]

In 3rd edition handle animal was stupidly good. In 4th edition I don't know, but I suspect it wasn't quite so stronk. In 5e handle animal is much more ambiguous than 3.5. By RAW, what kind of things can handle animal still do? Is there some way of knowing which animals in the monster manual are domestic or domesticable beyond common sense? How do you handle experience if you have an animal in your party? Say a horse, a dog, or even a pet rust monster. (I never understood this last one in 3.5 either.)

This is what I have discerned, or more accurately failed to discern.
-It is possible to ride a mount without handle animal. However there is an ambiguous line with regard to stunts. Once your commands to the animal become "risky" you have to make a check. Is riding into battle against normal humans risky? How about charging a dragon? Is jumping a hurdle on a practice field risky, or is it only risky in real situation? The book doesn't say. Every DM has to individually decide what they want.

-Does a mount spook for thematic reasons such as when a dragon flies overhead? Does it spook if it gets stabbed with a sword? Again the DM has to decide.

-For domestic animals handle animal can "calm them down." There is not a RAW line for controlling them with handle animal unless they are a mount.

-For non domestic animals handle animal acts as sense motive. It doesn't let a player 'diplomacy' an animal, domesticate it, or even calm it down.

-There are not rules for training an animal. The DM can make up whatever they want.

If I read this correctly, it feels like handle animal is a necessary skill for mounted combatants with a harsh DM. It's a nice skill for mounted combatants with a forgiving DM. This skill alone isn't going to open access to pets like say a hunting cat. Roleplay would be the correct route route. Even better is to be a ranger. In the harshest RAW reading this skill has nothing to do with pets, unless they're mounts. Even then the skill can't turn a creature into a mount. It has to already be domesticated and willing.

My conclusions:
Ride is now wisdom based.
Handle animal is only a good pet skill depending on how your DM house rules domestication.

[Scirocco]

You don't need Animal Handling for mounts. Proficiency in land vehicles is sufficient.

[Sartharina]

You don't need Animal Handling for mounts. Proficiency in land vehicles is sufficient.

No, you need Animal Handling for mounts you directly control. Land Vehicles is for carts/chariots/wagons/racecars/Battletanx. Actually - Dex(Land Vehicles) could be useful for stunts on a land animal. Hmm...

As far as experience... I think 4e's guidelines might work - Detract the XP value of the mount from the XP value of the encounter if it contributes significantly to the fight.

[BW022]

This is what I have discerned, or more accurately failed to discern.
-It is possible to ride a mount without handle animal. However there is an ambiguous line with regard to stunts. Once your commands to the animal become "risky" you have to make a check. Is riding into battle against normal humans risky? How about charging a dragon? Is jumping a hurdle on a practice field risky, or is it only risky in real situation? The book doesn't say. Every DM has to individually decide what they want.


For a normal riding horse, pretty much any combat would be risky. For a warhorse... combat with normal humanoids, other animals, etc. wouldn't be risky. An elephant, griffon, a fireball, or a fire elemental would likely be something which would cause a check.



-Does a mount spook for thematic reasons such as when a dragon flies overhead? Does it spook if it gets stabbed with a sword? Again the DM has to decide.


Dragons cause fear as part of their abilities. However, a large dragon flying overhead would likely be sufficient to cause even a warhorse to panic. A sword hit would likely panic a riding horse. It likely wouldn't phase a warhorse.



-For domestic animals handle animal can "calm them down." There is not a RAW line for controlling them with handle animal unless they are a mount.


Sure. Depending upon the situation.



-For non domestic animals handle animal acts as sense motive. It doesn't let a player 'diplomacy' an animal, domesticate it, or even calm it down.


I'd permit 'diplomacy' within the range of what the animal can understand. If you have some meat, you can 'diplomacy' a bear to eat the meat rather than you. If you have a torch, maybe you can 'intimidate' some wolves into backing off. Domestication is something you likely can't do on most animals, baring say finding young.



-There are not rules for training an animal. The DM can make up whatever they want.


Sure.



If I read this correctly, it feels like handle animal is a necessary skill for mounted combatants with a harsh DM.


Any character can attempt the check untrained. The DCs are likely to be in insane levels. Like most skills... checks shouldn't be used/required for mundane activities. Warhorses don't panic at normal combat. However, given that PCs often face magic and supernatural creatures... taking a horse against non-mundane creatures is likely to start requiring checks. However, since even warhorses have limited hit points... most PCs won't be taking horses into combats against such creatures. It is also highly situational... most mounts aren't useful in dungeons, on ships, in forests, in swamps, etc., etc. Paladins and higher level characters would be looking for mounts less likely to die in combat so easily.



It's a nice skill for mounted combatants with a forgiving DM. This skill alone isn't going to open access to pets like say a hunting cat. Roleplay would be the correct route route. Even better is to be a ranger. In the harshest RAW reading this skill has nothing to do with pets, unless they're mounts. Even then the skill can't turn a creature into a mount. It has to already be domesticated and willing.


Few wild animals can be domesticated unless raised from birth. Few campaigns are going to allow years of down time to raise a bear cub to adulthood. As such, I don't see domestication (or even training) to be a typical issues in most campaigns.

[Daishain]

-It is possible to ride a mount without handle animal. However there is an ambiguous line with regard to stunts. Once your commands to the animal become "risky" you have to make a check. Is riding into battle against normal humans risky? How about charging a dragon? Is jumping a hurdle on a practice field risky, or is it only risky in real situation? The book doesn't say. Every DM has to individually decide what they want.Depends on training. A standard horse trained only for general travel is very likely to be spooked going into battle regardless of how dangerous the opponent actually is. This can be mitigated if its relationship with the rider is such that it trusts said rider implicitly.


-Does a mount spook for thematic reasons such as when a dragon flies overhead? Does it spook if it gets stabbed with a sword? Again the DM has to decide.Again depends on training, but generally yes


-For domestic animals handle animal can "calm them down." There is not a RAW line for controlling them with handle animal unless they are a mount.correct


-For non domestic animals handle animal acts as sense motive. It doesn't let a player 'diplomacy' an animal, domesticate it, or even calm it down.It still works just fine on wild animals based on my understanding. It is however much more difficult. Its a bit like the difference between persuading a friend of the family, and an enemy who you've wronged. The latter may be just barely possible, but is going to take one heck of a silver tongue if there aren't extenuating circumstances.


-There are not rules for training an animal. The DM can make up whatever they want.

If I read this correctly, it feels like handle animal is a necessary skill for mounted combatants with a harsh DM. It's a nice skill for mounted combatants with a forgiving DM. This skill alone isn't going to open access to pets like say a hunting cat. Roleplay would be the correct route route. Even better is to be a ranger. In the harshest RAW reading this skill has nothing to do with pets, unless they're mounts. Even then the skill can't turn a creature into a mount. It has to already be domesticated and willing.For now true. The DMG is likely to have rules/suggestions for domestication. Traditionally, training an animal (domesticated or otherwise) involves a series of AH checks over a certain number of weeks. Domesticating wild animals, (if the DM rules it is possible at all) unless starting with a cub/hatchling/whatever, is going to take much longer, with tougher AH checks, and would likely require extenuating circumstances that force the animal to rely on you.

[MustacheFart]

I really think proficency (land vehicles) includes land-based mounts like horses. They don't explicitly state what's included within "land vehicles". In fact the first paragraph of the equipment section talking about mounts and vehicles alludes to the fact (in my opinion) that horse would fall under land vehicles.

Otherwise, that means the soldier background is automatically proficient with carts, wagons, chariots, and carriages but he isn't with a horse? That's makes zero sense to me.

Anyone know how you do that thing where you ask the devs a question? I constantly see it mentioned here and that's one question I'd like to ask.