Difference between revisions of "Talk:Table: Class Skills"

Revision as of 14:50, 20 January 2010

Looking at this table, I now realize that anything with Ride as a class skill also has Handle Animal. My bad. -Slitherrr

Yeah. I would be surprised if it were not so. Isn't Handle Animal stuff like knowing how to take care of your mount? Anyway, the situation with Gnob was more, Ride = The Horse You Are On. Handle Animal = A Horse Someone Else Is On. Even if Fighter's did not have Handle Animal, that'd be the skill to check to grab control of a horse they're not "ride"ing. -gm

Well, except grabbing someone else's reins really is more of an Opposed Ride check, because it's more about getting into better position. In Gnob's case, though, the horse was still in control of itself, so Handle Animal still applies. My interpretation would be that, in general, Handle Animal for when the horse is in control of itself (aside from the process of mounting), and Ride for when the horse is under any rider's (not just your) control, since the rider generally has final say over where the horse goes.

When I thought that Fighters and Paladins didn't have Handle Animal as a class skill, I was thinking that Ride just covered Handle Animal-type actions with mounts, because it would make up for the lack of general animal knowledge. After all, getting a horse to calm down and stuff is definitely within the Fighter and Paladin schticks (especially since Paladin gets a special mount as a class ability). Since Handle Animal is a class skill for both of those, I have revised my thinking. -Slitherrr

As I understood it, Ride is a physical skill that covers your competence on and around a horse (hence being dex based). Things like getting on a horse quickly, staying on a horse in combat, getting off a running horse, etc. Handle animal is used for interacting with a horse--mostly getting it to do things it might not otherwise do (cha based). Getting a horse to charge into a pike line, run down a steep hill, or leading a horse to water and making him drink. I think the section on mounted combat has some examples of this sort of stuff. --Msallen

Find me a specific ruling about taking control of a mount directly controlled by another is a ride check, and it'll be ride. The very word "ride" implies that you are sitting on top of a mount. Until then, fucking with someone else's mount will be Handle Animal, or, if we want to get excessively rules-lawyerly about it, it will simply explicitly disallowed as it is not specifically stated as being an option under any skill. I suppose we can really make this a hill worth dying on and go with the nonsensical ride check. In that case, I look forward to your next encounter. I promise you it will not be a ranger running around getting you guys tossed and trampled by simply coming up next to you and making a Ride Checks and then forcing all your mounts to run off with simple ride checks. That would be petty and vindictive, with the only upside being it proves my point about it making no sense.

For the record, what I actually did was a contested roll: Your Handle Animal vs. Gnob's Ride, and I stand by that. Next time Gnob tries to ride off, it will once again be the check. ;) -gm

I think I accidentally deleted a bunch of stuff? Another simuledit FTL! :) Sorry. -gm

Yeah, we did sort of resolve a lot of stuff. I actually think the given rules are a little silly around this issue. It seems like the printed rules fold a lot of actions that I would consider handle animal into ride, like forcing a mount to ride into a dangerous situation. I assume this is to balance the skills around mounted fighters that might not want to sink all 2 of their skill points into animal related stuff every level. So the rules sort of read like Ride is used when you have your hands on the animal, which makes the situation that apparently occurred in that last game ambiguous, since both actors had their hands on the animal. IMO, I would think it should be an opposed handle animal roll if two people are trying to issue competing commands to an animal. But ride is clearly *not* limited to just the athletic parts of riding a mount as I had previously assumed. --Msallen

Yeah, some sort of opposed roll is in order, clearly. In the case of Gnob, it hardly matters, since Kib is going to out roll him on all but the worst days, but I'd rather have the argument done and resolved over something trifling rather than something pivot. Now that Mattie has his warhorse, I'm doubly interested in parsing this stuff out: he's the only person on earth who can out rule-lawyer me on every day of the week. My personal rule of thumb has thus far been : if you're climbing on it or sitting on it - ride. Otherwise - handle animal. It's as good a rule of thumb as any, and frankly I'm a little surprised the rule book doesn't cover it at all. Ah, finally have a real-life Ask The Sage question and there is no more sage! -gm

I'm actually not arguing against your ruling at all, I was just hashing out the rest of it for future results. Note that above I noted that ride probably didn't apply no matter what in Gnob's case, since he wasn't even in control of the horse yet. The whole point of all the above is just to get as much of what I've been thinking about the skills into a place where the thought can be examined as possible. No need to get all strong language-y, this definitely isn't about me going "fuck you it shoulda been ride!!1!". I just need to know how we do it because it's going to affect what skills I get with Kib, since horse is part of his thing. -Slitherrr

Heh, sorry, did not mean to come off as being hostile. In sort of a FML mood this week and it's making me more vulgar generally than I might otherwise be. Like I said, this is a good conversation to have, because I know that Mattie is about to start trying all kinds of crazy rulebending shit now that he has an At Will Summonable Mount. -gm

Also, pretty sure I fucked something up again. FML, indeed. -gm