Trained animals with character levels?

[nittanytbone]

Here's the link for the Wild Cohort Feat:
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a

 

[Quartz]

Having this defined by a feat seems a bit wrong: a character could almost just jump on a random horse and it would instantly gain HD and special abilities. It also means that you can't customise the creature: there are so many feats from which to choose. Think about the difference between a warhorse Ftr 4 that has Weapon Focus: Bite, Improved Natural Attack, and Weapon Specialisation: Bite as its fighter feats and one that has Dodge, Mobility, and Weapon Focus: Hoof. An experienced mount might have the Mounted Combat feat, granting anyone who rides it that ability.

I like this idea.

I do agree that such a creature should be treated like a cohort.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Now then comes XP. I would only grant xp equal to half of what the character gained because it is not acting fully independantly (being guided, commanded, instructed, etc), and these XP are only gained for activities that directly involve the animal's qualities... just keeping up with the party does not necessarily count. This behooves the character (player) with active animals to interact with the animals, and put them in the line of fire occasionally, so that the creatures can earn their advancements.

Why does a mount need XP? He's not crafting magic items or casting spells with an XP cost, I hope.
If he doesn't use it then why track it? Just level the danged horse when you think he should level up.

The only reason to track experience points is if they are a resource. They are only a resource if they can be used for things.
For PCs, experience points can be used for a) rewarding players, b) making magic items, c) casting spells and d) gaining levels. For a PC's mount, experience points are used for (d) only. So why go to the trouble of tracking them when the DM can just say "Sir Chastain gains 6,375 XP and Champion is now level 6"?

 

[smootrk]

Because

This behooves the character (player) with active animals to interact with the animals, and put them in the line of fire occasionally, so that the creatures can earn their advancements.

In other words, it forces the player to incorporate the beastie into play if he wants to 'upgrade' it. It puts the onus on the PC... no telling the DM, "I am 'X' level, so my mount must be 'Y' tough now."

 

[ValhallaGH]

Players that tell me what "must be" in my games tend to find horrible, horrible things happening to their characters.

As for onus, the onus is always on the PC. The onus of the entire story is on the PC. My suggestion just cuts down on the book-keeping.

"Why hasn't Lucky leveled up in 14 sessions? I've gone up three levels and Champion has gone up two."
"Because Lucky has been sitting in the barn. There are no Dire Were-Lemming Colossal Half-Red Dragon Oozes in the barn. You want Lucky to level up? Get Lucky out where she can get some experience."

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I was curious if there were rules that said that. i could see int 1 and 2 creature taking class level but losing anything they couldn't use.

I couldn't find specific rules. The following is as close as I could come.

Under Improving Monsters it states:

Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

...Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.

...Both intelligent and nonintelligent creatures with an unusual heritage or an inflicted change in their essential nature may be modified with a template. Templates usually result in tougher monsters with capabilities that differ from those of their common kin.

As you can see, there is no hard text that says "you can not do this." But I do believe the text rather strongly suggests that intelligence is required to take class levels.

Here one must define what "intelligent" means. I could see an argument being made that anything other than vermin, which are "mindless" would qualify.

Myself, I draw the line at Int 3. Anything lower is classified as vermin or animal and does not have the learning capacity to pick up a character class.

 

[Stalker0]

You could allow mounted combat to cover some of these. Perhaps mounted combat adds X to the creatures hp or HD or something to resist attack and damage. That way a very advanced rider knows how to keep his mount alive even in the face of fireballs and deadly effects.