Taming mounts

[shadeoux]

Discuss please, I was just thinking why does it matter that you have to ride them (Other than codewise) to tame them.

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't really see why not. But then again I know nothing about taming in real life. Maybe you need to be in full control and riding it to tame it. Maybe you don't.


What would be sick is if it was possible to BREED mounts. Tamed from birth.

[Barsook]

If there will be taming, why not have a skill for breeding also.  It might give some cool reasons to roleplay a mount seller.

[janeshephard]

If there will be taming, why not have a skill for breeding also.  It might give some cool reasons to roleplay a mount seller.

Current professions need more love?

[slvrmoontiger]

Okay, to me this just seems like another "everyone should be able to climb" debate. As having played several PCs that have the skills to tame wild mounts this is one of the perks you get picking that guild. Sorry but I don't think this should change. Personally I think if you want to tame a mount you should pick a guild that has it as a possibility. Also, how would someone that doesn't even know how to ride an animal and thus doesn't spend any time with them be able to relate to that animal to tame it. Just doesn't seem real life like.

Amos says in Sirihish:
"I've never ridden an inix and know nothing about them.

Amos peers out of the moving wagon and sees a wild inix.

Amos says the to the wagon driver in Sirihish:
"Driver pull this thing over I'm going to go tame that inix over there."

Sounds pretty ludicrous if you ask me.

[Molten Heart]

I voted maybe.

If someone already posses the skill to plausibly tame a mount, I think they should be able to tame a mount.  Currently this is gauged with the ride skill.  I could be wrong, but from the examples given I'm guessing that what's being suggested is that someone with the appropriate skill should be able to tame a mount without having to actually use the "mount" command.  This would allow ranger half-giants and ranger elves with skill with animals to be able to tame tamable mounts that they normally wouldn't be able to because of current restrictions (example: half-giants are restricted by the code from mounting weaker/smaller animals and elves are restricted by racial mores).

[Lizzie]

I voted maybe.

If someone already posses the skill to plausibly tame a mount, I think they should be able to tame a mount.  Currently this is gauged with the ride skill.  I could be wrong, but from the examples given I'm guessing that what's being suggested is that someone with the appropriate skill should be able to tame a mount without having to actually use the "mount" command.  This would allow ranger half-giants and ranger elves with skill with animals to be able to tame tamable mounts that they normally wouldn't be able to because of current restrictions (example: half-giants are restricted by the code from mounting weaker/smaller animals and elves are restricted by racial mores).

1. Desert elves can cash in any of the dozens of mount tickets they have laying around their camp, no need to tame another one.
2. Half-giants can already carry more than the average erdlu can carry - if he's trying to tame something he is too big to ride, then he really doesn't need to tame anything.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

In all honesty taming should be a different skill than ride anyway. You don't ride a dog to tame it. We don't have dogs (we should) buy we do have pet objects. Taming could invoke a different skill and be a sub all of its own, allowing you to take smaller things and convert them into pet objects.

[janeshephard]

In all honesty taming should be a different skill than ride anyway. You don't ride a dog to tame it. We don't have dogs (we should) buy we do have pet objects. Taming could invoke a different skill and be a sub all of its own, allowing you to take smaller things and convert them into pet objects.

There's no beastmaster skill. Currently the ride skill lets you tame ridable beasts.

We have 'toks and I've seen at least one tame 'tok before in game. That required staff to create it though. It was some noble who had it IIRC.

[shadeoux]

I voted maybe.

If someone already posses the skill to plausibly tame a mount, I think they should be able to tame a mount.  Currently this is gauged with the ride skill.  I could be wrong, but from the examples given I'm guessing that what's being suggested is that someone with the appropriate skill should be able to tame a mount without having to actually use the "mount" command.  This would allow ranger half-giants and ranger elves with skill with animals to be able to tame tamable mounts that they normally wouldn't be able to because of current restrictions (example: half-giants are restricted by the code from mounting weaker/smaller animals and elves are restricted by racial mores).

This is exactly what I meant.

[Molten Heart]

I voted maybe.

If someone already posses the skill to plausibly tame a mount, I think they should be able to tame a mount.  Currently this is gauged with the ride skill.  I could be wrong, but from the examples given I'm guessing that what's being suggested is that someone with the appropriate skill should be able to tame a mount without having to actually use the "mount" command.  This would allow ranger half-giants and ranger elves with skill with animals to be able to tame tamable mounts that they normally wouldn't be able to because of current restrictions (example: half-giants are restricted by the code from mounting weaker/smaller animals and elves are restricted by racial mores).

This is exactly what I meant.

I changed my vote to yes.

[slvrmoontiger]

Awww I want a pet 'tok to hunt with me.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

In all honesty taming should be a different skill than ride anyway. You don't ride a dog to tame it. We don't have dogs (we should) buy we do have pet objects. Taming could invoke a different skill and be a sub all of its own, allowing you to take smaller things and convert them into pet objects.

There's no beastmaster skill. Currently the ride skill lets you tame ridable beasts.

We have 'toks and I've seen at least one tame 'tok before in game. That required staff to create it though. It was some noble who had it IIRC.

I know, I had it. I'm also well aware that there's no beastmastery skill. It was a suggestion, Jane.

[James de Monet]

I theenk you guys are getting the wrong idea about how taming works. I'm pretty sure the idea is that it looks like this:



Not like this:



Little hard to manage if you can't ride the animal.

[slvrmoontiger]

I theenk you guys are getting the wrong idea about how taming works. I'm pretty sure the idea is that it looks like this:



Not like this:



Little hard to manage if you can't ride the animal.

See that was my point exactly. I was just too lazy to find pics... Maybe I should have.

[BleakOne]

A half giant -can- tame an ox... it's just the ox doesn't survive the process. 

[Qzzrbl]

>subdue ox

[valeria]

>subdue ox

>pet ox forcefully

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

In all honesty taming should be a different skill than ride anyway. You don't ride a dog to tame it. We don't have dogs (we should) buy we do have pet objects. Taming could invoke a different skill and be a sub all of its own, allowing you to take smaller things and convert them into pet objects.

Gonna just ... highlight the ... parts I said that I guess got missed. I know how things currently work. I support the idea as presented, as well. These were extra thoughts.

[shadeoux]

In all honesty taming should be a different skill than ride anyway. You don't ride a dog to tame it. We don't have dogs (we should) buy we do have pet objects. Taming could invoke a different skill and be a sub all of its own, allowing you to take smaller things and convert them into pet objects.

Gonna just ... highlight the ... parts I said that I guess got missed. I know how things currently work. I support the idea as presented, as well. These were extra thoughts.

I can see a certain PC Tribe getting this ability.

[X-D]

Taming should require the ride skill...it should not require the mount command.

[slvrmoontiger]

Taming should require the ride skill...it should not require the mount command.

This is a good point.

[Qzzrbl]

But how would one raise the ride skill without riding?

[BleakOne]

But how would one raise the ride skill without riding?

Failing at not-riding taming, maybe?

[X-D]

What he said

[Bushranger]

Taming should require the ride skill...it should not require the mount command.

I would like to see this. Like "plant" uses the steal skill have "tame" use the ride skill to provide a chance to tame animals that your PC can not ride. Tame would still result in the animal attacking on a failed attempt. When this is first implemented just have it for the mounts that are too small for you to ride (Half-Giant taming an erdlu, anyone trying to tame those halfling only mounts). This way if and when staff have time to go through the other animals (like gortok, quirri, etc) and decide if they are able to be tamed like this later after watching how it is used.

I would like to see certain tribes use this to flesh out their trade. Arabet and Sun Runners come to mind for this. Also any desert elf who ranger who wants to capture an animal to help carry the tribes tents/supplies.
Also I want my noble to have a pet jozhal pickpocket. "Oh, this is your signet ring Lord Templar? My silly pet must have taken a liking to it! Who's a silly jozhal!"

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'd sort of rather have varying degrees of fail. It shouldn't just default to attack. If something is letting you approach it, there's also a good chance it'll flee, or ignore your taming and just be curious, or even pay you absolutely no mind, irl. I'd like to see this implemented as well, in a fleshed out taming code.

[Barsook]

Taming should require the ride skill...it should not require the mount command.

+1, maybe command "tame <target>"

[brytta.leofa]

Taming should require the ride skill...it should not require the mount command.

+1, maybe command "tame <target>"

hitch <target>

[Barsook]

Why hitch?

[Twilight]

If you want to ride the mount, you should have to mount it to tame it.

If you just want to use it as a pack animal, you shouldn't have to ride it to tame it.

That's how it works in RL too.  Getting an animal to take a pack isn't really that hard.  You are basically teaching it to lead and to be comfortable with a load.  Getting an animal to accept a rider also requires teaching them how to rein (which you can't do until you are on it) and is a bit more difficult/requires more knowledge.

So, add a flag that when on a mountable animal doesn't allow you to mount it, only pack/unpack and hitch it.  Then you can have lower levels of tame (like DElf ranger riding level or even below that) use "hitch inix tame" to get a pack only animal.  Or you can mount it like currently to get a rideable animal.  Or you can mount a pack only tamed animal to try to take it to be a rideable animal, with the mount command and similar results to what we currently have.

[Barsook]

So, add a flag that when on a mountable animal doesn't allow you to mount it, only pack/unpack and hitch it.  Then you can have lower levels of tame (like DElf ranger riding level or even below that) use "hitch inix tame" to get a pack only animal.  Or you can mount it like currently to get a rideable animal.  Or you can mount a pack only tamed animal to try to take it to be a rideable animal, with the mount command and similar results to what we currently have.

+1

[James de Monet]

Twilight pretty much covered what I was going to say.

Wild animals need to be broken before they will take a rider, which requires riding. And to make an animal truly tame (such that it might be willing to take its first rider without biting or kicking) requires training it from infancy, which you aren't doing.

If you're talking about pets, that's a different story.

[X-D]

Um...that is untrue  James.

Take the mustang for example...wild horses who often have never known the hand of man...Now yes, -some people- use hard and fast methods often called breaking. But many others do not.

Of course the trust/friendship methods do take longer...only weeks at most.

I do like Twilights idea...in fact, I would not be against all mount taming being in steps starting at being able to lead, then later pack then later maybe ride...much more closely fits real life or even fantasy realism.


(edit) Wow...since when does the GDB have spell checking and auto-correct...or is it my computer?

[James de Monet]

I buy that you can take a mustang and train it not to bite, maybe follow a lead, without riding it. That's not the question. Can you take one, build trust with it but never mount it, then simply hand over the reins to someone else and let them ride it to Albuquerque, though? I find that very hard to swallow.

And I know horses are all we really have to draw on, but horses have a proven ability to build affinity with humans. Lizards and insects not so much.

This is why I think what is happening IG is basically exclusively breaking. It's fast, it's effective, and from what I understand, absolutely requires riding.

[slvrmoontiger]

So why not if the tame command were to get implement allow for taming it first to be a pack horse get it comfortable with you and then if you want to ride it you have to mount it. But don't make it so it will automatically attack you on site. If an animal gains trust first through handling without riding the most its going to do when you try to mount it would be to not let you by moving away. Similar to how someone with a low ride skill has trouble mounting a mount just after they've been thrown in combat. Or you could even make it so the tamed animal will throw you off several times when you try to mount it. But I think if the tame skill were to be implemented there should be varying degrees on how one tames a mount. You could just mount it straight out in the wild or you could tame it as a pet get it to know you and to trust you and then start working on training it as a mount. This too happens in real life.

[Jherlen]

> tame templar

[James de Monet]

>pack blame templar

You strap your culpability to a blue-robed templar's back.

[Jherlen]

> mount templar

[slvrmoontiger]

> mount templar

Oooh only if she's young and pretty.

[Twilight]

I buy that you can take a mustang and train it not to bite, maybe follow a lead, without riding it. That's not the question. Can you take one, build trust with it but never mount it, then simply hand over the reins to someone else and let them ride it to Albuquerque, though? I find that very hard to swallow.

And I know horses are all we really have to draw on, but horses have a proven ability to build affinity with humans. Lizards and insects not so much.

This is why I think what is happening IG is basically exclusively breaking. It's fast, it's effective, and from what I understand, absolutely requires riding.

Potentially, if they have been taught to have something on their back, you could do that with a hackamore or something that controlled their head.  Less of a chance of getting a bit to work (depends on the bit) and pretty much no chance to get simply reining to work.

If I had my dream system, riding (or tame, whats the difference really anyways?) would tame in stages.  So one attempt to get to hitch them to you, then another attempt to ride them.  Mounts would have a Tamed value, between 0 and 100.  Anyone with riding could attempt to tame.  Each of the two tame attempts would modify the Tamed value, depending on the skill of the person attempting it.  So:

0-10:  Not docile.  Will attack whoever attempts to tame it.
11-19:  Mostly docile.  Will have a chance of attacking whoever attempts to tame it (11=90% chance, 19=10% chance)
20-25:  Docile.  Will not attack someone attempting to tame it.
26-45:  Pack animal.  Can hitch and pack/unpack it, but mounting counts as second tame attempt.  Chance to revert to lower tame level.
46-64:  Pack and riding animal.  Minimally trained to be able to ride.  Cannot ride with two weapons/twohanded/etc.  Chance to revert to lower tame level.
65-80:  Pack and riding animal.  Normally trained to be able to ride.  Can ride with two weapons/two-handed/etc.  Small chance to revert to lower tame level.
80-89:  Pack and riding animal minimally wartrained.  Expertly trained animal.  Can ride with two weapons/two-handed/etc.  No chance to revert to lower tame level.  Store bought fall here.
90: Pack, riding and fully war-trained animal.  Expertly trained animal.  Can ride with two weapons/two-handed/etc.  No chance to revert to lower tame level.  Ranger trained only.

So you have a wild animal.  It would have a base tame value between 0-25 that it loads with.  You "hitch mount tame" to try your first tame attempt.  If the value rises over 25, you are done with this stage.  If it doesn't go over 25, you can try again (assuming you survived the first attempt).  For a ranger with maxed tame, a successful tame with add between 10 and 45 tame points up to a maximum of 45.  Scale down from there, but with a cap of 30 (instead of 45) for any other guild.

You then get to try to mount it to tame it.  Again, the ranger has a range of between 10 - 45 tame points they can add, other guilds scaling but with a max of 30.  If they fail to get it above 45 points, they can try again with the mount command.  At or above 46 points, you cannot try to tame it again.  Note that this tame attempt would not have the mount attack you, but I think if you failed it should have a chance of forcing the mount to flee (and continue to be feared of you for a certain timeframe.  Yay for folks with sneak, boo for other folks).

You will note between tame level 26 and 64 there is a chance to revert to a lower tame level.  At certain events, like crash/reload into room or upon getting it out of a stable, there would be a chance of the tame level going down by 5.  If it falls below 46 or 26, you can attempt to tame it again with the appropriate method.  If tame value is between 65-80, if would go down by 2 instead of 5.

Minimally wartrained = can use charge and trample.  So, if you have a mount with less than a Tame value of 80, you can't trample/charge with them (not tamed enough for combat manuevers)

Wartrained = can use charge and trample.  Can do something undetermined (damage proc when being rode in combat?  +'s to accuracy and damage to rider? something small but visible).  Only a ranger with two excellent rolls could get a mount to be fully wartrained.

[Jherlen]

> mount templar

Oooh only if she's young and pretty.

I like them rugged and with some stubble, myself.

[ClanAlt123]

I can see the whole "building a friendship with love and sweet grasses let me put this pack on you!" working for certain critters. Like oxen, or maybe even gwoshi, but when you start moving on to animals that are capable of standing their ground and wrecking predators, I'm not so sure.

Even a tame, broken horse will bite you if the illusion of "this guy is my master" is broken for whatever reason. Now imagine this horse is a beetle and instead of big dumb horse teeth, there are razor sharp mandibles.

I don't know. Pack animal psychology is weird enough without throwing reptilian and insect brain structure in there.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

...since when does the GDB have spell checking and auto-correct...or is it my computer?

HAHAHAHAHA.

Gawd, X. You kill me, bro.

[X-D]

Hey now, I can't spell...sue me...but I was used to it now this silly thing is fixing it for me.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I know, X. Sometimes, you are just naturally funny. I know you're not trying to be, and that makes it even funnier.

Also, I like that, Twilight.

[Bushranger]

Twilight I really like your ideas on variable stages of taming animals.

I don't see why you would use 'hitch mount tame' instead of 'tame mount' for the 1-45 stages. I'd rather have easily understood commands instead of clunky syntax where possible.

[Synthesis]

I've done plenty of dumb shit with half-giants before, so maybe I'm not one to talk...but should half-giants really be out taming mounts by their lonesome, in the first place?

As far as d-elves taming mounts is concerned...yeah, people have been bitching about that for years--but honestly, what is it going to add to the game?  You'll either have a shitload of mount tickets sitting around the camp from all your ranger noobs practicing tame, or end up making mountains of 'sid maxing out the butcher shop in the city, instead of doing -really- d-elfy things to earn your living.  Sure, you could pester people into buying mounts or whatever, but nobody really gives a rat's ass about mounts.  They just want your expensive liquor...why waste your time with some mount bullshit?  I suppose you might -occasionally- use a mount to haul crap around, but the ratio of (times you need a mount to haul shit but don't have a mount) to (times your ranger noobs need to practice taming) is going to be infinitesimally small., and there are a good half-dozen reasons why you, as a d-elf PC, don't want to be leading a mount around in the first place.

[BleakOne]

You make a good point there Synthesis. I still like the idea though. Hmm...

[Ourla]

In all honesty taming should be a different skill than ride anyway. You don't ride a dog to tame it. We don't have dogs (we should) buy we do have pet objects. Taming could invoke a different skill and be a sub all of its own, allowing you to take smaller things and convert them into pet objects.

There's no beastmaster skill. Currently the ride skill lets you tame ridable beasts.

We have 'toks and I've seen at least one tame 'tok before in game. That required staff to create it though. It was some noble who had it IIRC.

It was my Lirathan templar, acksually.  She bought it from the Kuracis who bred it.

[Lizzie]

In all honesty taming should be a different skill than ride anyway. You don't ride a dog to tame it. We don't have dogs (we should) buy we do have pet objects. Taming could invoke a different skill and be a sub all of its own, allowing you to take smaller things and convert them into pet objects.

There's no beastmaster skill. Currently the ride skill lets you tame ridable beasts.

We have 'toks and I've seen at least one tame 'tok before in game. That required staff to create it though. It was some noble who had it IIRC.

It was my Lirathan templar, acksually.  She bought it from the Kuracis who bred it.

That wasn't a gortok. It was a specially-bred hybrid animal that was raised in a litter by humans (one of which was my PC). It wasn't "tamed" because it was never wild in the first place. However, it was also -not- amenable to humans until trained - and the training took months - not moments. And no one was trying to ride it. And - it was kept on a leash, and it was a vicious guard-animal that would've not hesitated to rip the throat out of anyone that it felt was a threat (or was ordered to do so by its handler).

[Incognito]

I'm with the opinion that taming should be independent of the ride skill, and the ability to mount the beast.

Mounting a beast is dependent on size/weight restrictions.

The ride skill actually determines how well you can manoeuver them - especially in difficult terrain or at high speeds.

Coupling the ride skill with the ability to tame mounts - leaves elves at a distinct disadvantage as an entire race.

I don't need to be able to ride a horse really well, to be able to trap a herd or a single horse - just so I can use it's meat/hide etc.

On the other hand - if I want to "break" the horse so that it will accept a rider, then yes - I need to be able to ride well.

There is a part of the Zalanthan population that definitely could use the ability to tame mounts, and use them as beasts of burden, or, for their meat/milk/hide/bones etc - that aren't currently able to do so ICLY.

[Lizzie]

I'm with the opinion that taming should be independent of the ride skill, and the ability to mount the beast.

Mounting a beast is dependent on size/weight restrictions.

The ride skill actually determines how well you can manoeuver them - especially in difficult terrain or at high speeds.

Coupling the ride skill with the ability to tame mounts - leaves elves at a distinct disadvantage as an entire race.

I don't need to be able to ride a horse really well, to be able to trap a herd or a single horse - just so I can use it's meat/hide etc.

On the other hand - if I want to "break" the horse so that it will accept a rider, then yes - I need to be able to ride well.

There is a part of the Zalanthan population that definitely could use the ability to tame mounts, and use them as beasts of burden, or, for their meat/milk/hide/bones etc - that aren't currently able to do so ICLY.

If desert elves PCs were not restricted to approved, coded tribes with coded encampments, where PCs could save items including dozens of mount tickets acquired through other means...I'd agree.

However, at the present time, there are only two desert elf tribes that are able to have PCs in them.  Both tribes traditionally have several (if not many) mount tickets sitting in their camps. And since they already have them, it stands to reason they managed to acquire them without having to tame a single one themselves.

I really don't think desert elves are at a disadvantage just because they can't tame wild mounts.

[Qzzrbl]

As it stands right now, the only tame'able things (without staff assistance) are mounts. Mounts that you ride. There are -several- reasons you just can't tie a rope on a wild horse and throw on some saddlebags and expect everything to work out just fine. He'll either try to buck off the weight or say "fuck this" and lie down, and that's assuming he even lets you get close or tighten any straps. Being a skilled rider certainly plays a big part in training mounts irl-- as a matter of fact, the only real-world pack animals I can think of off the top of my head that didn't need to be ridden at one point or another are farm-raised cattle that wouldn't know any better.

Elves are a backwards people.

"You'd think after all these years, they'd wisen up and learn to tame animals without riding them for carrying stuff!"

Is that the argument?

Yeah. You'd think after all these years, they'd wisen up and actually bother with riding animals to begin with. Or use wagons. Or ride skimmers.

I don't see it'd be so hard to add their inability to tame to the list of "shit elves do that we humans just don't understand".

::edited to add::

Okay. So yeah. You might be able to earn a horse's trust RL without ever hopping on it's back-- but it goes without saying. That would take several months, if not years of regular contact.

[Chettaman]

Man, am I late for this discussion.

I think it would be super-cool to be able to gain an affinity with creature(s) somehow. Not just to codedly ride. But to chill with when you're all alone in the desert. Mess around with tregil and goudra all day. Verrin to keep an ever watchful eye on you. Having to scald skeet for trying to eat your pants. And normal little birds.

I say, this awesome sounding ''tame'' command should be a roleplayed scenario with the help of our gracious over-lords. Because - if the animal has its mind concluded about the world it lives in, changing its views would require much more than a command. (in most circumstances - this is a fantasy world, let us not forget)

One would have to ''capture'' the creature or otherwise keep it safe while taming/trust earning was going on. (if the creature didn't flat out begin to trust)

But other than useable pets. I think something crazy like this should really be an IMM assisted thing.

[shadeoux]

Hi, I'm Dar, this is my pet Gaj, what do you think..

[Desertman]

I just want this changed because there are some mounts in the game that can be ridden by smaller races that I can't tame with my larger pc's...because I can't codedly mount them.

[slvrmoontiger]

I just want this changed because there are some mounts in the game that can be ridden by smaller races that I can't tame with my larger pc's...because I can't codedly mount them.

Sorry this is how it should be if you want to tame a mount as a mount you need to be able to ride them. Just like wild horses as has been discussed in previous posts.

[RogueGunslinger]

I just want this changed because there are some mounts in the game that can be ridden by smaller races that I can't tame with my larger pc's...because I can't codedly mount them.

Sorry this is how it should be if you want to tame a mount as a mount you need to be able to ride them. Just like wild horses as has been discussed in previous posts.

That's your opinion.

[Desertman]

I just want this changed because there are some mounts in the game that can be ridden by smaller races that I can't tame with my larger pc's...because I can't codedly mount them.

Sorry this is how it should be if you want to tame a mount as a mount you need to be able to ride them. Just like wild horses as has been discussed in previous posts.

Good point actually. Teaching them to be ridden would require being able to ride them.

You can however green break horses so that they can be hitched and led without ever getting on them.

Maybe some sort of middle ground for "taming" but not necessarily to "be ridden". When you start to break a horse you typically go through stages of getting them accustom to being handled, then having weight on their backs, then being handled with weight on their backs, then finally after that, you start trying to actually ride them.

With young horses we would always saddle and unsaddle them regularly so they would get used to this sensation of weight on their backs and our presence. I say "we", but by the time I was a young teen we had gotten rid of all of our horses. I do however still remember how it was done.

They were tamed, but not broken for riding.

[RogueGunslinger]

Realistically taming/breaking a mount should take weeks and sometimes months, too, but lets not dwell too much on realism. There should be levels of taming, like was brought up earlier. And progressing through those levels should go faster the more skilled you are.

Something like:
Level 0 Can't be hitched, will attack you if an aggressive animal.
Level 1: Can be hitched, but if ridden bucks you off, or attacks on crit failures.
Level 2: Can be hitched and ridden.

[slvrmoontiger]

I just want this changed because there are some mounts in the game that can be ridden by smaller races that I can't tame with my larger pc's...because I can't codedly mount them.

Sorry this is how it should be if you want to tame a mount as a mount you need to be able to ride them. Just like wild horses as has been discussed in previous posts.

Good point actually. Teaching them to be ridden would require being able to ride them.

You can however green break horses so that they can be hitched and led without ever getting on them.

Maybe some sort of middle ground for "taming" but not necessarily to "be ridden". When you start to break a horse you typically go through stages of getting them accustom to being handled, then having weight on their backs, then being handled with weight on their backs, then finally after that, you start trying to actually ride them.

With young horses we would always saddle and unsaddle them regularly so they would get used to this sensation of weight on their backs and our presence. I say "we", but by the time I was a young teen we had gotten rid of all of our horses. I do however still remember how it was done.

They were tamed, but not broken for riding.

This I concur with. However, if you want to sell it as a mount to someone that can ride it they need to have a high ride skill or they will be either attacked, bucked off, mount will just lay down and refuse to go anywhere, or it will buck them off. I don't think for instance a HG would have a VALID IC reason to tame a animal for riding if they can't ride it.

[BleakOne]

I don't think for instance a HG would have a VALID IC reason to tame a animal for riding if they can't ride it.

If a person who knew how to tame them taught the HG how, and told him to tame something, he'd do it. HGs generally only do things they gain pleasure from, things to avoid displeasure, and things they are told to do.

[Molten Heart]

I read a lot about just half-giants but the problem of being too heavy to ride some mounts but this isn't limited only to them.

[Chettaman]

>tame/hitch/subdue tregil
"I'm going to love him and keep him and pet him and love him. Forever and ever, George."

[evilcabbage]

>tame/hitch/subdue tregil
"I'm going to love him and keep him and pet him and love him. Forever and ever, George."

And we're gonna have a big farm, with lots of tregils.