Taming mounts

[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.