Hey, in my last campaign I was playing a feral child goblin ranger who was raised by wolves. We encountered a den of wolves and I tried to coax one to being nonhostile. Could this be done, or no because the dm said it wouldn't work. What uses can I use animal handling for?
Animal Handling. When there is any question whether you can calm down a domesticated animal, keep a mount from getting spooked, or intuit an animal’s intentions, the DM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. You also make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to control your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver.
Yes, by all rights you could use animal handling on those wolves. The way they respond to the success/failure is dependent on the DM's discretion however. A flat out, no, you can't use Animal Handling on a wild animal, is incorrect by my understanding.
You can try to calm a domestic animal, or gain insight into any animal's intentions. Pacifying a wild animal would be just outside the bounds for my game but I would have let you roll the check to see if you could determine why the wolf was being hostile - which could possibly lead to a way to deescalate the encounter. In fact, with your background I'd give you advantage on such a check with wolves specifically.
Uses for animal handling I do allow in my game - determine the quality of a mount. Pull off a stunt or tricky maneuver while mounted. Calm a raging bull (domesticated). Compete in a horse race. Keep an animal calm in the midst of a battle / fire / monster attack. Keep an animal quiet while you steal it.
You can try to calm a domestic animal, or gain insight into any animal's intentions. Pacifying a wild animal would be just outside the bounds for my game but I would have let you roll the check to see if you could determine why the wolf was being hostile - which could possibly lead to a way to deescalate the encounter.
You are presenting an argument that animals are tame or wild for the sake of the skill. Which, creating that kind of clarification, is helpful to both the players and the DM. However there is a quandary here: How do you domesticate an animal?
You find a wild one, and tame it. If you deescalate the encounter that means you're pacifying the animal: the opposite of aggressive is passive. A binary system wild | tame can't exist logically. Before we go into suspension of disbelief I refer to the question: How do you domesticate an animal?
I would allow a player to use animal handling to attempt to calm a wild animal, but probably with a pretty high DC (15?) and with disadvantage.
However, in the specific instance of a character who was raised by wolves, I would give them advantage on animal handling checks involving wolves and dogs, which would net out to a flat skill check roll.
You can try to calm a domestic animal, or gain insight into any animal's intentions. Pacifying a wild animal would be just outside the bounds for my game but I would have let you roll the check to see if you could determine why the wolf was being hostile - which could possibly lead to a way to deescalate the encounter.
You are presenting an argument that animals are tame or wild for the sake of the skill. Which, creating that kind of clarification, is helpful to both the players and the DM. However there is a quandary here: How do you domesticate an animal?
You find a wild one, and tame it. If you deescalate the encounter that means you're pacifying the animal: the opposite of aggressive is passive. A binary system wild | tame can't exist logically. Before we go into suspension of disbelief I refer to the question: How do you domesticate an animal?
Technically, I'm not arguing a distinction between tame vs wild but just pointing out the language in the skill itself makes reference to a specific use case that involves domesticated animals. They list other examples of using the skill where they don't use the word "domesticated" so there's a baked in distinction in the rules. but it turns out it doesn't matter per the sage advice linked below.
In real life animals are domesticated as a species - cows, dogs, pigs are domesticated, versus buffalo, wolves, and boars are wild. Individual wild animals can be tamed, but that doesn't make them domesticated. That happens via generational breeding.
So Animal Handling already pretty low tier on the useful skills. I don't understand the thing about only usable against Domesticated animals. This is often the skill recommended for Druids/Rangers! In my mind Animal Handling could easily be "Insight" and "Diplomacy" for animals. Including wild ones.
Having it would allow the user to understand the physical signs wild animals gives for: calm, agitated, hungry, aggressive.
It sounds like he's just trying to get them to be non-hostile not make a new friend.
as Terry Pratchett said “The entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks.” The PC is just trying to move themselves from (b) eat to (d) rocks.
Ok, so, because the language in the skill doesn't use the word tame/wild, then it's impossible to do it?
Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness.
That's like saying you can't use a medicine check to try to do the same on an NPC you are not familiar with because the language uses a specific set of circumstances. (That NPC is not a companion)
To get a wild animal to become tame you have to handle the animal. To get a tame animal domesticated you have to breed it in that tame state for generations, which requires handling the animal. After it is domesticated you have to teach it to do the required tasks you want each time a new generation is born, which requires handling the animal.
I just used the same language that the book does only I used inference, deduction, and conjecture to get to a reasonable assumption that it might work.
Thank you FullMetalBunny. I don't subscribe to Sage Advice, I barely knew of its existence, and don't wander it's pages, but it seems that the words of those pages carry weight here.
Looking at this brief response, taming and calming of a wild animal are uses of the Animal Handling skill in the opinion of the author.
Sage advice for the win! I think it would have been a lot nicer then if this phrase in the book "When there is any question whether you can calm down a domesticated animal" didn't contain the word "domestic".
This will make the players in my game very happy. I hadn't been allowing this skill to be used on wild animals to change hostility level, and several of them have proficiency in it.
In my opinion the only key phrase from the description of this skill is "the DM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check". The skill can do exactly what the DM allows it to do - it has no automatic effects (while medicine has its stabilisation mechanic). When you ask to use the skill, or when the game reaches a situation that might call for it, the DM decides if the skill can or must be used, a DC for pass/fail, and the effect of each. If they decide that there is no effective success or failure available or that the DC is beyond the character's ability or so easy it will auto-win then they may skip the roll.
That being said, the vague use of this skill is to make an interaction with an animal-like creature go better. As a DM I would have asked the player to describe what they wanted to do and how, considered the background and wider situation, then made a call - almost certainly allowing the use of the skill where a high enough roll prevented the combat.
My character is a rogue/ranger drow and my DM let me take a worg as I happened to speak goblin. Apparently the pack that attacked us was kept by the hobgoblins we just murdered. I succeed in "acquiring" one I named varmint, was this incorrect?
My character is a rogue/ranger drow and my DM let me take a worg as I happened to speak goblin. Apparently the pack that attacked us was kept by the hobgoblins we just murdered. I succeed in "acquiring" one I named varmint, was this incorrect?
If your DM allowed it, then incorrect or not it was allowed so no worries.
In general The DM sets the DCs and determines the check called for based on on the actions of the players. Players do not call for checks unless they are using a class or character ability that specifically calls for a check
My character is a rogue/ranger drow and my DM let me take a worg as I happened to speak goblin. Apparently the pack that attacked us was kept by the hobgoblins we just murdered. I succeed in "acquiring" one I named varmint, was this incorrect?
My character is a rogue/ranger drow and my DM let me take a worg as I happened to speak goblin. Apparently the pack that attacked us was kept by the hobgoblins we just murdered. I succeed in "acquiring" one I named varmint, was this incorrect?
If your DM allowed it, then incorrect or not it was allowed so no worries.
In general The DM sets the DCs and determines the check called for based on on the actions of the players. Players do not call for checks unless they are using a class or character ability that specifically calls for a check
I agree on the "the DM allowed it" part, however, especially with the worgs, there is some very important thing to remember, and that is, that Worgs are monstrosities and not beasts, and they are intelligent creatures capable of speech. They are not trained or kept, they chose to work with the Hobgoblins. If you are trying to do something with a Worg, it is a NPC and the skills involved are persuasion, deception, and insight.
Well I did roll for insight as to why I'm getting gang stomped by 300 pound wolf beasts, deception when I lied about not killing his hob family, and persuaded him to join me. Does that count?
Here is an example from the Lost Mines of Phandelver adventure.
Three wolves are confined here. They can’t reach targets standing on the steps, but all three attack any creature except a goblin that moves into the room . Goblins in nearby caves ignore the sounds of fighting wolves, since they constantly snap and snarl at each other.
A character who tries to calm the animals can attempt a DC 15 Wisdom (Animal Handling) check. On a success, the wolves allow the character to move throughout the room. If the wolves are given food, the DC drops to 10.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey, in my last campaign I was playing a feral child goblin ranger who was raised by wolves. We encountered a den of wolves and I tried to coax one to being nonhostile. Could this be done, or no because the dm said it wouldn't work. What uses can I use animal handling for?
Yes, by all rights you could use animal handling on those wolves. The way they respond to the success/failure is dependent on the DM's discretion however. A flat out, no, you can't use Animal Handling on a wild animal, is incorrect by my understanding.
You can try to calm a domestic animal, or gain insight into any animal's intentions. Pacifying a wild animal would be just outside the bounds for my game but I would have let you roll the check to see if you could determine why the wolf was being hostile - which could possibly lead to a way to deescalate the encounter. In fact, with your background I'd give you advantage on such a check with wolves specifically.
Uses for animal handling I do allow in my game - determine the quality of a mount. Pull off a stunt or tricky maneuver while mounted. Calm a raging bull (domesticated). Compete in a horse race. Keep an animal calm in the midst of a battle / fire / monster attack. Keep an animal quiet while you steal it.
Well I don't want to domesticate it, just not get it to fight me at the moment so my party could pass
As such, animal handling should allow you a chance at succeeding in your goal, pending the favor of the dice.
I would allow a player to use animal handling to attempt to calm a wild animal, but probably with a pretty high DC (15?) and with disadvantage.
However, in the specific instance of a character who was raised by wolves, I would give them advantage on animal handling checks involving wolves and dogs, which would net out to a flat skill check roll.
so there's a baked in distinction in the rules.but it turns out it doesn't matter per the sage advice linked below.So Animal Handling already pretty low tier on the useful skills.
I don't understand the thing about only usable against Domesticated animals. This is often the skill recommended for Druids/Rangers!
In my mind Animal Handling could easily be "Insight" and "Diplomacy" for animals. Including wild ones.
Having it would allow the user to understand the physical signs wild animals gives for: calm, agitated, hungry, aggressive.
It sounds like he's just trying to get them to be non-hostile not make a new friend.
as Terry Pratchett said “The entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks.”
The PC is just trying to move themselves from (b) eat to (d) rocks.
Ok, so, because the language in the skill doesn't use the word tame/wild, then it's impossible to do it?
That's like saying you can't use a medicine check to try to do the same on an NPC you are not familiar with because the language uses a specific set of circumstances. (That NPC is not a companion)
To get a wild animal to become tame you have to handle the animal. To get a tame animal domesticated you have to breed it in that tame state for generations, which requires handling the animal. After it is domesticated you have to teach it to do the required tasks you want each time a new generation is born, which requires handling the animal.
I just used the same language that the book does only I used inference, deduction, and conjecture to get to a reasonable assumption that it might work.
Sage Advice: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/06/halfling-and-elf-observed/
On using it on a wild animal.
He goes in that "calming" and "taming" are very different tasks.
Thank you FullMetalBunny. I don't subscribe to Sage Advice, I barely knew of its existence, and don't wander it's pages, but it seems that the words of those pages carry weight here.
Looking at this brief response, taming and calming of a wild animal are uses of the Animal Handling skill in the opinion of the author.
Sage advice for the win! I think it would have been a lot nicer then if this phrase in the book "When there is any question whether you can calm down a domesticated animal" didn't contain the word "domestic".
This will make the players in my game very happy. I hadn't been allowing this skill to be used on wild animals to change hostility level, and several of them have proficiency in it.
In my opinion the only key phrase from the description of this skill is "the DM might call for a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check". The skill can do exactly what the DM allows it to do - it has no automatic effects (while medicine has its stabilisation mechanic). When you ask to use the skill, or when the game reaches a situation that might call for it, the DM decides if the skill can or must be used, a DC for pass/fail, and the effect of each. If they decide that there is no effective success or failure available or that the DC is beyond the character's ability or so easy it will auto-win then they may skip the roll.
That being said, the vague use of this skill is to make an interaction with an animal-like creature go better. As a DM I would have asked the player to describe what they wanted to do and how, considered the background and wider situation, then made a call - almost certainly allowing the use of the skill where a high enough roll prevented the combat.
My character is a rogue/ranger drow and my DM let me take a worg as I happened to speak goblin. Apparently the pack that attacked us was kept by the hobgoblins we just murdered. I succeed in "acquiring" one I named varmint, was this incorrect?
If your DM allowed it, then incorrect or not it was allowed so no worries.
In general The DM sets the DCs and determines the check called for based on on the actions of the players. Players do not call for checks unless they are using a class or character ability that specifically calls for a check
That lightens my heart immensely, reading this I was a little worried.
I agree on the "the DM allowed it" part, however, especially with the worgs, there is some very important thing to remember, and that is, that Worgs are monstrosities and not beasts, and they are intelligent creatures capable of speech. They are not trained or kept, they chose to work with the Hobgoblins. If you are trying to do something with a Worg, it is a NPC and the skills involved are persuasion, deception, and insight.
Well I did roll for insight as to why I'm getting gang stomped by 300 pound wolf beasts, deception when I lied about not killing his hob family, and persuaded him to join me. Does that count?
Here is an example from the Lost Mines of Phandelver adventure.