D&D 5E The special paladin mount.

Philousk

Explorer
Looking at the last packet, I noticed that the paladin does not get its traditional mount that was normally assigned in previous editions (somewhere around level 3 or 5, I think).


If my reading is not distorted, can you explain to me why this design choice please?


To me, a paladin without his magical steed is like a good sugar pie without ice cream. Your thoughts are welcome!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

My opinion only: special mounts are not useful enough in most environments to make them a standard class feature; they should be an optional class feature for those characters or campaigns where mounted combat plays a significant role.
 

Sadrik

First Post
Looking at the last packet, I noticed that the paladin does not get its traditional mount that was normally assigned in previous editions (somewhere around level 3 or 5, I think).


If my reading is not distorted, can you explain to me why this design choice please?


To me, a paladin without his magical steed is like a good sugar pie without ice cream. Your thoughts are welcome!

My opinion pets should be available to all classes through feats. They should not be standard features
 

Derren

Hero
Probably because the newer editions of D&D are geared towards tactical close range combat and dungeon exploration. The latter is obviously not suited for mounted combat and thus half of the time a class feature was negated what WotC now claims is "unfun". And introducing sensible mounted combat in the former would "unbalance" it, so it got heavily restricted in the past (like having to mind control your mount, etc.) to make it pretty much a hassle than an asset.

No wonder that WotC left it out entirely.
It would help if all the advantages of mounts, ease of travel, speed, carrying capacity, wouldn't be ignored in newer editions because adding numbers is too complicated and encountering problems on your travel because you do not have the right equipment, including horses, is the above mentioned unfun.
 
Last edited:

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Mounts are largely useless in the vast majority of settings. They're terrible for dungeon crawls, they aren't any help in a swamp, and really all they let you do is have a little extra meat and do some cool change attacks. It'd be better to just give those aspects of mount design space to the paladin directly. A little extra meat and some charge-based bonuses (extra distance, more damage, etc). A mount is great if you have open space and a lot of it. Otherwise, there's not much that a paladin gains from a mount on a regular basis.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
My opinion only: special mounts are not useful enough in most environments to make them a standard class feature; they should be an optional class feature for those characters or campaigns where mounted combat plays a significant role.
I assume this is it. The 3E magical summoning paladin mount irritated me -- and seemed likely to lead to all sorts of unintended consequences -- but it was better than saddling (so to speak) every paladin with a horse they had to somehow make allowances for before going into a megadungeon, to another plane, to an underwater city or anywhere else a giant eating and pooping machine wouldn't be practical.
 

I assume this is it. The 3E magical summoning paladin mount irritated me -- and seemed likely to lead to all sorts of unintended consequences -- but it was better than saddling (so to speak) every paladin with a horse they had to somehow make allowances for before going into a megadungeon, to another plane, to an underwater city or anywhere else a giant eating and pooping machine wouldn't be practical.

In 3.0 the mount was not summonable and dismissable if I remember correctly (I could be mistaken, since it has been a while).

I hope there will be a mount option for the paladin at least. I liked the version with blackguard, warden and cavalier in the playtest. We will see if the mount makes a returning.
 

Starfox

Hero
My opinion pets should be available to all classes through feats. They should not be standard features

Agree with this. In a campaign where mounted combat is important, giving certain classes a monopoly on durable mounts is not a good idea. Actually, in a game like that, the GM might juts hand out survivable mounts to every named character, PC and NPC.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
My opinion pets should be available to all classes through feats. They should not be standard features

IIRC currently the only class that has a 'pet' is the Wizard, but Find Familiar is a 1st level spell, not a feat, therefore much cheaper. They might have in mind a spell also for the Paladin's mount.

I think it would be better as a feat. It would be much less common (i.e. more special), and would be available only after level 4. And since a feat is worth more than a spell, then they could make the pet really special compared to just training an animal.
 

The Human Target

Adventurer
Probably because the newer editions of D&D are geared towards tactical close range combat and dungeon exploration. The latter is obviously not suited for mounted combat and thus half of the time a class feature was negated what WotC now claims is "unfun". And introducing sensible mounted combat in the former would "unbalance" it, so it got heavily restricted in the past (like having to mind control your mount, etc.) to make it pretty much a hassle than an asset.

No wonder that WotC left it out entirely.
It would help if all the advantages of mounts, ease of travel, speed, carrying capacity, wouldn't be ignored in newer editions because adding numbers is too complicated and encountering problems on your travel because you do not have the right equipment, including horses, is the above mentioned unfun.

Derren killed all the special mounts so he could spend all his time flogging them.

What constant bile.
 

Remove ads

Top