D&D 5E The special paladin mount.

[Dausuul]

In an edition which is consciously harking back to D&D's roots, they're hardly going to leave out such an iconic feature of the traditional paladin. At the same time, the criticisms of the paladin's mount are on target. In a lot of campaigns, it's more hindrance than help. (Unless of course you go the Pokemon-mount route, which solves the worst of the problems at the expense of being extremely silly.)

So I'm fairly certain the mount will be optional rather than hardwired into the class. My guess would be that they follow the wizard/familiar model: Paladins will have a 1st-level spell that lets them call for a mount, which requires a moderate offering at a shrine or temple of your god (basically a medium-expensive material component). If you don't have any use for a paladin mount, you don't have to cast the spell.

 

[Derren]

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

What constant bile.

Then please enlighten me in which newer edition mounts were actually useful?
In 3Es "Back to the Dungeon", an environment where nearly all mounts can't follow and would be useless if they could or in 4E with is close range tactical balanced combat where mounts were not allowed to confer much of an advantage to keep it balanced or to affect the action economy?

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

What constant bile.

Is this thread titled "Lets attack other posters!"? No? Then why would you imagine this would be a welcome contribution to it? If you can't disagree with respect, just don't reply, rather than trying to bring down the entire conversation with an attack like this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Well, if I was designing a game that focused on close range combat and dungeon exploration, I might nix a giant horse as a class-defining feature, too. It really wouldn't add much. Mounts are not for dungeons.

I don't think 5e is that kind of game necessarily automatically, but I do think 5e would like you to be able to play that kind of game with it, and even possibly as a default given the game's recent history and how simple that is to set up and knock down. It's a pretty straightforward method of play.

All of which means that there are probably good reasons they'd strip it out as a default, if that is indeed what the final product does. I'd be shocked if a mounted paladin wasn't an option in the PHB, though.

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.

I don't think that has much of anything to do with it -- the designers don't assume people are idiots, or even necessarily that they can define fun for everyone, they just might want to support a simple default style.

Also, when you think of the advantages that mounts give you -- carrying capacity, overland speed, ignoring travelling hardships -- those all are things people might not want to futz around with in their games. Which means that in those games, a mount isn't of much use. Which means they might as well get rid of it and replace it with something else.

And if those games are the "basic" option because they are simpler to play and run, the "basic" paladin probably wouldn't have a special mount.

 

[pemerton]

Then please enlighten me in which newer edition mounts were actually useful?

The players in my 4e game have found mounts pretty useful. In open-terrain combat they use them to maintain the advantage of range against unmounted enemies. And they use them to travel (summoned via Phantom Steed) all the time.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

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.

I agree with both of these points.

No monopoly for pets (as I understand it the warlock is going to be a pet class - too bad) on one (or a few) class(es).

Agreed, a spell is cheap entry, a feat costs more. Costs more = better. I like that summon familiar is not a standard class feature so that every wizard and sorcerer is running around with a familiar. At the same time though, is there a reason not to take the familiar spell and get the boon from it? It is cheap and easy.

I much prefer putting mounts, animal companions, familiars, and leadership feat into a feat that anyone can draw from and get a "pet" whether a cohort or an animal. Something to opt into.

An interesting thing though is summoning. So if you summon a horse for a few rounds to do you bidding it is not really useful. I can see a low level spell summon a horse, but perhaps the a higher level version can summon the horse for a much longer duration. Then there are spells like unseen servant, I can see creating a mount that follows that train of thought too. The problem is flight is only a 3rd level spell and is so much better, so it really compacts these other modes of travel.

 

[Li Shenron]

No monopoly for pets (as I understand it the warlock is going to be a pet class - too bad) on one (or a few) class(es).

I forgot about the Warlock... that actually means another option is to restrict a "pet" to a single subclass, such as a Cavalier subclass for the Paladin or a Scholarly Wizard. Still, a feat is just more appropriate.

I much prefer putting mounts, animal companions, familiars, and leadership feat into a feat that anyone can draw from and get a "pet" whether a cohort or an animal. Something to opt into.

Good idea. Find Familiar used to be a feat in previous playtest packets, I don't know why they changed it into a spell, I suspect some Harry Potter fans might want it at 1st level.