Cavalier article up: Mounts galore!

[renau1g]

Rage drakes... they're raging and may think of you as food (carnivores and all). I'd think they'd be fine. A warpony likely wouuldn't just start attacking you unless you started getting in its business.

 

[Pbartender]

Excellent I'm going to bring this rule up next time we are attacked by a riderless dragon, or other creature suitable as a riding beast.

"Usually" isn't "always".

 

[Klaus]

Rage drakes... they're raging and may think of you as food (carnivores and all). I'd think they'd be fine. A warpony likely wouuldn't just start attacking you unless you started getting in its business.

And yet, the rage drake would be getting a -2 to hit, because it's a "mount" without a rider.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Look at the beginning of the section on P253 where it says "a mount and rider follow these rules while the rider is mounted." Then it goes on to say that mounts take a -2 attack penalty. So the rule is if a mount has a rider, then it takes a -2. Mounted Combat still works, it just removes that -2 (not sure if the other effects are still relevant). The feat also has plenty of RP implications of course, though that may not be much comfort to a lot of players. Truthfully it is a marginal feat at best unless you both have a mount with some very effective attacks (and generally ones it can take without using up the rider's standard action) AND the character is planning to spend significant amounts of time fighting from the saddle. I think it really should have some more significant bonus personally, something that really makes you extra good at fighting while mounted.

 

[Solvarn]

Rage drakes... they're raging and may think of you as food (carnivores and all). I'd think they'd be fine. A warpony likely wouuldn't just start attacking you unless you started getting in its business.

I don't know, back a pony into a corner and it can get pretty scary.

Seriously, I'm running a cavalier right now, loving it. I really like this mount option and will be taking advantage of it.

 

[Pbartender]

...and then says that a mount without a rider rarely attacks on its own, usually avoinding combat.

Rethinking this particular bit, we should really look at the entire statement. From the Compendium:

While not being ridden, a typical mount (such as a riding horse) rarely attacks on its own, unless it has been trained for battle, is defending itself, or feels unusually protective of its rider. Left to its own devices, a typical mount avoids combat.​

So, there's an awful lot of leeway as to what constitutes "a typical mount", and what mounts would normally be considered "trained for war".

Excellent I'm going to bring this rule up next time we are attacked by a riderless dragon, or other creature suitable as a riding beast.

Also note that there's a very specific rule for determining which creatures are mounts and which aren't, namely:

A creature that has the mount keyword has at least one mount power.​

While you could feasibly ride on the back of a Dragon, if it let you, it is most definitely not a "mount"... And I'd defy you to try calling any dragon that to its face.

 

[Zaran]

Anyone else annoyed that this is essentials only?

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Anyone else annoyed that this is essentials only?

I'm not. Summon Celestial Steed is a Paladin Utility 4. Doesn't that mean that any 4th-level Paladin can take it?

 

[Aegeri]

I'm not. Summon Celestial Steed is a Paladin Utility 4. Doesn't that mean that any 4th-level Paladin can take it?

This is assumed to be an error, because there isn't actually a utility at that level and other essentials features don't have a level in general. I would expect it to be errata'ed to be consistent with the other essentials classes. If it isn't though, you can take it at level 6 by retraining out a utility power.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am a fan of a mounted paladin.

Yaaaay.

If my party didn't already have a dragonborn sparklepaladin of glittery beat-downs, I'd certainly consider doing this schtick.