[3.5] Paladin's Mounts & Andy Collins

[MerricB]

From Andy Collins' message boards:

This change was instituted in direct response to one of the biggest complaints we heard about the paladin's mount: that the character never got to use it, because the DM wouldn't ever write all-day-long outdoor adventures where mounted characters could shine. Or they'd travel a few miles to the dungeon, then the paladin's mount would get eaten while the party was inside. Or the party would want to teleport somewhere, but they couldn't bring the mount because it was too heavy. Etc, etc.

Now, the paladin has the option of magically calling (not summoning, my bad) the mount--once per day--when she needs it. The long duration means that even at 5th level, it's good for an all-day mount if that's what's required.

But if the character only needs the mount for a short period of time, or if she needs to return it to the "celestial realms in which it resides" because having a Large creature around just isn't conducive to the party's success right now, she can dismiss it.

The new ability's also more forgiving for dead mounts (a year and a day is often an entire career for adventurers). If the special mount dies, a new one can't be called for 30 days, during which the paladin suffers a -1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.

The paladin is an inherently "mystical" character, with a plethora of supernatural and spell-like abilities, not to mention spellcasting from level 4. This ability aims to fit in with that flavor.

Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D



Cheers!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Sounds almost like the paladin's been given a spell-like ability to cast the Mount spell once per day (with some flavor restrictions). It's a little different (throw another sacred cow on the grill!), but otherwise, no biggee. *Shrug*

 

[rounser]

The paladin is an inherently "mystical" character, with a plethora of supernatural and spell-like abilities, not to mention spellcasting from level 4. This ability aims to fit in with that flavor.

I think that's some of the problem I see in this change - perhaps the designers see the paladin as a magical knight, whereas I'd personally rather see it with less rather than more unsubtle hocus pocus...

Kind of like how the Assassin shouldn't have spells, really - doesn't exactly fit the archetype, more a design convenience?

 

[BryonD]

Well Rounser, you are arguing against a design principal that is rooted in 3E.

3E paladin were already magical knights "strenghtened by an array of divine powers" (PH page 21).

And I really don't think their mounts were exactly confused with normal horses by anyone who observed them for more than a little bit.

So if you are going to argue with the concept of a "mystical" knight, then you are going to have far more issues than a calling paladin.

 

[rounser]

Yes, but clearly there's "not enough" divine powers, and "too many" divine powers. The design team's idea of a paladin might be edging toward "too many", IMO.

As far as being "a design principle rooted in 3E", I disagree - the manifestations of the classes are subjectively based on designer preference with a guideline from the tradition of the game. Look what they did to the bard, for instance.

 

[BryonD]

I like what they did with the bard.

I don't think the distinction between "too many" and "not enough" is automatically clear at all. And I REALLY don't see how this one change can swing the balance.

I fail to see how you can dispute that "mystical" knight is based on the 3E principals. You simply saying it isn't so weighs far less to me than the 3E PH saying that it is.

 

[Kraedin]

You know, my initial reaction to the mount change must have been purely irrational -- when the term is changed to calling the mount rather from summoning the mount I suddenly approve.

This is all very confusing.

I don't even mind my mental image of the horse teleporting in with a similar visual effect to Nightcrawler in X-Men 2 (which is now my standard mental image of all teleportation and summoning effects.)

I think the real biggie with this change is the ability to "take it with you" when you teleport. I've never played a paladin at high levels, but my experinces with other high-level campaigns shows that you never walk anywhere after level 9. Not being able to teleport the mount really weakens the ability.

 

[rounser]

I like what they did with the bard.

Irrelevant to my point. What they do with the classes is based on their preference, with guidelines from the past - that's what my point was.

I don't think the distinction between "too many" and "not enough" is automatically clear at all. And I REALLY don't see how this one change can swing the balance.

You're right, it's subjective. And, arguably a pokemount is enough to swing the balance from one subjective viewpoint.

I fail to see how you can dispute that "mystical" knight is based on the 3E principals.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that there may be getting to be a bit too much mystical, and not enough knight remaining in the paladin.

You simply saying it isn't so weighs far less to me than the 3E PH saying that it is.

Doesn't mean I might not have a point, regardless of whether you ascribe an opinion mystical properties because it's published.

 

[ForceUser]

Not being able to teleport the mount really weakens the ability.

Does that mean that you see this new ability as a pro because you can teleport, and then call the mount after you arrive?

Personally I like this change; I have seen too many paladins get little use out of their mounts. It is an ability even more dependant on a DM's special attention than Bardic Knowledge or a Ranger's Favored Enemy.

[edit: i rite gud]

 

[BryonD]

Irrelevant to my point. What they do with the classes is based on their preference, with guidelines from the past - that's what my point was.

ok. so?

You're right, it's subjective. And, arguably a pokemount is enough to swing the balance from one subjective viewpoint.

And very arguably not.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that there may be getting to be a bit too much mystical, and not enough knight remaining in the paladin.

Good, so we can agree that they were already mystical knights.
Question: How can calling a mount swing the balance to being something it already was?

Doesn't mean I don't have a point, regardless of whether you ascribe an opinion mystical properties because it's published.

The point in your first post, which I disputed, was
"perhaps the designers see the paladin as a magical knight, whereas I'd personally rather see it with less rather than more unsubtle hocus pocus"

Now you agree in you latest post that they were mystical. So I don't think you have a point.