a different take on the pokemount...

[Kahuna Burger]

I was musing over a new character idea today - a monk/paladin multiclass or gestalt that would use a differnet paladin archetype than the one I normally see. She would be a kind of joan of arc/people's hero/choosen by the gods not society sort of paladin, and I realized that she really shouldn't be into mounted combat. So what to do with the special mount? Decided to go with a riding dog (even though the character is medium sized) and have it act as an ally rather than a mount. Once I had thought of it that way, I realized a fun thing that could be done with the pokemount rules to possibly enhance the deceptive appearance part of the character... What if instead of having this intelligent, strong, good alligned riding dog apear out of nowhere, the character had a normal dog (maybe even tiny sized instead of small) with her all the time who in times of need was celestially enhanced to aid her? Sort of a cross between the He-man and She-ra cartoons from the 80s and a Barbara Hambly book where fluffy lap dogs grow to lion sized to battle evil.

Would this work better for people than the standard summoned mount? The paladin always has a mundane animal a size class or two smaller than her special mount which can be transformed by the powers of Good? Or would it just add another layer of clunkyness to a marginal ability?

Kahuna Burger

 

[RangerWickett]

A DM I played with said that a summoned mount would appear by cresting the nearest hill, or emerging from behind a corner or from a grove of trees, never just appearing in a burst of light.

I don't mind the 'pokemount' idea. But then again, no one in my game has ever played a paladin. We had one player whose character hated paladins because they'd killed his (chaotic evil demon-summoner) mother.

 

[The_Gneech]

Very cool idea! I yoink!

-The Gneech

 

[FireLance]

I personally recall another cartoon from the 70s or 80s called Samson and Goliath. The hero had a pet dog that transformed into a lion when he "powered up" himself.

Rules-wise, I don't think it would unbalance the paladin class, although you would have to answer questions like: what is the mount or companion's intelligence and hit points in "unenhanced" form? Would its feats and skills change when it transforms? Is it a magical beast or a normal animal? Would it still have its emphatic link with the paladin? Its ability to share spells? Improved evasion? This would affect its survivability in a world where fireballs and other damaging area effects are fairly common. It should also be fairly portable (able to go where the character goes) as one of the main complaints which led to the change in the special mount ability was the logistical difficulty of bringing a warhorse on some adventures.

Flavor-wise, I think it's fine. As you mentioned, there are a few precedents, and the idea of giving a power-up to an existing companion instead of transporting the companion to the paladin's location might sit better with some people.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

although you would have to answer questions like: what is the mount or companion's intelligence and hit points in "unenhanced" form? Would its feats and skills change when it transforms? Is it a magical beast or a normal animal? Would it still have its emphatic link with the paladin? Its ability to share spells? Improved evasion? This would affect its survivability in a world where fireballs and other damaging area effects are fairly common.

I'd leave it at normal animal intelligence, HD, feats, skills, etc in its normal form, but would consider giving the evasion and some measure of the empathic link... As a DM I'm not the type to blast PC's fuzzy minions just because I can, but I know I'm not average in that respect. Some measure of durrability, or even an automatic transformation if it were exposed to enough damage to kill it in its unenhanced form might be in order.

I think if the mundane form were small or tiny portability would be fairly assured. Certainly easier to lower the Pug down the cliff than get the warhorse through the tower entrance.

Kahuna Burger

 

[DaveStebbins]

I like the idea very much. You could even give the paladin the coice of having the mount/companion be a pet or a figurine when not powered up (wait, I think the figurine companion thing's been done ). Either way, it's a good flavor variant.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Why not just use the polymorph rules? So physical stats match the form, hitpoints are adjusted for con, but nothing else really changes. Just makes things easier if the poor thing gets inadvertantly caught in a fireball blast.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Why not just use the polymorph rules? So physical stats match the form, hitpoints are adjusted for con, but nothing else really changes. Just makes things easier if the poor thing gets inadvertantly caught in a fireball blast.

mostly because I was thinking of this only as a flavor varient, while leaving the 3.5 "get your mount once a day for up to 2 hours per level but if you need to dismiss it, its gone" part the same. The mundane companion having all the abilities (int, empathy, etc) of the summoned mount but at a smaller size would change that, perhaps significantly.

One could change the mount entirely to be a shapechanging mount, but my intent with the idea was to put a different flavor spin, or it would have been in house rules. *shrug*

Kahuna Burger

 

[silentspace]

One advantage of the 3.5 mount is that it can be dismissed, and a new mount can be summoned as the Paladin gains levels, such as the variant mounts listed in the DMG. Another advantage is that the mount always appears fully healed, regardless of the damage it took previously.

At first I thought the summonable mount was silly, then I realized its really no different than Summoning spells.