Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1988312" data-attributes="member: 707">I disagree.&nbsp; A paladin+mount is assumed to be balanced against a fighter+feats.&nbsp; They are assumed to be equally effective.&nbsp; Why, then, is it unfair for the paladin to use his mount, when he needs to do so to come close to equalling the fighter?You don't find Arthur setting aside Excalibur because it'd give him an unfair advantage, either.&nbsp; Honorable means not using dirty tricks.&nbsp; It doesn't mean &quot;you give up your strongest abilities while I keep all of mine.&quot; None of that has any bearing on a paladin calling his mount.&nbsp; And as was already mentioned by others, &quot;unarmed&quot; is subjective.I disagree.&nbsp; The fighter is doing nothing but baiting the paladin, which may not be dishonorable, but is certainly discourteous.Of course it can.&nbsp; You must move at least 10' in a charge, but there's no requirement that you have to have moved in the round prior to a charge.??&nbsp; A Charge, as defined by D&amp;D, ends in the first space from which you can make an attack.&nbsp; There is no need to slow down.&nbsp; You charge, you stop, you attack.A mounted paladin:* Can inflict double damage if using a lance in a charge.* Gains a +1 higher ground bonus to his attack rolls.* Gains +1 attack per charge (his mount's attack), more per full attack.* Gains a +4 cover bonus to AC, with a good Ride Check.* Has a 40' move (instead of 20' in full plate) regardless of whether he charges.There are more benefits, depending on what feats the paladin may have taken.&nbsp; It is without a doubt a powerful advantage.&nbsp; It's also one which I don't believe a paladin is required to set aside to fight an honorable duel.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Pendragon, post: 1988312, member: 707"] I disagree. A paladin+mount is assumed to be balanced against a fighter+feats. They are assumed to be equally effective. Why, then, is it unfair for the paladin to use his mount, when he needs to do so to come close to equalling the fighter?You don't find Arthur setting aside Excalibur because it'd give him an unfair advantage, either. Honorable means not using dirty tricks. It doesn't mean "you give up your strongest abilities while I keep all of mine." None of that has any bearing on a paladin calling his mount. And as was already mentioned by others, "unarmed" is subjective.I disagree. The fighter is doing nothing but baiting the paladin, which may not be dishonorable, but is certainly discourteous.Of course it can. You must move at least 10' in a charge, but there's no requirement that you have to have moved in the round prior to a charge.?? A Charge, as defined by D&D, ends in the first space from which you can make an attack. There is no need to slow down. You charge, you stop, you attack.A mounted paladin: * Can inflict double damage if using a lance in a charge. * Gains a +1 higher ground bonus to his attack rolls. * Gains +1 attack per charge (his mount's attack), more per full attack. * Gains a +4 cover bonus to AC, with a good Ride Check. * Has a 40' move (instead of 20' in full plate) regardless of whether he charges. There are more benefits, depending on what feats the paladin may have taken. It is without a doubt a powerful advantage. It's also one which I don't believe a paladin is required to set aside to fight an honorable duel. [/QUOTE]

Verification