Paladin and his mount

[sjmiller]

Just an FYI, I do not allow Paladins to dismiss their mounts. Ever.

But why? It's supposed to be one of the features of the class. Do you similarly restrict other classes like this?

I do not know about TheGM, but the reason I would not allow it is because I think it's aweful damned silly and makes no sense to me. To me, a paladin is like a classic knight of legend, like Roland or Sir Gewaine. None of these classic knights had a horse that appeared and disappeared on command. This ability just smacks of video game laziness to me.

Not only that, but the quest to find a warhorse for a paladin has always been a wonderful adventure in the groups I have been a part of over the decades. When I heard of this change in a paladin's warhorse, I told some of my current gaming group. They all laughed and said that is silly and they do not want to use that. Plus there were giggled references to some designer watching too much pokemon and playing more final fantasy than is safe for the brain.

 

[Kapalen]

Whoa Bob, calm down you're TOTALLY exagerrating. It is gay that he (practically) made you call your mount THE n tells you it can't leave, but the only reason you're charged with all those crimes is a total plothook. Since when is it spelt Gewaine?

 

[FireLance]

I do not know about TheGM, but the reason I would not allow it is because I think it's aweful damned silly and makes no sense to me. To me, a paladin is like a classic knight of legend, like Roland or Sir Gewaine. None of these classic knights had a horse that appeared and disappeared on command.

That's because they didn't have the technology then . Seriously, though. The paladin class has been strongly influenced by legendary knights such as Sir Galahad, and some of the class abilities such as lay on hands and remove disease can be directly traced to their deeds. However, the paladin class is a patchwork of abilities inspired by the legends, and thematically suitable abilities that might not have a literary basis, but make it more fun to play a paladin character, such as detect evil, smite evil, divine grace, turn undead, and special mount.

This ability just smacks of video game laziness to me.

One man's laziness is another man's convenience. I'm sure that modern man's reliance on cars instead of walking, gas lighters instead of tinderboxes, and remote controls instead of getting up and changing the channels on a television set manually could be considered "lazy" by some. Similarly, a paladin's ability to summon and dismiss his mount might be considered "lazy", but it's certainly convenient, and it makes the game more fun for some paladin players.

Not only that, but the quest to find a warhorse for a paladin has always been a wonderful adventure in the groups I have been a part of over the decades.

There's nothing to stop you from scheduling one just before the paladin receives the ability, or from requiring him to complete such a quest before he is able to summon a mount, if you believe this will actually make the game more fun for you and your players.

When I heard of this change in a paladin's warhorse, I told some of my current gaming group. They all laughed and said that is silly and they do not want to use that. Plus there were giggled references to some designer watching too much pokemon and playing more final fantasy than is safe for the brain.

It's probably cool to sneer at and be dismissive of Pokemon and Final Fantasy, but have you considered the possibility that some elements of those games could improve D&D for other people? It might not be your group's cup of tea, but I believe quite a few paladin players find the ability to summon and dismiss thair mounts makes them more useful, and they enjoy playing their characters more because of it.

 

[sjmiller]

It's probably cool to sneer at and be dismissive of Pokemon and Final Fantasy, but have you considered the possibility that some elements of those games could improve D&D for other people? It might not be your group's cup of tea, but I believe quite a few paladin players find the ability to summon and dismiss thair mounts makes them more useful, and they enjoy playing their characters more because of it.

It's all fine and dandy to use the "convenience" gimmick of summoning and dismissing a paladin's mount if that makes it fun for the player involved. It is just my pesonal opinion that it should have been presented as an option to having a real horse with special abilities. Since the latest version of D&D is all about giving players options, this would make perfect sense. Neither I nor my gaming group are sneering at or dismissing the television and video-game influences of the current system. We just happen to have the opinion that they are misplaced and are a detraction from the game.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I do not know about TheGM, but the reason I would not allow it is because I think it's aweful damned silly and makes no sense to me. To me, a paladin is like a classic knight of legend, like Roland or Sir Gewaine. None of these classic knights had a horse that appeared and disappeared on command. This ability just smacks of video game laziness to me.

Not only that, but the quest to find a warhorse for a paladin has always been a wonderful adventure in the groups I have been a part of over the decades. When I heard of this change in a paladin's warhorse, I told some of my current gaming group. They all laughed and said that is silly and they do not want to use that. Plus there were giggled references to some designer watching too much pokemon and playing more final fantasy than is safe for the brain.

But I recall paladins of old (AD&D) refusing to take on certain quests because they would have to leave their mount behind. If you primarily adventure in dungeon settings or towns, rather than outdoors, the whole concept of the magical warhorse becomes mostly a burden to the character. With the new rules, he gets to have the mount when it is appropriate and gets to behave like Roland or Gawaine, (who by the way never had to worry about childish DMs going and killing their mounts) but can also freely act as a paladin in situations where a mount isn't needed.

As for the quest, my player who had a paladin and I agreed that the quest was cool and that he would still have to make one in order to find his mount for the first time, thereby creating the bond that would allow him to summon the mount later.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

As a possible in-game solution, just remember a few facts about a Paladin's warhorse:

1. Even at 5th level, the horse has an Intelligence of 6. That's the same level of intelligence as a centaur, or a Barbazu demon. Your warhorse should act intelligently.

2. As it's a heavy warhorse (or at least most likely), it has 6d8 + 18 HP (Avg. 45), an AC of 18, and a Str of 19, with 3 attacks per round. It won't stand still and let something come over and kill it.

3. Talking of not standing still, it has a base speed of 50' and the feats Endurance and Run. If it has to it'll let you know it's in trouble and get itself to safety.

Your DM should stop thinking the warhorse is an unattended extension of your character and start thinking of Champion the Wonderhorse!

P.S. Don't forget it's affected by any spell cast upon you if you're within 5' of it at casting time!

 

[FireLance]

P.S. Don't forget it's affected by any spell cast upon you if you're within 5' of it at casting time!

I think your special mount loses the effect if it moves more than 5 feet away from you. However, you can cast a spell with a target of "you" on the mount instead of on yourself, and that will last the enture duration.

 

[IcyCool]

Wrong. All house rules are to be made clear to the players during character creation, not later, during the campaign. If that happens, I walk out. I will refuse to play a game where the DM is hiding some of the rules that I should know about.

*chuckle* "Buh-bye, don't let the door smack you on your sanctimonious behind on the way out."

Seriously, with all of the gray-areas in the rules alone, you must not play very much. Do you honestly throw that kind of tantrum? Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't play if you don't find it fun, but that kind of reaction seems childish.