Paladin Warhorse

[FreeTheSlaves]

Ok, to anyone who thinks that a party will charge overland for greater than 10 hours (minimum called time for a 5th level paladin) let me introduce you to forced marches and real damage to mounts.

Check out the overland rules in the phb.

My players do not charge into the night because of it and the party that does won't have horses for long anyway.

Besides, a 6th+ level paladin basically has his mount whenever he needs it for all intents and purposes.

I have played a paladin and I know all about hiding my mount, annoying the party by having to hide my mount and being relieved to have my mount die due to the growing burden.

This change makes the mount a class benefit again and I have no problem describing/believing the beast round the corner or leap through a celetial/prime portal.

 

[John Crichton]

It's the poofing off that I don't dig. The fact that the mount is no longer a steed and companion, but a limited duration spell. That it ceases to be the paladins equivalent of a familiar or animal companion, but a beefed up act of conjuration. If a paladin could rely on his horse always being on hand, but a whistle or hoot away, well, hey, cool. However, once it becomes nothing more than an object of convenience, as opposed to a beloved companion, well....ugh. The more I see of the revision....bleah.

"Poofing off?" I doubt there will be any text in the book that will describe it that way.

Either way, until we know more about the "summoning, unsummoning" and specifics of the mount I don't think its fair to say it really all that good or bad at this point. This new mount may never tire which is much better than having one that can, especially when the thing can stick around all day. Speculation, for sure. But it's really all on how the DM and the individual players handle the mount as a character and a game effect rather than the rules. Someone brought up the Drizzt/Guen example, which which I think is a little off but it is a perfect example of how the panther is much more than just a magical item, she is a character.

 

[MadScientist]

Say, MadScientist, I'm a Troyboy too. I used to live off Hoosick Street.

Cool, I'm currently at RPI trying to finish off my PhD. I live downtown on 3rd St accross from Washington Park. It may be the arm-pit of America but hey the rents cheap!

Don't mean to hijack the thread, feel free to get pack to the warhorse conversation people.

 

[Gothmog]

I really hope this isn't true. If it is, it is the first REALLY lame thing I have heard come out of 3.5. It doesn't add anything to the game, and in fact makes it harder to suspend disbelief. In any case, I'll house rule it so the mount is always there- just like a normal horse.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Overall, I like the idea. In fact, it's very similar to a house rule I created but never had the chance to instigate.

It's all in the description, really. You can do the "bamph in a cloud of blue" if you want. You can do the "appears over the horizon." You can even do the "appears from behind a tree." But however you do it, it's a boon.

All too often, I've seen people not take a mount, or else take it and spend a lot of their prep time wondering how to guard it while they go adventuring in places they can't reach. And I can picture all sorts of dramatic scenes, where the paladin, in the midst of combat, takes a moment to send his beloved but almost dead companion off to safety, even if it means fighting on foot for the rest of the battle.

Besides, it's incredibly easy to house-rule, for low-magic campaigns or anywhere else it doesn't fit. I particularly like the idea presented above, where it doesn't summon the mount so much as "charge" a norma horse with a divine/celestial tempalte.

 

[jasamcarl]

Actually, the benefit is that you don't have to expose your mount to numerous combat where it can be of little help but be in a lot of danger. Now, within the same span of a day, a paladin can all upon it only when needed, i.e. on those rare or not-so-rare occassions where the dungeon opens up or on the odd wilderness adventure. It is sometimes just as good to NOT have your mount with you as do, and that is why this is a good change.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I can see it now:

Paladin: "Where do you think you're going?"

Warhorse: "I need some me-time."

Paladin: "Me-time?!?! What if I need you?!?!"

Warhorse: "While I'm flattered that you find my services so usefull, I do have my own matters to attend to. Call me up in a day or so and I should be free."

Paladin: *sigh* "I should have been a wizard. Familiars don't give their masters this type of grief."

 

[randomninja]

Not only do I like the change, but this thread as a whole has given me the inexplicible urge to run a campaign where the party Paladin is being constantly harassed by Blackguards for no reason whatsoever. (Of course the first "Blackguard" will probably be a moronic commoner who looks like the dope in the 3.0 DMG)
Ah well

Edit: This thread rules! I want more Paladin Jokes!

 

[Trickstergod]

There's a duration on it. No matter what the description is, no matter how it works, the fact is that if a creature has a duration attached to it, it poofs off. Whether it's suddenly behind a corner, into the sunset, through a mystical, magical portal (double bleah), or whatever, it poofs off.

Furthermore, it entirely becomes an ability of convenience then. Which, ah. Ugh. I much prefer the idea that a paladin has a special mount, and not a special summoning power. A living thing that the paladin pets, and grooms, and lets little children feed sugar cubes to, and puts in a stable at night. Not the "Ahh...I need a jiggy horse! Woot!" ability.

I'm not arguing against its benefit; it is in nearly every which way beneficial. The point is I like my paladins to be more akin to Lancelot or St. George, not Drizzt. Their horse should be, in my eyes, a real flesh and blood creature - more akin to Shadowfax or even Epona than Guenhwyvar. I prefer a mount that sits in a stable when at rest, not cools its hooves up in heaven. If I want to summon creatures, I'll play a Conjurer, not a Paladin.

"Rub a dub dub. Horse". Geh.

 

[John Crichton]

There's a duration on it. No matter what the description is, no matter how it works, the fact is that if a creature has a duration attached to it, it poofs off. Whether it's suddenly behind a corner, into the sunset, through a mystical, magical portal (double bleah), or whatever, it poofs off.

Not true, it is up to the DM (and the player) how the animal appears and is dismissed. It does not have to "poof."

Furthermore, it entirely becomes an ability of convenience then. Which, ah. Ugh. I much prefer the idea that a paladin has a special mount, and not a special summoning power. A living thing that the paladin pets, and grooms, and lets little children feed sugar cubes to, and puts in a stable at night. Not the "Ahh...I need a jiggy horse! Woot!" ability.

This can still happen. Nothing is stopping your Paladin from having his mount come through town with him. The minimum 10 hours allows for this.

I'm not arguing against its benefit; it is in nearly every which way beneficial. The point is I like my paladins to be more akin to Lancelot or St. George, not Drizzt. Their horse should be, in my eyes, a real flesh and blood creature - more akin to Shadowfax or even Epona than Guenhwyvar. I prefer a mount that sits in a stable when at rest, not cools its hooves up in heaven. If I want to summon creatures, I'll play a Conjurer, not a Paladin.

That's what houserules are for. There are no game benefits or detriments to the situations you describe. If I was your DM I would gladly allow the mount to stick around 24/7 if that was what you really wanted.

I still see it as a benefit, not a hindrance. No one has given a convincing arguement to how this hurts Paladins yet...