Paladin Warhorse

[John Crichton]

Re: Poof

Giving it a duration makes it much, much more like a spell, and much, much less of a companion. Companions shouldn't have a duration. This seems to be the one thing being neglected in the mention of Bill, or Shadowfax - the fact that they didn't disappear after a certain amount of time, because, despite being there when needed, almost no matter what the circumstaances, they were still very real flesh and blood creatures that required stabling, feeding, and didn't just fold up into some extra-dimensional space.

Dramatic entrances are fine; spell-like durations are not.

Since most characters get around 8 hours of sleep per night and not every second of the day is spent needing the special mount, by the time 8th level rolls around the character won't even notice the duration of this small, but effective change. Again, it's all about how the DM handles it and is VERY easily house-ruled out.

 

[John Crichton]

I really like this change personally. I was until recently playing a paladin, and I had to keep asking the DM, "What about my horse?" There was the time we got kidnapped, and travelling on boats, and the time we got teleported... Eventually the DM gave me a "pokéball" to store the horse when I couldn't bring it along(which basically amounts to this ability).

I'm sorry but that mental image just makes me giggle. It does bring up a valid point about the mount and the fact that it makes the DM work harder to manage the thing and keep it near its master.

I just find it funny that all this wording is being taken in such a pointed manner. Just because it's summoned doesn't diminish its abilities or potency. Yes, some people have the mount play a much bigger role than others but the people making the revisions are trying to add options to the game and this is one of them. It is quite possible that they will include a sidebar about the special mount that will bring it back to its 1-3e roots. Nothing to get fussy about, IMO.

 

[Jody Butt]

WTF?

Say the party is rushing off on a two day trip traveling 8 hours, resting 8 hours, traveling 8 hours, etc.) So the paladin does what? Brings a second horse?

Ignoring that the whole thing still seems very odd. I really don't like the idea of magically summoning a horse like that. Seems very odd.

And if the horse dies does he get a new one the next day? Can he send it back early?

This seems very very far removed from the 1st edition (and every edition since then) idea of what the paladin's warhorse is. This is the first 3.5 thing I've strongly disliked....

I strongly dislike this change, as well. First it was the drow weapons not disintegrating in sunlight, now its the paladin's warhorse . . . crazy changes being made in the name of game balance. It's a classic case of the cart in front of the horse. Lame.

 

[Droogie]

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!

Hey, don't knock the home of Uncle Sam! And by God many film crews have come to our fine city to utilize the old architecture whenever they need a set for Old NYC.

Aw who am I kidding. Its a pit. In parts. At least its not Schenectady.

 

[John Crichton]

Re: Re: Paladin Warhorse

I strongly dislike this change, as well. First it was the drow weapons not disintegrating in sunlight, now its the paladin's warhorse . . . crazy changes being made in the name of game balance. It's a classic case of the cart in front of the horse. Lame.

For shame!!! Thou shall not attempt to make progress. Thou shall not attempt change to further the game. Thou shall not attempt to make the game more fun. Thou shall not take risks.

Can't have progress without a few changes...

 

[Olive]

Do I still play D&D? Yeah, mabye not the same form as everybody else, but nodoby has a monopoly on the "correct" way to play.

No doubt dude.

It was just strange that given that you've already house ruled heaps of stuff, that you could care less what changes would be made. I mean, you've house ruled dragons out of D&D. I would have thought that you'd expect the changes to go against the way you play, and there seemed to be a fair bit of emotion behind your post, which seemed strange to me. Sorry it seemed like we were ganging up, i think that was bad timing more than anything else.

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Olive:

No doubt dude.

It was just strange that given that you've already house ruled heaps of stuff, that you could care less what changes would be made. I mean, you've house ruled dragons out of D&D. I would have thought that you'd expect the changes to go against the way you play, and there seemed to be a fair bit of emotion behind your post, which seemed strange to me. Sorry it seemed like we were ganging up, i think that was bad timing more than anything else.

Its ok- I'm not upset. And yes, I should expect to be house-ruling more often, but this change just makes no sense to me. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

Oh, and for the record- there are no LIVING dragons in my world, but they existed at one time. And who knows- there might be ghostly dragons, but I haven't even figured that out yet.

 

[Felon]

I can safely say that this is my least favorit 3.5e revision. I do not want mounted combat to be something that a paladin can take advantage anytime and anywhere. I don't want spirited charges and rideby attacks zipping around the archfiend's throne room or unholy altar or what have you, riding circles around befuddled foes on foot. That will get real old real quick. Looks like I've got my first rule zero situation of 3.5e.

 

[Trickstergod]

Re: Re: Re: Paladin Warhorse

For shame!!! Thou shall not attempt to make progress. Thou shall not attempt change to further the game. Thou shall not attempt to make the game more fun. Thou shall not take risks.

Can't have progress without a few changes...

Fair enough; the point of all this, though, is that we (we here being those with a problem against Summon Mount) are expressing our discontent with the change.

No criticism, no voicing of opinion, no change (or, in this case, maintaining of old rules some people liked). I don't think anyone here wants to keep things exactly as is - we do, however, want our voice heard when we think the change sucks a hard Smoochy horn. Criticising folk for their difference of opinion...for shame. Being against the changes to a Paladin's mount in absolutely no way constitutes being against risks and progress. Accepting any sizable number of changes without any disagreement is at least as bad, if not worse, then an utter lack of progress. Progress doesn't come about without criticism and disagreement. I certainly support some of the changes being made in the revised edition, just as I'm certain there are certain changes you personally disagree with.

Risks. Yay!
Change. Yay!
Progress. Yay!

And, now that they've been made, time for folk to pick out those they consider good and bad. After all, part of that risk entails folk like myself and Jody going "Ugh. Get that out of my game".

Criticism. Yay!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

scene of a party of adventurers led by a 5th level paladin approaching a city, all of them riding horses.

paladin: It was a long, tiring ride, and we had to push our horses to make it here in only 10 hours, but it was worth it. We will be able to make our meeting with the king, lets ride directly to the gates of the castle.

*warhorse looks up at the paladin at the mention of 10 hours, then rears up and throws the paladin off and starts running off into the sunset*

paladin: Percy! Come back! I can't make a dramatic entrance on foot!! At least stick around for 30 more minutes!!