Paladin Warhorse
- Thread starter brehobit
- Start date
Fedifensor
Explorer
One of the problems with the Paladin's mount, summoned or not, is that it is taken into account when determining how tough the class is. Paladins that aren't mounted on a warhorse are just fighters with better saves and a lot less feats. How often do you see a druid without his animal friend fighting at his side? Never...because a druid without an animal companion is a poor excuse for a cleric.
I'd like the option of the paladin's "mount" include the choice of a non-ridable celestial creature. Wouldn't it be great to summon a celestial lion to come fight at your side?
I'd like the option of the paladin's "mount" include the choice of a non-ridable celestial creature. Wouldn't it be great to summon a celestial lion to come fight at your side?
MeepoTheMighty
First Post
I want the ability to infuse my cowardly tiger companion with the Power of Greyskull and ride him into battle. 
Aaron L
Hero
I think it is a very dumb idea and is the only part of 3.5 so far that is being immediately house ruled out of existence.
I want the trusted mount and companion of my paladins to be a real animal with a real existence, not an effect that is summonable for a period of time (even if it is a long period of time). I mean, the whole idea just strikes me as EXTREMELY cheesy. I don't want my paladins calling down their warhorses in a flash or column of light a la Final Fantasy spells, or even having the horse ride in from "off camera" all the time, it just really ruins the whole feeling of the thing for me.
Sorry, I just think it is unbearably dumb.
PS: My group has always had a lot of paladins, and every one has a mount, and they are always very important to the characters.
I want the trusted mount and companion of my paladins to be a real animal with a real existence, not an effect that is summonable for a period of time (even if it is a long period of time). I mean, the whole idea just strikes me as EXTREMELY cheesy. I don't want my paladins calling down their warhorses in a flash or column of light a la Final Fantasy spells, or even having the horse ride in from "off camera" all the time, it just really ruins the whole feeling of the thing for me.
Sorry, I just think it is unbearably dumb.
PS: My group has always had a lot of paladins, and every one has a mount, and they are always very important to the characters.
Last edited:
BryonD
Hero
Aaron L said:
Who says it is not a real animal with a real existence?
What has your personal experience with paladins and mounts been? Have you played in many games with paladins? Did they tend to take mounts? Did they get stuck trying to not abandon the mount when they went underground (etc..)? Was everything meta-gamed to keep the mount in play? Just curious where your opinion is coming from.
Aaron L
Hero
BryonD said:
See my edit. Paladins are very prevalent in the games my group play, and the paladins always have their mounts, name their mounts, etc..
As for keeping the mount in play, well... the mount is used in situations when a mount has a use. In a dungeon it doesn't do much but guard everyone elses horses. In outdoor combat it makes the paladin very dangerous. I cant see how having the ability to summon the horse for a period of time will be of any advantage whatsoever. It won't give it the ability to go dungeoneering.
If you like the idea of your paladin waking up and summoning his warhorse for the day, run with it. But I'm sorry, I just find it extremely tacky.
BryonD
Hero
That is cool.
I'm forced to guess that meta-gaming must come into play pretty often.
It has simply been my experience, as well as the experience of many other I have spoken with, that keeping a mount worthwhile in a game not built around that assumption is far more trouble than it is worth.
I also get amused by the idea that a holy warrior with powers from his god can't have a horse that comes from his god. I did not have an conceptual problem with old style. And I can't see any reason to have a conceptual problem with the new style. To so immediately discard it as "unbearably dumb" and "extremely tacky" smacks of "That isn't how we used to do it, so it must be bad."
Give it a try. Its just a different assumption.
I'm forced to guess that meta-gaming must come into play pretty often.
It has simply been my experience, as well as the experience of many other I have spoken with, that keeping a mount worthwhile in a game not built around that assumption is far more trouble than it is worth.
I also get amused by the idea that a holy warrior with powers from his god can't have a horse that comes from his god. I did not have an conceptual problem with old style. And I can't see any reason to have a conceptual problem with the new style. To so immediately discard it as "unbearably dumb" and "extremely tacky" smacks of "That isn't how we used to do it, so it must be bad."
Give it a try. Its just a different assumption.
Last edited:
BeauNiddle
First Post
DMG: page 96 - Variant: Summoning Individual monsters
#blah#
Specific Creatures:
Whenever a spellcaster summons a single creature of a given type, it's always the same creature. A player can roll the ability scores and hit points for each creature that his character can summon. His specific creature may be above or below average.
#blah#
Improving creatures:
Summoners can improve their creatures.
#blah#
At a guess the rules above are the ones they're going to be using. The horse will always be the same one, you can form long and meaningful relationships with it if you want, it just happens to be cheaper on stable costs.
I'm another vote in the 'really like' column but I might play around with the duration a bit.
#blah#
Specific Creatures:
Whenever a spellcaster summons a single creature of a given type, it's always the same creature. A player can roll the ability scores and hit points for each creature that his character can summon. His specific creature may be above or below average.
#blah#
Improving creatures:
Summoners can improve their creatures.
#blah#
At a guess the rules above are the ones they're going to be using. The horse will always be the same one, you can form long and meaningful relationships with it if you want, it just happens to be cheaper on stable costs.
I'm another vote in the 'really like' column but I might play around with the duration a bit.
Aaron L
Hero
I'm not sure what you mean by metagaming in this instance. The mount is useful in situations where a horse would be useful, and it isn't useful where a horse wouldn't be useful. Metagaming how, creating combat situations where the mount is useful? I guess you could say that happened, but no more than creating any other specific encounter where one character out of the party is highlighted.
I don't find the idea unappealing because it isn't the way it was done before, I don't like it because the idea of the knight summoning his horse when he wants to ride it, and then de-summoning it when he is done with it to be silly. It is a means of transportation. A special mount and companion. Not a pokemon that goes away after the fight. Might as well make cohorts summonable and dismissable at will.
All I can think of is the paladin taking his horse out of his pocket when he needs it and putting it back when he is done, and I just don't like it. Insta-horsey, just add water.
I guess it boils down to wheather you view the paladins mount as a flashy-magic summoned creature or a mount imbued with power and intelligence to help the paladin. I like my paladins like Lancelot and Arthur. I don't want them pulling horses out of the air any more then I want them casting fireballs.
I don't find the idea unappealing because it isn't the way it was done before, I don't like it because the idea of the knight summoning his horse when he wants to ride it, and then de-summoning it when he is done with it to be silly. It is a means of transportation. A special mount and companion. Not a pokemon that goes away after the fight. Might as well make cohorts summonable and dismissable at will.
All I can think of is the paladin taking his horse out of his pocket when he needs it and putting it back when he is done, and I just don't like it. Insta-horsey, just add water.
I guess it boils down to wheather you view the paladins mount as a flashy-magic summoned creature or a mount imbued with power and intelligence to help the paladin. I like my paladins like Lancelot and Arthur. I don't want them pulling horses out of the air any more then I want them casting fireballs.
Last edited:
BryonD
Hero
By meta-gaming I mean making certain that the game always allows the the long term maintenance of a specific mount.
That applies to any horse. But a mounted combat fighter can leave a horse behind (like Lancelot would) and get another one later. A paladin is forced to account for his one and only mount at all times. You can't really go on extended trips where the horse can't attend. So either the DM artificially makes sure that this problem never occurs, the paladin skips some adventures, or the paladin loses his mount.
I just think you are missing out on some very cool possibilities by refusing to look beyond vastly over simplified pokeymon ideas.
But, whatever, I think it is a great idea.
That applies to any horse. But a mounted combat fighter can leave a horse behind (like Lancelot would) and get another one later. A paladin is forced to account for his one and only mount at all times. You can't really go on extended trips where the horse can't attend. So either the DM artificially makes sure that this problem never occurs, the paladin skips some adventures, or the paladin loses his mount.
I just think you are missing out on some very cool possibilities by refusing to look beyond vastly over simplified pokeymon ideas.
But, whatever, I think it is a great idea.
Similar Threads
