Rich Baker on Paladin Mounts and Multiclassing

[GreatLemur]

Yeah, Talents are essentially feats that are restricted only to your class. As the designers would say, they fill the same "design space". If the class should have it, make it a class ability. If it should be available to everyone them make it a feat.

I'd say there's a logical classification of character abilities between those extremes: "Only members of this class should have it, but not every member of the class." Although I certainly agree that talents are just feats with class-specific prerequisites, and it seems a little bit unnecessary to even draw a distinction between them. That's why I prefer True20's character system, in which character classes don't get any abilities, just access to appropriate feats.

 

[Lackhand]

Man, it's about time. On both counts.

Seriously, did anyone ever actually observe the Paladin and Monk multiclassing restrictions? Or, for that matter, multiclassing experience penalties? I should start a poll...

I'm with DarwinofMind. This would disappoint me tremendously.

Oh lord, borble flashback...

It'd disappoint me too. Sad panda.

Also: That link. I'm late to work, it's your fault, and ow ow ow.

 

[Traycor]

The PHB was supposed to head to typesetting yesterday. So either paladins aren't in the core rules, which they apparently are, or that's an old quote, or he's being cagey.

It's not an old quote because he posted that yesterday.

 

[jester47]

You know, they can totally fix the paladin mount problem by having the ability be that whatever the paladin decides to ride as a mount gets cool bonuses. So, the paladin has the ability to point at one creature and say "I want to ride THAT!" And THAT (whatever it is depending on hit dice and such) is automatically friendly to the Paladin, and will let him ride it. When the Paladin mounts up, THAT becomes "supercharged" with assorted bonuses.

 

[Voss]

Uh, I can think of several reasons not to do that. Overpowered flying critters, like the hippogriff, at low levels. Tyrannosaur mounts later on, griffons, dragons, etc. Purple Worms?

 

[Traycor]

considering that the Paragon paths are not class specific (i.e. at least 3 classes should be able to take any given path) I would imagine that we are seeing the loss of the "Paladin" mount in favor of a "special mount".

So we could have wizards that gain an ostitch to ride on, or rangers that ride giant lizards. Or it could simply be an "animal companion" ability that applies to companions or mounts. Maybe even a fighter that is a "dog handler" could be created using such a mechanic.

 

[Klaus]

Oh lord, borble flashback...

"Like" Eragon, not Eragon. If I had to write something up, I'd start with a warlock and take away stuff in order to give an animal companion-like dragon (mind you, not a true dragon).

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Good. Familiars suck! They are more a liability to a caster than an asset. I'd rather trade my familiar in for an extra feat or something.

A lot of the time yes, familiars are mostly useless in 3e. (Though not nearly as useless as in 2e!) And their vulnerability is an issue, as well.

With the advent of the Unearthed Arcana and its variant sorcerer types, I don't see why any sorcerer wouldn't drop the ability to get a familiar and replace it with the Metamagic Sorcerer thing.

I'll gladly wait until WotC comes up with good, interesting rules for familiars.

 

[jester47]

Uh, I can think of several reasons not to do that. Overpowered flying critters, like the hippogriff, at low levels. Tyrannosaur mounts later on, griffons, dragons, etc. Purple Worms?

You missed the bit I included about a hit die limitation. Say it only works on a creature with half a paladins hit dice or something like that.

It would so work.