RPG/D&D terms and phrases that are no longer clever or amusing.

[BryonD]

Spot on. But here's the deal: why change it if there is not a compelling reason to? I don't think there is one, and that being the case, I think they should design the revision with backwards compatability of concepts in mind.

And I have no good answer to that. I think that there was some reason, but I certainly can't proclaim it "compelling".

*I* don't think the change is bad. But I don't think it was at all mandatory. And, again, I REALLY think the wholesale change was not nearly as good as an option would have been.

Then I question the way they went about it. If they were striving to make a paladin explicitly a mounted class, you would think it would have class abilities such as mounted combat feats. But it doesn't. Most of its abilities are around fighting evil. Which suggests to me that the role of the mount is somewhat anciliary.

AFAIAC, it's okay to have a class ability that is not always that useful. Heck, the ranger is built around such abilities.

You are correct. I think that comes down to a blend of archtypes combined with sacred cows that don't necessarily fit cleanly.

Not that this changes the initial logic. Paladins have mounts as a signifcant part of their power is an assumption (you have accurately challenged this, but it does remain a design assumption) Two pieces of logic should follow: The mount should be generally available to maintain power and The class should support this concept.

They advanced the first line of reasoning and neglected the other.

 

[pawsplay]

"Buffing" is not any worse than the terms it replaced, namely spell up or boost.

Big Bad, when used outside a Buffy context, annoys the @#$#^%@ piss out of me. I don't like Buffy, I don't like cutesy Buffy talk, and I certainly don't want to hear about the Big Bad in a Forgotten Realms module. It's not even a proper use of the (inspid) term, which self-consciously refers to the serial nature of the clash between good and evil on the show.

"Florentine axes." Florentine is a style of fencing or stick-fighting. It doesn't make you sound erudite, it tells me you gained your knowledge of fighting styles through the process of osmosis from willfully uneducated SCAdians. Just, for goodness sake, say Two Weapon Fighting. Or paired X, if you use paired weapons. Or sword and axe. Or whatever.

"Rollplaying" is a term coined by people who don't know the significance of the phrases Brown Box, Blue Book, and Red Box. For that matter, how about a nod to the fine folks at White Wolf, who not only coined the term Storytelling but helped it flourish, as an approach to roleplaying games?

 

[rounser]

Not that this changes the initial logic. Paladins have mounts as a signifcant part of their power is an assumption (you have accurately challenged this, but it does remain a design assumption)

Not sure why they don't treat animal companions for Druids, Paladins etc. with the "Creating a Magic Item" rules, so that those players who want a druid minus the menagerie are on par with those who do, and the assumption isn't built into the class and affecting relative power level. If the designers want to maintain archetype, they could discount the cost of acquiring a mount to make it a deal hard to refuse.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

[OT] But certain things in this thread brings it to mind...

Since we are talking about it - the paladin can only summon her/his mount for x hours a day. What does s/he ride the rest of the time? That it probably my main issue with the "summon mount" idea. Does s/he keep a normal horse around for the rest of the time? Hitch a ride with the druid or ranger's animal companion? What?

 

[Corinth]

So you mean to say, then, that overland travel and outdoor combat are inconsequential elements in the game?

By and large, yes. Overland travel isn't where the adventure is; it's the speed-bump that stands in the way of the adventure site and the base of operations.
Those rules are used as speed-bumps until such time as the PCs gain the ability to travel without risk (usually by teleporting) and thus put those rules away.

As for how they're commonly used, it's in a manner that doesn't drag gameplay to a stop. The DM checks for random encounters quickly. If nothing happens because there is no encounter, then this is what happens: tick off the consumed resources (or make necessary checks, usually by Taking 10 or 20), record the elapsed time and note the traversed space. If an encounter does occur, play it out and then get on with the game. The better DMs do all of those checks during downtime, away from the table, so that it doesn't burn up precious gameplay time.

They have both been important elements in the game since its publication.

But never near the importance that the elements that see use during the crawl in the dungeon do, as the overland travel and combat rules are always of secondary importance. Travel is the time when players take care of PC maintainance metagame needs while DM do their information dumping; it's handled in the same dismissive manner as it is in the movies, where scores or even hundreds of miles get dismissed by way of a montage of travel shots. Why? Because it's drop-dead boring; better to get it out of the way as fast as possible and get back to actually playing the game.

As this relates to the paladin's mount: this is an ability that, in its 3.0 version, is more of a liability than an asset because it's built around an aspect of the game that's clearly and consistantly of secondary importance to the primary aspect of dungeon crawling. When an outdoor combat encounter occurs, then the mount is a good thing, unless the encounter involves something that--while right on for the paladin in terms of threat level--is too much for the mount; the majority of the time, it's just a glorified tool of too-limited and dubious use- which makes for a rather lame class ability. The mount in 3.0 is too weak, not useful enough and more of a hassle than a benefit for the paladin; the 3.5 version is an all-around upgrade into a very useful tool in the paladin's arsenal of resources.

Oh well. If that's the call to make, that's the call to make. Making the mount a magically summoned beast is far more harmful to verisimilitude. Just when did the concept of the paladin become a summoner?

When the majority of D&D players said so; the changes to the mount didn't come from nowhere, but from the accumulative feedback from the millions of players playing the game for millions of hours. Their conclusions are those that I mentioned above; WOTC actually listened to the players of the game and fixed a noted--if subtle--problem with the game.

I return you to my previous statement: if it's not a significant boon to the paladin, weight it accordingly. Don't warp the concept of the paladin to make the power more pivotal. That's the tail wagging the dog.

D&D is first and formost a game. If the change makes the game a better game, then it's a good change. End of story.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Corinth, am I to understand that you are saying that the primary D&D game involves mostly dungeon crawls? What then, of those games that the PCs never set foot in a dungeon, or do so only very briefly? How do those fit into your concept of D&D?

I have been in very few games that had a lot of dungeon-crawling. In fact, most of the games I have been in have taken place mostly on the surface. I have played in one or two "dungeon-crawl" games and not enjoyed them - in fact, I found them quite boring. Fight, fight, and more fight, interspersed with puzzles and suchlike.

While that may be the "fault", if you will, of the DM, I think it is more that my style of play is not suited to dungeon-crawls. Therefore, I have difficulty seeing how gamers like myself fit into your scheme of things.

In a mainly surface-based game, in my humble experience and opinion, the paladin's ability to "summon" his or her mount instead of having it by their side day and night seems more of a liability than a benefit.

May it be possible that your opinion may have been formed by your prior experiences with DMs who glossed over Overland Travel and Combat, or simply by your own take on the game rather than the system itself?

 

[pawsplay]

The Paladin mount appearing is consistent with the Galahad story. His horse always just sort of showed up.

Now take your Paladin argument to another thread, boyos.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Corinth, am I to understand that you are saying that the primary D&D game involves mostly dungeon crawls? What then, of those games that the PCs never set foot in a dungeon, or do so only very briefly? How do those fit into your concept of D&D?

They fit in fine with mine - But they are also highly aberrant. That's a very unusual game.

I have been in very few games that had a lot of dungeon-crawling. In fact, most of the games I have been in have taken place mostly on the surface. I have played in one or two "dungeon-crawl" games and not enjoyed them - in fact, I found them quite boring. Fight, fight, and more fight, interspersed with puzzles and suchlike.

Yet market research has, apparently, shown that most players do play in such games and enjoy them. Naturally, WoTC markets to the largest, most spending-prone market.

While that may be the "fault", if you will, of the DM, I think it is more that my style of play is not suited to dungeon-crawls. Therefore, I have difficulty seeing how gamers like myself fit into your scheme of things.

You're statistical aberrations, who we quite happily coexist with except when we get in to arguments about 'versimilitude' and 'pokemounts'. There's nothing at all stopping you from using the old version of anything, since they still give those rules away for free.

In a mainly surface-based game, in my humble experience and opinion, the paladin's ability to "summon" his or her mount instead of having it by their side day and night seems more of a liability than a benefit.

I'd love to hear this elaborated. Is it because it won't be able to stand watch, because it won't serve as a deterrent...?

May it be possible that your opinion may have been formed by your prior experiences with DMs who glossed over Overland Travel and Combat, or simply by your own take on the game rather than the system itself?

I don't know about his opinion - But honestly, I think we can guarentee that's what formed his opinion. It's hard to form an opinion about something from a dry set of rules.

 

[Mercule]

"Buffing" is not any worse than the terms it replaced, namely spell up or boost.

Neither of which I've ever heard. If I had, I'd probably get tired of them in short order, too. Well, actually, "boosting" isn't so bad. I bit annoying, but not so much as "buffing".

How about "cast an enhancement", "augmented", "enspelled", etc?

 

[rounser]

By and large, yes. Overland travel isn't where the adventure is; it's the speed-bump that stands in the way of the adventure site and the base of operations.
Those rules are used as speed-bumps until such time as the PCs gain the ability to travel without risk (usually by teleporting) and thus put those rules away.

As for how they're commonly used, it's in a manner that doesn't drag gameplay to a stop. The DM checks for random encounters quickly. If nothing happens because there is no encounter, then this is what happens: tick off the consumed resources (or make necessary checks, usually by Taking 10 or 20), record the elapsed time and note the traversed space. If an encounter does occur, play it out and then get on with the game. The better DMs do all of those checks during downtime, away from the table, so that it doesn't burn up precious gameplay time.

I feel that this is a lost opportunity, an artefact of the cultural assumptions behind the way the game and it's settings have been presented in the past, with wandering encounter charts much to blame. There is no reason why the wilderness should come back as a focus of gameplay; thank you Necromancer/Judges Guild for the Wilderlands! Hopefully you'll be emulated and change this idiosyncracratic assumption of How D&D Should Be Played with the wilderness as an irrelevant speed bump, rather than an exciting opportunity for exploration and adventure as it should be.

Yet market research has, apparently, shown that most players do play in such games and enjoy them. Naturally, WoTC markets to the largest, most spending-prone market.

I suspect that people love the idea of dungeons. The idea of running a megadungeon is so cool that it's hard to resist, and seeing the words "Dungeon Crawl" on the series of Undermountain adventures made them see all the cooler. The problem is that very few dungeons live up to such reputations in terms of quality, and are in fact just plain boring. I suggest that TSR/WotC have never bothered to find out whether something on the scale of the Dragonlance Classics module series which isn't a railroadathon would sell. Imagine a hardback tome the size of the FRCS with a single campaign in it - why hasn't this been done? The other half of the story is that Dancey reckoned that they didn't have the time or resources to do such a project - one of the reasons why they turn out dungeons is because they're easier to write than open ended campaigns.