Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 1282568" data-attributes="member: 957">And I have no good answer to that.&nbsp; I think that there was some reason, but I certainly can't proclaim it &quot;compelling&quot;.&nbsp; *I* don't think the change is bad.&nbsp; But I don't think it was at all mandatory.&nbsp; And, again, I REALLY think the wholesale change was not nearly as good as an option would have been.You are correct.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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)&nbsp; Two pieces of logic should follow: The mount should be generally available to maintain power and The class should support this concept.&nbsp; They advanced the first line of reasoning and neglected the other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 1282568, member: 957"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification