Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corinth" data-source="post: 1282789" data-attributes="member: 497">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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification