What changes from 3.0 to 3.5 should *not* have been made?

[shilsen]

I use the term not to be derisive, but because it's a lot quicker than saying 'the ability to summon up a mount' or even 'summonable mount.'

And, to me, it's not how serious it is, but it is another in a series of elements that I (and others) find mood-breaking.

How is the paladin summoning a mount mood-breaking in a game where the standard PHB magic system exists? Not to mention everything else in the core rules. I can see a paladin's summonable mount not fitting into a low-magic setting, but in core D&D? I'm not arguing; I'm just really curious about this perspective.

 

[Will]

Because a paladin is basically a holy knight. I can see a holy knight calling forth a blessed mount once, when it first appears. Calling it each day as is convenient and using it as a bag of holding strikes me as off-mood.

A wizard or sorcerer doing miraculously weird stuff (spells) is, at times, mood breaking to me, but at least spells and bizarre effects are part and parcel with the definition of such people.

This is the same problem people have with rangers, though for rangers the issue is more acute. The conception of what a ranger is varies a great deal from person to person. So any version of a ranger is going to seem ill-fitting to someone. For example, whether they have spells or not.

As another example, considering regular rogues having shadowdancer abilities. Perhaps appropriate for a high fantasy game, but people would prefer a 'regular rogue' not being inherently magical.

 

[BryonD]

Because a paladin is basically a holy knight. I can see a holy knight calling forth a blessed mount once, when it first appears. Calling it each day as is convenient and using it as a bag of holding strikes me as off-mood.

Did it break the mood for you when Gandolf summoned Shadowfax in TT?


To me the term pokemount does nothing but signify the lack of imagination of the detractors.

 

[Will]

He didn't conjure it out of thin air. It rather seemed that he had either called to it and it came to him, or that he had hunted down Shadowfax and then left him a convenient distance away, to be called over when ready.

Gandalf is also, of course, a wizard, not a paladin, and essentially a celestial. Even if he had blown a bubble of smoke which turned into a horse, it's within the scope of 'miraculous powerful dude.'

If all the knights of Gondor had the ability to pray and have horses pop into existence beside them, I rather think it would be mood-breaking.


I've heard proponents use the term 'pokemount.' Your second comment is, at best, ill-founded.

 

[Psion]

How is the paladin summoning a mount mood-breaking in a game where the standard PHB magic system exists?

It muddies up the knight in shining armor with the conjurer.

Which is fine if that's what you are after, but as a default... I don't like it.

 

[Psion]

Did it break the mood for you when Gandolf summoned Shadowfax in TT?

Galdalf is not even CLOSE to being an archetype for a paladin.

 

[Zweischneid]

Did it break the mood for you when Gandolf summoned Shadowfax in TT?

Shadowfax is a gift to Gandalf by the King of Rohan... born and bred in a stable like any other horse.

Galdalf is not even CLOSE to being an archetype for a paladin.

Returned from the dead, to live A life to fight evil surrounded by a radiant nimbus of holy, inspiring courage in those who lost heart, healing the minds from dark sorceries with but a touch, riding into battle, a shining beacon of hope.

Gandalf does get damn close to that archetype if you ask me. Than again, every Protagonist of Tolkiens Epic would likely feature a few paladinlevels if you write em up for D&D.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Even better, you no longer face situations like DR _50_/+5 (golems, if I remember right). Highest DR I've seen in MMI is 20, I think, for very high CR monsters. So now you _can_ hurt such creatures. Aforementioned nightwalkers were taken down by big-ass swords. Yeah, DR made it take longer, and took the rogue and bard out of the damage-picture, but it was still doable.

How often did you face DR above 15 in 3.0. What 1 or 2 celestials and golems. And with golems who cares there immune to basically all magic why is it somehow worse for them to be also immune to virtually all physical attacks. Anf celestials again whopedy there are a couple creatures virtually immune to physical punishment. The high DR problem of 3e was vastly exagerated to support the new DR system.

 

[Will]

He's an angel, or something close to it. He spent close to 2000 years in Middle Earth. He might also have had history before that, my Middle Earth lore is not extensive.

In any case, that's like saying all paladins should fly because the archangel Michael could. After all, he's a bastion of light, holiness, and military prowess!

Shard: We fought several very high DR beasties in City of the Spider Queen. They rendered much of the party useless unless we focused entirely on a +N weapon. A golem... didn't have a +5 sword? May as well, oh, run away and hope the casters could do something.

It also meant that nobody would ever get an adamantine or silver sword... why bother? A +3 sword would be much better in nearly every other case.

When you aren't choosing silver weapons to kill lycanthropes, the game's gone off the tracks.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

How often did you face DR above 15 in 3.0. What 1 or 2 celestials and golems. And with golems who cares there immune to basically all magic why is it somehow worse for them to be also immune to virtually all physical attacks.

So they're supposed to be invicinble? Then what is the point of using golems?