Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vigilance" data-source="post: 1954218" data-attributes="member: 4275">A nicely written example to be sure... but with the rules as written there was already a way to simulate that... or Gandalf calling the "lord of all horses".However in 3.5 there is no way to simulate Lancelot... or the Paladin from 3 Hearts and 3 Lions... (a major influence on the original paladin class) except by having the Paladin buy a normal warhorse. My objection to Pokemounts isnt that you would have to TREAT them as something silly... rather that it further pushes the paladin toward some sort of hybrid spellcaster and away from the "noble knight" that is, in my not so humble opinion, the basis of the class. I mean... is there a class in the game as is that sumulates the Knights Templar? The Knights of the Round Table? The peers of Charlemagne? Were they fighters? Clerics? Rangers?Something I liked about 3.0 was that you could do a Fafred and the Grey Mouser campaign without a house rule... you could do a decent Conan write up for the first time without a house rule... you could do a King Arthur campaign without a house rule... the classes handled those archetypal fantasy games. Maybe not perfectly... but I appreciated the fact that I could buy 3 books and do those types of "core" games (and yeah that pun was purposeful).3.5 decided to change that. And why was it done? So some rules lawyer couldnt whine about how rarely he got to use his warhorse I suppose. Im sorry... Pokemounts are just lame. The fact that a ranger and a druid can have a trusty steed that grows in experience as he gains levels, seeing him through many dangers, but not the paladin... no the Paladin summons something from the celestial grazing grounds.Because... you know... lots of noble knights in literature and fantasy fiction did that. Right? Chuck</blockquote>

Verification