Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 1955310" data-attributes="member: 957">I'd agreed that called mounts miss the point of classic paladins.  But part of the problem in the debate is that the "I choose you"/pokemount claims mischaracterize the 3.5 rules just as badly.Klaus example fits 3.5, but not Galahad (I don't see Lancelot as a Paladin).Pokemount fits neither Klaus example nor Galahad.  It doesn't fit the debate and just muddies the discussion.I like called mounts but I IMMEDIATELY house ruled that it is optional.  (Psion may recall that I even went so far as to incorrectly refer to it as an option at one point).Quite simply, it should be an option.  WotC keeps trumpeting "options not restrictions" and then drops the ball on something obvious like this.  The paladin is not supposed to be only a knight of the round table class.  If a player wants to play a classic holy knight, then give them a full time horse with all the advantages and limitations it brings.  If their character concept fits more with Klaus example or some other non-knightly holy warrior, then by all means, go with it.  And if calling a mount fits that idea, then why crush the option?WotC didn't do anything wrong by making called mounts.But then they screwed up by making it a restriction that may frequently not fit, rather than an added gaming option.</blockquote>