I'd like to see the paladin get a list of mount options similiar to the druid list of animal companion options. I know that, someplace buried in the DMG, there are rules that allow paladins to take unicorns, with a level penalty, and that there are also rules that acting as a mount gains a cohort a +2 level adjustment (which wouldn't be hard to break). So, instead of having a roundabout system to emulate what already exists for the druid, why not make a similar chart and system for the paladin? Now, before it even becomes an issue, I'm not suggesting any monstrous high-end stuff like the druid has, but things like pegasus, griffin, hippogriff, etc. would be really handy for pally players. What do the rest of you think?
Definitely. It doesn't even need to have as many options as the Druid, just SOME to mix it up.
How about adding some sort of favored mount(s) to each deity? A dwarven paladin of some propper dwarven deity should imho ride on a large lizard and not on a stupid needs-to-be-chopped-at-the-knees-to-have-the-right-height horse.
Dire boar.
My Dwarf Paladin always had a dire boar mount. Naugo.
|
Please go back to the 2e way of a Mount being a real animal, and not some 'summoned' just add water and *poof* insta-mount and of course a variety of Mount Types for diferent terrain types would be beneficial.
Also a Feat that allows an improved Paladins mount, much like a familiar, would be well received.
In previous editions camapigns, I had Paladins that had Camels, Giant Seahorses, and one that even had a small Wooly Rhino as a Mount.
Having a 'smart' Mount that is a real animal, can have long lasting campaign effects. Insta-Mounts lack flavor.
Please go back to the 2e way of a Mount being a real animal, and not some 'summoned' just add water and *poof* insta-mount and of course a variety of Mount Types for diferent terrain types would be beneficial.
Also a Feat that allows an improved Paladins mount, much like a familiar, would be well received.
In previous editions camapigns, I had Paladins that had Camels, Giant Seahorses, and one that even had a small Wooly Rhino as a Mount.
Having a 'smart' Mount that is a real animal, can have long lasting campaign effects. Insta-Mounts lack flavor.
that's how I always do it, no poki mount here not now not ever.
|
|
that's how I always do it, no poki mount here not now not ever.Please go back to the 2e way of a Mount being a real animal, and not some 'summoned' just add water and *poof* insta-mount and of course a variety of Mount Types for diferent terrain types would be beneficial.
Also a Feat that allows an improved Paladins mount, much like a familiar, would be well received.
In previous editions camapigns, I had Paladins that had Camels, Giant Seahorses, and one that even had a small Wooly Rhino as a Mount.
Having a 'smart' Mount that is a real animal, can have long lasting campaign effects. Insta-Mounts lack flavor.
i agree
and as most say, give more options than the horse... that elaves dwarfand halfling paladins with an option they can't take, and elven or human female paladin should ebable to get an unicorn as mount asin old leyends and editions... also different gods have different valed animals o theyshouldhave somethingmore akin to this.. than say... horseoptions for the paladin's mount!!!
well the idea of not real animal i see it asaway to protect the poor animal when the paladinis deep in a dungeon and the mount would be eaten if left outside it... maybe the paladin can call for it... mentally and it would arrive in moments of needs... the sudden "pokemon" way... its a lot to mydislike :S
no poki mount here not now not ever.
Best left as a house rule. I agree in principle, but that technically would be removing power from the existing characters.
If you were my GM and you said no poké-mount, I would commend you. Writing it into the rulebook after the SRD made that power available is unfair to those who expect it to keep working that way.
|
Yes, a bit more diversity in the choice of the paladins mount would be nice. How about adding some sort of favored mount(s) to each deity? A dwarven paladin of some propper dwarven deity should imho ride on a large lizard and not on a stupid needs-to-be-chopped-at-the-knees-to-have-the-right-height horse.
Okay I have no problem in opening up the paladin to more mounts. But please can we stop trying to shoehorn the paladin into a god. It specifically says they don't have to be religious and making the choice diety specific takes away from that. I would like a nice different mount, but I don't want to have to choose a god to get the one I want. Just give him options don't make those options diety specific.
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
I am seriously considering a large change to the paladin mount, moving it back to its roots a bit. This would mean that it would work quite a bit more like an animal companion and be with the paladin 24/7. In addition, this would give us the flexibility to add other mounts to the list for the paladin to gain access to as they gain levels.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Amen!
Seriously, though, that sounds great...
Besides different Mount Types, I'd also like to see more unique ways it scales:
Different than Animal Companions or Familiars, but overlapping with both where it makes sense.
Sharing the Paladins' buffs and Class saves/ immunities is a great start...
Ideally, the Mount should synergize with both the Paladin's Martial Combat AND Divine Spells/ Powers,
while being especially potent against/protected from Evil/ Extraplanar Enemies.
|
|
Yes! a haertfelt Hurrah!
Id like it to fall into the same category as Familiar...or Animal Companion.
Ive always felt that instead of a strict list for any of these you could have general parameters set up....
ie
(and I will go into this more when the Wizard comes up)
A Paladins Mount is called upon arriving at 5th level. This normally takes the form of a 'quest' or service performed by the Paladin to 'find' his Mount, and thus proving his worthiness. In some cases a rite of consecration is performed instead, bonding the Paladins normal Mount to the Paladin and increasing its capability.
A Paladins mount can be any animal capable of carrying another as long as it meets the following requirements...
2-3HD normally (the consecration rasies them to 5 HD)
is normally found in the area the Paladin has chosen to adventure in
and has an intelligence between 1-5 (as an example)
Then scale the mount in a similar fashion as a familiar and give them some perks like when the paladin is mounted they get his cha bonus to their saves...they share his aura's.
Have an improved Mount Feat that allows the taking of a higher base HD animal as a mount, depending on the level of the Paladin....so even up to Polar Bears or Wooly Mammoths could be taken ;)
fun stuff.
... maybe the paladin can call for it... mentally and it would arrive in moments of needs... the sudden "pokemon" way... its a lot to mydislike :S
That's how I ran it based on the "Baron Munchausen" movie. He whistles for it and it crashes threw the window (on a second floor?) to help him, fun stuff/fluff.
Also, help the little guys! Mounts for small paladins start weaker and slower and don't get "leveled" to the warhorse options of the medium sized characters so the small paladin is really better-off keeping the horse even if it looks and feels ridiculous.
Variant mounts would be great but does this "ally" of the paladin always have to be a mount or could it just be an "divine companion"?
Hey there all,
I am seriously considering a large change to the paladin mount, moving it back to its roots a bit. This would mean that it would work quite a bit more like an animal companion and be with the paladin 24/7. In addition, this would give us the flexibility to add other mounts to the list for the paladin to gain access to as they gain levels.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
ah good news there.
the paladin call(ing) for it mentally, and it arriv(ing) in moments of need, the sudden "pokemon" way... (is much) to my dislike :S
Exactly, if they gain a mental connection, like Arcane Familiars, they can call for it to COME when needed, while maintaining 'persistence' and not summoning it from a poof of smoke, which destroys the "holy shining knight" motif. If the mount is unable to enter an area for whatever reason, they can circle the area looking after themselves, even serving as a "guard" or "look-out", since they are in constant mental contact, and can seek out the Paladin when needed.
|
|
Variant mounts would be great but does this "ally" of the paladin always have to be a mount or could it just be an "divine companion"?
explain "divine companion"
but aye i like the idea of options... and that theycan call their "mounts" or "companions", but not to summon them
but to have them 24/7... would be problematic in certain places...
... maybe the paladin can call for it... mentally and it would arrive in moments of needs... the sudden "pokemon" way... its a lot to mydislike :SExactly, if they gain a mental connection, like Arcane Familiars, they can call for it when needed, while maintaining 'persistence' and not summoning it from a poof of smoke, which destroys the "holy shining knight" illusion.
I agree with this, you keep a helpful companion a "call-away" and gives the paladin to move freely, without the disruptive feeling of the summoning and its hocus-pocus
|
I am seriously considering a large change to the paladin mount, moving it back to its roots a bit. This would mean that it would work quite a bit more like an animal companion and be with the paladin 24/7. In addition, this would give us the flexibility to add other mounts to the list for the paladin to gain access to as they gain levels.
Thoughts?
I would be very pleased to see the end of the Pokemount!
However, a lot of adventures don't allow for taking a horse along into the dungeon, which was the creation of the original 'vanishing mount' function.
Can I suggest that if we are looking at the 24/7 mount (which I think is a great thing), that the paladin garner some sort of effect or bonus, even when the mount is not there? Maybe pooling some of the mount's hit points with him, maybe gaining an aid on Fortitude saving throws, maybe some other bonus, if the creature is within 1 mile...
Of course, additional mounts is an excellent idea as well.
First off let me say that one of my favorite d20 characters of all time is a gnomish badger knight whom my wife plays in our present 3.5 campaign (nearing 18th level)
A dire badger is a great mount for a dungeon delving adventurer as they are used to being underground and their small burrow speed makes for some interesting tactical possibilities when on the surface.
I am very much in favor of keeping poki-mounts the way they are as otherwise mounts are going to be increasingly seen as a liability while waiting outside the dungeon. I know it strains credibility, but I've saved hours of my life in tedious discussions about "how do I keep my mount safe"
As an addition it would be nice to see some basic advancement rules for mounts that are not granted by class abilities, as it sits unless your going for a figurine of wonderous power most warhorses can't survive the collateral damage of a high-level encounter which greatly limits the options of party flavor. "The Infantry of Valador sounds pretty corny compared to The Knights of Valador"
|
Director of Games
|
First off, the same issue of dungeon exploring exists with all animal companions, although you can usually trust the dire bear to get its own food.
I think this might be easily solved with a paladin ability that allows him to teleport his mount to his location, although this would not be a low level ability.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
...
explain "divine companion"
...
Mostly semantics I guess. Some animals or beasts associated with a god might make for a good ally/companion for a paladin but might not make for a good mount. I don't think a Celestial Giant Eagle of Abadar could bear a full-gaer/full-plated paladin (even with the upgardes) but could make for a great support ally.
I think this might be easily solved with a paladin ability that allows him to teleport his mount to his location, although this would not be a low level ability.
hm, exactly what I was thinking before coming to your post :-)
A teleport effect feels better than just summmoning.And it also grants a great utility to the Paladin, if he can teleport while riding his mount.
Demons/Devils have Teleport/Gating abilities anyways, it makes sense that the Paladin could have them in some way,
certainly if he ever needs to take the battle TO the Evil... Like you said, this would be a high level ability.
First off, the same issue of dungeon exploring exists with all animal companions, although you can usually trust the dire bear to get its own food.
I think this might be easily solved with a paladin ability that allows him to teleport his mount to his location, although this would not be a low level ability.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Being able to "trade-in" a Large-sized mount for another medium-sized "ally" or the Divine-Weapon class abilitie after some preperation might help.
Possibly with mechanics comparable to the replacement/switch of an animal companion (24h of prayer).
First off, the same issue of dungeon exploring exists with all animal companions, although you can usually trust the dire bear to get its own food.
I think this might be easily solved with a paladin ability that allows him to teleport his mount to his location, although this would not be a low level ability.
Paizo Publishing
That would be pretty cool.
Maybe we can sum up some mounts.
I would like a muskox like Ram for gnomes.
Dire bears and rhino's are cool to.
But to stay in PF-universe camels or dromedary would be cool Osirion mounts.
I do almost forget some mounts from my all time favourite kiddo cartoon.
He-Man's Tiger and Skeletors black/purple dire panther
|
|
First off, the same issue of dungeon exploring exists with all animal companions, although you can usually trust the dire bear to get its own food.
I think this might be easily solved with a paladin ability that allows him to teleport his mount to his location, although this would not be a low level ability.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
A lot of animal companions (wolves, birds, etc) and familiars are small enough to navigate a dungeon, where a horse may not.
I think at initial levels, a paladin should be able to 'call' his mount from a distance, and at later levels, summon (teleport) their mount. That sounds reasonable.
But, for the adventure where the mount just ain't happening, some sort of benefit from the mount to the paladin (even if the mount is left tethered to the mouth of the dungeon) would be nice.
more like an animal companion and be with the paladin 24/7.
Most paladin mounts are large and have 4 legs. This poses some problemes when the adventurers go spellunking. A warhorse has a hard time climbing down a ladder. Having a portable mount is the best option in my opinion. Make it a summon monster or onyx mount, but keep the freedom of dismissing the mount and recalling it whenever necessary.
- Zorg
But, for the adventure where the mount just ain't happening, some sort of benefit from the mount to the paladin (even if the mount is left tethered to the mouth of the dungeon) would be nice.
Having an intelligent, 100% loyal "Celestial Companion" you're in telepathic contact with, who can serve as a guard/ look-out at the mouth of the dungeon seems like a decent benefit.
Not at all Class Features need to be beneficial 100% of the time. It's reasonable to imagine a Paladin would PREFER not rooting around thru tunnels or sewers, just like a Druid prefers natural settings, a Ranger prefers their Favored Terrain, an Evoker prefers non-Resistant Enemies... If the paladin has enough OTHER Class Features that AREN'T tied to the Celestial Companion, then they will get by in those situations that can't use it in any way.
|
|
But, for the adventure where the mount just ain't happening, some sort of benefit from the mount to the paladin (even if the mount is left tethered to the mouth of the dungeon) would be nice.Having an intelligent, 100% loyal "Celestial Companion" you're in telepathic contact with, who can serve as a guard/ look-out at the mouth of the dungeon seems like a decent benefit.
Not at all Class Features need to be beneficial 100% of the time. It's reasonable to imagine a Paladin would PREFER not rooting around thru tunnels or sewers, just like a Druid prefers natural settings, a Ranger prefers their Favored Terrain, an Evoker prefers non-Resistant Enemies... If the paladin has enough OTHER Class Features that AREN'T tied to the Celestial Companion, then they will get by in those situations that can't use it in any way.
agreed
and yes i like the idea of "gating/teleporting" the "mount"
|
|
But, for the adventure where the mount just ain't happening, some sort of benefit from the mount to the paladin (even if the mount is left tethered to the mouth of the dungeon) would be nice.Having an intelligent, 100% loyal "Celestial Companion" you're in telepathic contact with, who can serve as a guard/ look-out at the mouth of the dungeon seems like a decent benefit.
Not at all Class Features need to be beneficial 100% of the time. It's reasonable to imagine a Paladin would PREFER not rooting around thru tunnels or sewers, just like a Druid prefers natural settings, a Ranger prefers their Favored Terrain, an Evoker prefers non-Resistant Enemies... If the paladin has enough OTHER Class Features that AREN'T tied to the Celestial Companion, then they will get by in those situations that can't use it in any way.
I agree with you on that, I think an empathic bond that was good up to a couple miles and allowed you to pinpoint direction your mount is in would be good when you actually get the mount. The empathy would allow you to know when it is in danger and vise versa, and the ability to pinpoint its location means that it can come to you when you send out your empathic call and vice versa. At level 15 it can gain a teleport.
Jason, are you saying that like the animal companion the mount will be available at level one? or do we still have to wait till 5 to get the bond? If at level 5 then we should definitely have a better list of mounts than a druid gets at level one.
First off, the same issue of dungeon exploring exists with all animal companions, although you can usually trust the dire bear to get its own food.
I think this might be easily solved with a paladin ability that allows him to teleport his mount to his location, although this would not be a low level ability.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I like this. I'm a big fan of compromise. Personally, I always houserule out the pokemount summoning, because it took away from the 'cowboy and his loyal horse' feeling a paladin should have. Letting high level paladins teleport their mounts is a good idea, as it changes something that players don't like without really taking anything away.
Whatever route we go, would it be possible for the mount to gain the Celestial template at an appropriate level break (maybe 10th or so)? That's one feature I would REALLY, REALLY like to see. I just don't like the idea of having Sir Virtue the 20th level paladin, defender of all goodness, mounted on a (tough and smart, but otherwise mundane) nag.
|
|
Whatever route we go, would it be possible for the mount to gain the Celestial template at an appropriate level break (maybe 10th or so)? That's one feature I would REALLY, REALLY like to see. I just don't like the idea of having Sir Virtue the 20th level paladin, defender of all goodness, mounted on a (tough and smart, but otherwise mundane) nag.
And if the mount gains the celestial template, it too can smite evil 1/day. Nice!
First off, the same issue of dungeon exploring exists with all animal companions, although you can usually trust the dire bear to get its own food.
I think this might be easily solved with a paladin ability that allows him to teleport his mount to his location, although this would not be a low level ability.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
In my experience, many mounts get left behind at the dungeon entrance. My players would probably be relieved to know an intelligent and more powerful horse was watching over the mundane ones. I initially saw the the Weapon Bond as an alternative to the Mount for players who didn't want to deal with the hassles of moving the mount through tight spaces.
That said, I am curious about the action necessary to summon the mount. It could be an out-of-combat action time-frame (e.g. one minute), but this means that a Paladin would be deprived of the mount during an ambush, and would encourage the party to constantly stop and re-summon the mount in each new area. If it's a full-round action it means the Paladin and mount are immobile for a round. It also means the Paladin has to take another round to mount and get into position.
There is also a question of the location of the summoned mount. If the mount can appear as a summoned monster, it allows the Paladin to drop the mount into an advantageous combat position. I am less than thrilled with the idea of the mount appearing and the Paladin already being mounted (the rules for this would be fairly thick).
I feel the best option is to make summoning a standard action which places the mount adjacent to the Paladin. This leaves a move action to mount one's steed, or gives them at least a chance to relocate.
Jason: I was always fond of the Celestial Minion mount replacement. This was a feature of the Sentinel (NG Paladin variant) that James Jacobs authored for Dragon #310.
As more of an animal companion than a mount, it solved some of the dungeoneering problems that exist with traditional paladin mounts. While this might be too radical of a departure for the Divine Bond, it might be a viable house-rule for some other DMs, or possibly a starting point for your new idea.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hey there all,
I am seriously considering a large change to the paladin mount, moving it back to its roots a bit. This would mean that it would work quite a bit more like an animal companion and be with the paladin 24/7. In addition, this would give us the flexibility to add other mounts to the list for the paladin to gain access to as they gain levels.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think this is cool, being old school as I am, with the caveat that it would be nice (though not a necessity) if a paladin could send his mount INTO the "heavenly pastures" for safety and recuperation if the paladin has to go into a dungeon or other mount-unfriendly place.
Speaking of which, it would be nice to give some explicit rules about mounted combat in dungeons. There has always been this (probably reasonable) assumption that horses can't/won't/don't work in dungeons, but it might be nice to lay out exactly what penalties, if any, a mount of a given size suffers indoors in dungeons, and whether certain creatures are more impacted than others.
Sure, I know a Large mount would have to squeeze anywhere it's less than 5' wide, but in the D&D tradition most dungeon corridors are 10' and up. So what's the problem. Can horses use stairs? What about super-smart horses (like a paladin's mount)?
Or say, for instance, a warhorse and a tiger are both size Large. Are tigers better able to negotiate dungeon corridors and terrain features than horses?
Just wondering...
Well, tigers vs horses- they are just built differently.
If you've ever had a cat, and a horse, you can tell they are built for very different things.
You also aren't usually trying to ride the cat, and if you did- it's Large long, not Large high like the horse is.
Even with a 10' ceiling, you'd have to be careful not to scrape your head. (depending on race and height, of course).
Myself, I always thought the paladin summoning their warhorse was an excellent addition. The horse is intelligent but isn't always needed. telling it to stay in the barn while You go play just isn't right. The creature isn't exactly an animal anymore with its intelligence level.
Asking it to stay outside while you go play doesn't seem right either. Summoning it Gandalf style regardless of where you "left it" seems Very in tune with the Paladin theme. He's a holy warrior with a very intelligent steed bestowed upon him by his deity. When He doesn't need it, it goes back to the deity to hang out until called upon again.
I don't think they should necessarily be ping-pong summoned/desummoned at will, but as a general notion the Paladin should have access to his mount when needed and it should be able to "go home" when he goes dungeon crawling.
Leaving him with the "dumb horses" or taking him into the treacherous dungeon just doesn't seem right, in my mind anyway.
-S
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Does this mean my Aasimar paladin can keep her Celestial Gryphon? : p
Joking aside, I feel that having a permanent mount would be a fantastic change. Making them more like Animal Companions, though...I'm more wary on that, depending on what it means. I think Quandary's is a nice way to go about that (I've always wondered why Mounts don't get the grace bonus, though it might be because they get SR and improved Evasion, I think), and the gating in of a mount sounds like a nice idea...as long as they can gate out, as well.
Can't comment on the look-out aspect of leaving a mount in front of a dungeon, Anthem the gryphon got tons of action.
Really, this is all the more reason why a paladin's mount SHOULD get the divine grace bonuses. The fatal weakness of mounted combat is the fragility of the mount. It's already going to have a relatively low AC. If we really want to encourage the paladin's mount to be a useful class feature and for paladins to be ABLE to build around it, then it would behoove us to make their mounts as hard to kill as possible, not something that gets wasted by collateral damage on AoE spells.
Just sayin...
If you change a paladin's mount to be more like a druid or ranger, you've got another problem as evidenced by the discussions about how the druid's animal companion is too powerful or a ranger's isn't powerful enough.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Well, tigers vs horses- they are just built differently.
If you've ever had a cat, and a horse, you can tell they are built for very different things.
Sure they are. The question is how we express this in a game world where all Large creatures occupy 10-foot cubes of space.
Hooves = no dungeon, paws = dungeon okay?
What about claws? What would you do with a hippogriff (hooves and claws) vs. griffon (hooves and paws)?
You also aren't usually trying to ride the cat, and if you did- it's Large long, not Large high like the horse is.
Even with a 10' ceiling, you'd have to be careful not to scrape your head. (depending on race and height, of course).
Again, sure, but how do we decide what is large and long vs. large and high? In the game, quadrupeds are generally regarded as large and long (no reach) vs. giants and other bipeds being large and high (10' reach).
Obviously I'm asking for a gamist solution to what has always been adjudicated as a simulationist problem. Why can't you bring a horse in a dungeon? Because you just can't! Horses don't do well in dungeons. It's been an article of faith of D&D since I started playing in 1981. The question is, what happens if you DO bring a horse in a dungeon. It's not like there's some magical anti-horse force field (a "horse field"? :) that prevents it from happening.
So, if we agree that large mounts in dungeons are a problem, what rules (other than possibly squeezing) apply when it happens? And, which large creatures do they apply to, vs. which large creatures are perfectly fine dungeoning it up?
PS - I think when you are mounted you are considered to share your mount's space, not to be stacked on top of it. I'd have to look that up to confirm it, though.
Myself, I always thought the paladin summoning their warhorse was an excellent addition. The horse is intelligent but isn't always needed. telling it to stay in the barn while You go play just isn't right. The creature isn't exactly an animal anymore with its intelligence level.
Asking it to stay outside while you go play doesn't seem right either. Summoning it Gandalf style regardless of where you "left it" seems Very in tune with the Paladin theme. He's a holy warrior with a very intelligent steed bestowed upon him by his deity. When He doesn't need it, it goes back to the deity to hang out until called upon again.
I don't think they should necessarily be ping-pong summoned/desummoned at will, but as a general notion the Paladin should have access to his mount when needed and it should be able to "go home" when he goes dungeon crawling.
Leaving him with the "dumb horses" or taking him into the treacherous dungeon just doesn't seem right, in my mind anyway.
-S
I agree that the summoned mount serves an absolutely useful purpose, in giving you a safe place to stash your mount when it's not needed, and allowing you to whistle it up when it is.
I have a hard time seeing the point of the argument that teleporting the mount to you is fine and atmospheric and thematic but summoning the mount to you is anathema and pokemount and lame. You could barely slide a razor between the two in terms of their real effect - your mount is somewhere else, and then you call and it suddenly appears. Whether it dramatically breaks through a window when you last left it 20 miles away, appears in a puff of empyreal incense, teleportationally pops into your presence, or suddenly comes running around the bend, it's all the same effect.
For me, I like the permanent mount cuz I'm just old school like that. Of course, your summoned mount is, I think, assumed to be a PERMANENT summoned mount as well. You don't just gate in some random celestial horse. You gate in Silver Streak, the Wonder Horse, every time you use it. If Silver Streak gets killed, you can raise him or mourn him and then start calling up Brass Billy, the Wonder Horse. Or whatever.
I don't mind summoning or stashing the horse, cuz I also always thought it was kinda lame that you had to leave your class feature out guarding the other PCs' possessions when you went in the dungeon. Allowing you to whistle it up by gate, teleport, link and normal movement, or anything else is fine by me.
Why no horses in dungeons?
1. Food. Enforce the rule that a horse must eat, which might mean a number of pounds of hay per day. All that hay (more volume than a 10x10 portable hole, for an extended dungeon crawl) must be brought in, because there's no grass to graze in a stone corridor.
2. Noise. Hooves clacking on cobbles and echoing off walls in a confined space = every denizen of said dungeon is immediately aware of its presence.
3. Footing. Typically there's light rubble or rough terrain in at least one area. A horse has a very poor Acrobatics check to keep its balance, and although there's no rule for it, I'd maybe think about a broken foreleg.
|
|
no its not that they are not allowed... is unpractical...
while in some room there would be space both to run and combat, there are spaceswhere it willbe tight to pass, places your horse wont reach... and if you have been over ahorse you would understand that your head its not at the level of the horse's head... so the raider have to move carefully to not hit his head
ok... now lets see examples...
the players found a very tight space where they need to squeze... the horse won't go it doesn't matter how hard you push
what if you need touse ropes to go down or up (see 13th Warrior or eaters of the dead for an excellent example")
if you needto keep quiet for not being discovered (also the horse is bigger and has more troubles hidding)
you found an abyss and you need to jump over it or pass over a rope or a not too wide bridge... what do youdo with the horse
ok this won't happen 100% of time... but what do you do then... do you turn around and go back to leave the horse in a safe place... or leavethe horse there where surely would be more dangerousthan outside (believe me... i will make the paladina favor and kill it)
you can go as a gamist into the dungeon with your horse...
i as DM won't make your life easier...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Why no horses in dungeons?
1. Food. Enforce the rule that a horse must eat, which might mean a number of pounds of hay per day. All that hay (more volume than a 10x10 portable hole, for an extended dungeon crawl) must be brought in, because there's no grass to graze in a stone corridor.
Characters have to eat too, and at 5th+ level your party can create food and water, which specifically stipulates it can make horse chow.
Besides, a lot of dungeon crawls are in and out inside of a day.
2. Noise. Hooves clacking on cobbles and echoing off walls in a confined space = every denizen of said dungeon is immediately aware of its presence.
So do boots, clanking weapons and armor, conversation, and every other noise an adventuring party makes. By simulationist logic, the first time the party throws down in the dungeon, every monster should be alerted, because battles are loud (base Listen/Perception DC -10).
By rule, horses make no more noise than any other creature. In fact, they are better at being stealthy than humans are. They have a 13 Dex, so they have a base Move Silently check of +1. Average humans have +0. That's in the SRD anyway, there there is a size penalty to Hide checks but no size penalty to Move Silently checks.
In PF, it's a little different. Horses are Large and suffer -4 to Stealth, so now their base Stealth is -3. (we should note that this penalty also applies to ANY large creature, including tigers, polar bears, rhinoceri, giant crocodiles, dire wombats, and all the rest)
Not great, fair enough, but hardly an auto-detect for any monster. For that matter, any character in your party wearing medium/heavy armor (with a probably low DEX) is going to make a frak of a lot more noise than your horse is.
This is especially true if you dip into your paladin piggy bank for a cheap cloak of elvenkind for your horse to wear as a saddle blanket (or if you object, just commission a saddle or saddle blanket of move silently, or +1 chain shirt barding of silent moves - these are all relatively inexpensive items that make your horse quieter).
Now, if we want to implement a rule that says horses or any other hoofed creature has a racial penalty to Move Silently checks, I wouldn't argue too hard, but at present that rule doesn't exist, and the very high likelihood is that the heavily armored paladin ON the horse has a worse Stealth check than the horse does.
3. Footing. Typically there's light rubble or rough terrain in at least one area. A horse has a very poor Acrobatics check to keep its balance, and although there's no rule for it, I'd maybe think about a broken foreleg.
The horse has a +1 Acrobatics check, better than most armored characters in the party, and light rubble and rough terrain doesn't usually require Acrobatics checks to keep balance - they CAN, but usually the effect of difficult terrain is halved movement and that is it. They add to the DC of Acrobatics checks, but only insofar as Acrobatics checks are actually required.
Check the glossary on p. 302 of PFRPG for flagstone ("the most common dungeon floor") which does not require an Acro check vs. uneven flagstone ("floors as treacherous as this should be the exception, not the rule") which do, but even they only apply if you're running or charging. Natural stone floors impede movement (2 squares for 1 square) and prevent running or charging (both don't apply if you're on a path) but don't force Acrobatics checks. The only standard terrain that inherently forces acrobatics checks is a narrow ledge (less than 12").
The point is this:
Any terrain that has rubble or rough terrain is going to impede people on foot identically to the effect it has on the horse. If you are going to implement rules for people breaking legs walking across rubble (and anyone who's ever hiked can tell you it's a risk), or for walking up or down stairs strewn with the bones of ancient dead (like the Moria sets in the LotR movies) then go ahead and implement them. But, you'll have to implement it for everybody, and that is going to result in a lot of armor-wearing PCs falling down and breaking their legs.
The question, then, is this:
Do we want to make horse-specific (or hooved-creature-specific) rules for walking around in a dungeon? As it stands, there is nothing in the rules that impedes a horse any more than any other Large creature (squeezing, and in PF a -4 size penalty to Stealth).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
no its not that they are not allowed... is unpractical...
while in some room there would be space both to run and combat, there are spaceswhere it willbe tight to pass, places your horse wont reach... and if you have been over ahorse you would understand that your head its not at the level of the horse's head... so the raider have to move carefully to not hit his head
Sure, that makes sense, but in real life horses are not 10 feet tall. I've lived in the country and been on horses, so I know what it's like. Even a Clydesdale is about 5-6 feet at the shoulder. A 6-foot tall man is about 4-feet tall butt to crown, so you might have to duck your head if the dungeon ceiling is 10'. Maybe. If it's any higher, you've got plenty of clearance.
In real life, horses are also not 10 feet wide. Even with armor on you and the horse, stirrups and girths, you're stretching to get to 5 feet.
The gamist model actually makes a horse MORE difficult to fit into a dungeon corridor than a simulationist model. BUT, once you fit into the 10' x 10' tube of the dungeon corridor, all bets are off.
ok... now lets see examples...
the players found a very tight space where they need to squeze... the horse won't go it doesn't matter how hard you push
Here is perhaps the key point - what a horse WILL do and what it WON'T do. We know a horse CAN fit in a dungeon. The question is whether it will.
In real life, horses are spooked by lots of things. Noises, lights, fire, smells, etc. In D&D, that isn't generally true, especially if we're talking about a battle-trained warhorse, not just a wild or draft or riding animal.
In D&D, you also have the Handle Animal skill, that enables you to push animals to do things they don't want to do. You can be a "horse whisperer" in D&D. You are more than just a rider slapping it with a crop and telling it to giddyap! You can also teach your animal tricks. One trick might be "use the stairs" or "walk around indoors."
But, the relevant point for paladins is this:
Their mount is no ordinary horse. They are smarter than any earthly animal and eventually become as smart as people (by the way, your mount gains skill points as it gains hit dice, so you could give it ranks of Acrobatics or Stealth if you like). They also have an empathic link with the paladin. They are not going to be inclined to be stubborn and refuse their rider, who is their beloved and trustworthy buddy.
what if you need touse ropes to go down or up (see 13th Warrior or eaters of the dead for an excellent example")
if you needto keep quiet for not being discovered (also the horse is bigger and has more troubles hidding)
As mentioned in the previous post, horses are no worse at stealth (and probably better at it) than your typical paladin.
you found an abyss and you need to jump over it or pass over a rope or a not too wide bridge... what do youdo with the horse
If the abyss is that big or the cliff that high, the party itself will have trouble getting across. At 5th level and above, you forget the ropes and the bridge and cast fly on the horse and use it to carry the party across. Or levitate and 'tow' it across. Or spider climb and have it climb across the cave ceiling. At higher levels, you could use a floating disk and carry it across.
Likewise, what do you do with that narrow ledge/bridge across the abyss with the fighter or paladin whose Acrobatics (balance) and Climb checks are -5 from their armor? You work your way around the problem with party resources.
I can see these as potential barriers for low-level parties, but these are actually MORE true outdoors than they are in typical dungeon crawls, which rarely feature canyons, crevasses, or cliffs to scale. They are usually corridors, rooms, and the occasional staircase.
ok this won't happen 100% of time... but what do you do then... do you turn around and go back to leave the horse in a safe place... or leavethe horse there where surely would be more dangerousthan outside (believe me... i will make the paladina favor and kill it)
What does "I will make the paladina favor and kill it" mean?
you can go as a gamist into the dungeon with your horse...
i as DM won't make your life easier...
As I said above, the gamist position actually makes it harder for a horse (by assuming it is a 10-foot cube of meat) than the simulationist (which recognizes the actual size of the animal and the rider), but the simulationist needs to bring something to the table once you are IN the dungeon of what happens, without being completely arbitrary.
Here are the key points:
1. A paladin's warhorse is vastly smarter, more loyal, and more empathically responsive than a typical animal, so references to "well, in the real world an animal just wouldn't do that" don't hold water cuz we're not talking about a real-world animal.
2. How do we (or do we at all) want to distinguish between the maneuverability of a horse (or hooved creature) SPECIFICALLY in a dungeon setting vs. any other Large quadruped? Pick any one you like: tiger, dire boar, rhino, giant crocodile, griffon, hippogriff. Simulation-wise, NONE of these creatures would really be too keen on going into a dungeon. So, what happens when/if they DO, and how is it the same or different than a horse (either a regular horse or a super-deluxe intelligent Wonder Horse like a paladin's mount)?
Holy wall of text,batman.
Anyway, isn't the space issue more of a 'yes, you could fit, but you'd take up the whole width of narrow passages, potentially creating huge tactical problems? I mean, realistically, a lot of caves have narrow passages that AREN'T 5 feet wide, so if we're going to argue horses not taking up that much space, let's start arguing realistic spaces. Not to mention, ya know, climbing.
Also, a horse is no longer as stealthy as a human. Given the new (simpler, better) skill system, most players(and by this I mean anyone who makes a living sneaking through dungeons and doesn't want to die)will actually have at least a couple of ranks in stealth.
It might be POSSIBLE to take your horse into a dungeon, but your DM isn't writing the adventure around it, and most of your fellow adventurers certainly aren't going to allow you to do so when it might create a serious problem later.
Some elaborated rules wouldn't hurt, but it's a pretty logical assumption that dungeons are bad for things that are large sized.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Holy wall of text,batman.
I live but to serve! :)
Anyway, isn't the space issue more of a 'yes, you could fit, but you'd take up the whole width of narrow passages, potentially creating huge tactical problems? I mean, realistically, a lot of caves have narrow passages that AREN'T 5 feet wide, so if we're going to argue horses not taking up that much space, let's start arguing realistic spaces. Not to mention, ya know, climbing.
In the real world, caves do have pinch points and are generally very twisty and turny and upsy and downsy. It is basically ALL climbing, even if some of it is horizontal climbing/crawling.
Dungeons? Not so much. Most dungeons also require relatively little climbing, other than occasionally around a pit trap.
In D&D, most caves are more like dungeons than they are like real-world caves. They typically have well-worn paths (by the monsters who live in them) and are relatively level - this is reflected in the "natural stone floors" section of the PF Beta glossary.
The tactical issue of the 10-foot meat cube horse is an issue, and again is a place where the gamist perspective is much more troublesome than the simulationist for bringing a horse into a dungeon.
However, for that to be a problem it assumes that all action in dungeons occurs in 10-foot wide passages. Most of the combats I've faced over the years have been in rooms, usually 20 to 30 feet on a side or more. Not all, surely, but a majority.
Also, you don't put the horse in the front of the party; you put it in the middle. The pally on a horse could be using a lance (reach) to attack foes over a front rank of fighters. Party members can move freely through the horse's space (and vice versa).
The horse would provide a portable cover bonus to AC for creatures behind it (any attacks through its space), which is both a benefit and a hindrance for ranged types behind it, and unlike 3.0 a creature providing a cover bonus to AC doesn't get hit when the cover it provides blocks an attack. Essentially, the horse really is a "meat shield" for creatures behind it, and it will not get accidentally hit with arrows intended for someone else because it's in the crossfire. As a side note, it doesn't block line of sight or line of effect so spells are also unimpeded.
Is it a different kind of tactics with a horse in the dungeon? Sure. Does it offer advantages just as well as it offers challenges? Also, yes.
Again I return to this point as well: Is a horse qualitatively different in a dungeon than any other Large creature in a dungeon, which shares all of the horse's challenges and advantages of large-ness? Assuming the same degree of communication and control (speak with animals or an empathic link, plus Handle Animal or a charm animal or an intelligent magical beast like a paladin mount), answer this:
Is a giant crocodile or tiger harder or easier to manage in a dungeon setting than a horse?
Also, a horse is no longer as stealthy as a human. Given the new (simpler, better) skill system, most players(and by this I mean anyone who makes a living sneaking through dungeons and doesn't want to die)will actually have at least a couple of ranks in stealth.
I have almost never seen a fighter or paladin or barbarian or cleric take ranks in Hide/Move Silently/Stealth. They have so few skill points, and up until PF it has been cross-class, that just to overcome their armor check penalty would have been a massive investment.
It's easier, to be sure, in PF with only one Stealth skill and it not being cross-class for anyone, but still the point remains:
The horse is likely to be more stealthy than the paladin riding on it.
And to be better at Acrobatics, for that matter.
It might be POSSIBLE to take your horse into a dungeon, but your DM isn't writing the adventure around it, and most of your fellow adventurers certainly aren't going to allow you to do so when it might create a serious problem later.
Some elaborated rules wouldn't hurt, but it's a pretty logical assumption that dungeons are bad for things that are large sized.
And here we come back to the second part of my question: All kinds of large things operate in dungeons all the time, so how do we decide which large things are good in dungeons and which large things are bad in dungeons?
I'm ignoring bipeds, but for other things the rules do not distinguish between horses and tigers and basilisks and chimerae and griffons and dire boars and rabid wildebeests in their largeness versus badness quotient in a dungeon.
Or, to return to the point of this thread, intelligent paladin Wonder Horses and dungeons.
Whether or not you can take your horse into a dungeon is kind of a moot point. It depends on the DM and it depends on the group. I can say, in my groups, that'd never happen. It's usually not worth what MIGHT happen, and we tend to have lots of ledges and things.
The funny with with stealth is that now I think MOST characters have a bit of it in pathfinder. The wonderful combinations of favored class skill ranks, stealth being made one skill, and the removal of cross class skills, kind of make it a 'duh' for most players. Really, it's one of the bigger (and much-appreciated) changes from 3.5 games to PFRPG games. Yes, those who wear heavy clanking armor will have an issue, but even then, if they choose armor that's not going to have a huge penalty and keep their ranks up, they're going to have a much better time of it than the horse. Platemail clad knights clanking it up are very unpopular in some groups.
As for the 'this can work in a dungeon, this can't', that's a good point. I can say that an ogre can climb when a horse can't, and a flying creature or a spellcasting creature is going to be able to bypass all sorts of challenges that make mounted dungeon combat a problem. But, overall, I get your point.
Anyway, this thread HAS gotten derailed, but at least people were in agreement. Does anyone have any more things they'd like to see on a paladin's list (note: I'd personally rather that there not be much overlap with the druid. I want it to have a very different feel. what do you guys think?)?
The funny with with stealth is that now I think MOST characters have a bit of it in pathfinder. The wonderful combinations of favored class skill ranks, stealth being made one skill, and the removal of cross class skills, kind of make it a 'duh' for most players. Really, it's one of the bigger (and much-appreciated) changes from 3.5 games to PFRPG games. Yes, those who wear heavy clanking armor will have an issue, but even then, if they choose armor that's not going to have a huge penalty and keep their ranks up, they're going to have a much better time of it than the horse. Platemail clad knights clanking it up are very unpopular in some groups.
Brings to mind the scene in "The 13th Warrior" where all the heroes have to sneak thru the cave in order to reach the BBEG (not just the skald and ranger).