I'm not sure why they can't.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Personally I hate the fact that paladins have to summon there mount.
"Argent, I choose you!"
The druid and ranger both have "permanent" animal companions, why can't the Paladin?
Hey guys, Jason B. was actually commenting about some of the same things over in this thread.
Figured I'd cross-link for you.
Lazaro wrote: Personally I hate the fact that paladins have to summon there mount.
"Argent, I choose you!"
The druid and ranger both have "permanent" animal companions, why can't the Paladin?
I don't have a problem with the paladin having a permanent mount, but I would highly recommend keeping the ability to summon the mount when necessary. It's annoying to have to leave your trusty warhorse behind when crawling through a dungeon full of staircases, ladders, etc. only to arrive at a big underground cavern or tunnel where a mount would be useful.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
To the OP: it's not a FACT, it's only an opinion, your opinion. That doesn't make at any more valid than somebody else's opinion that might differ from yours. Personally, I'm not invested enough in the issue at hand to have an opinion either way, but I resent the way you claim that you own the FACTs.
I wouldn't mind the paladin summoning his mount multiple times... but I still have to laugh at the title. FACT!!
no summoning for me...
as someone else mentiones there are a lot of us againstthe summoning... and want more types of mounts
It's possible a simple change to the language and method could solve both issues. Call it "gating in the mount," where the paladin actually yes, opens a limited gate to the heavens. Teleports it, in other words, but limited in scope: the teleport affects only the mount itself.
Or have the paladin summon his mount through a ritual. The paladin is described as sending an elaborate prayer to his or her god, who hears and grants the return of the Celestial Being that serves his chosen warrior. This call takes some time--the paladin's mount arrives a few rounds later.
Could keep it interesting by: the god will listen the first time, but the second time requires a level or diplomacy check. Negociating with the deity, in other words. Use some of that Charisma.
Keep in mind, by eliminating a "summon" on the mount, you're getting rid of:
- Free healing.
- The ability of the mount to accompany the paladin to the lair of the BBEG, almost anywhere the BBEG resides.
I'd be more in favor of changing the wording or altering the method somewhat. Have the mount arrive by alternate means. In another thread, teleporting was suggested and folks jumped on the bandwagon, even though it was very similar (in end result) to summoning. The description, and method, was simply changed in flavor.
That suggests, to me, that a compromise is possible. And that there could be an "inbetween" method.
So, instead of explaining below "why I hate/love the mount," or statements with "my problem is..." why not work for a compromise? Don't like flavor as it is? Describe something else.
The way the mount is summoned has the potential for alot of flavor. The paladin's about flavor. Let's see some more of that.
If the paladin's mount becomes unsummonable, it should potentially gain something to make up for its losses.
Zaister wrote: To the OP: it's not a FACT, it's only an opinion, your opinion. That doesn't make at any more valid than somebody else's opinion that might differ from yours. Personally, I'm not invested enough in the issue at hand to have an opinion either way, but I resent the way you claim that you own the FACTs. Derpderpderp, it was a joke.
Zaister wrote: To the OP: it's not a FACT, it's only an opinion, your opinion. That doesn't make at any more valid than somebody else's opinion that might differ from yours. Personally, I'm not invested enough in the issue at hand to have an opinion either way, but I resent the way you claim that you own the FACTs. Well, I resent your inability to comprehend an obvious joke.
Just say NO to the Poekmount of Holding.
I don't think he is saying that a paladin must summon mounts, but rather that if the summoning mount mechanic stays it needs to be able to be done more than once per day at higher levels. I agree. If it changes to always there like Jason was talking about in another thread I think the OP could care less. But if it doesn't it is kind of rediculous to have the paladin at level 20 unable to summon his mount because in the fight with the BBEG because he did it ealier in the day once.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Velderan wrote: Zaister wrote: To the OP: it's not a FACT, it's only an opinion, your opinion. That doesn't make at any more valid than somebody else's opinion that might differ from yours. Personally, I'm not invested enough in the issue at hand to have an opinion either way, but I resent the way you claim that you own the FACTs. Well, I resent your inability to comprehend an obvious joke. Given the OP's track record on the board here I had no reason at all to assume this was intended as a joke.
Zaister wrote: Velderan wrote: Zaister wrote: To the OP: it's not a FACT, it's only an opinion, your opinion. That doesn't make at any more valid than somebody else's opinion that might differ from yours. Personally, I'm not invested enough in the issue at hand to have an opinion either way, but I resent the way you claim that you own the FACTs. Well, I resent your inability to comprehend an obvious joke. Given the OP's track record on the board here I had no reason at all to assume this was intended as a joke. Zaister I know you aren't using any harsh language or anything but please, at this point all your posts are doing is diverging the thread from a discussion on the utility of the single summons to a back and forth that you know will just settle into a flamewar. please since you made the point that you aren't interested in the actual discussion because you could care less, just leave the thread alone and ignore any posters who respond to your comments.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
lastknightleft wrote: Zaister I know you aren't using any harsh language or anything but please, at this point all your posts are doing is diverging the thread from a discussion on the utility of the single summons to a back and forth that you know will just settle into a flamewar. please since you made the point that you aren't interested in the actual discussion because you could care less, just leave the thread alone and ignore any posters who respond to your comments. A sensible suggestion. I'm sorry, it was not my intention to derail anything.
Psychic_Robot wrote: I'm not sure why they can't. Agreed.
Is this a discussion about pokemounts or a dispute of testosterones and people wanting to make fun of each other.
Now, the FACT of the thing is that paladins summon mounts, and you can make the joke of Pokemount about it.
Then, it is a FACT that many people of the boards hate it, but a FACT that there are some who don't have an opinion. Now, about the FACT that the OP wanted the paladin summon his pokemount more times per day, I just think that the FACT of summoning is strange. What, OP, do you think about changing this FACT with the FACT of having you mount always with you, like old 3.0 FACT?
The FACT that it's hard to take your mount here and there undergroun is a problematic FACT, but I think I want to fight with this FACT than the FACT that my paladin is not much different from OOTS ones.
This is a FACT.
Lets not forget the FACT that a summonable mount that just appears and can be called multiple times per day is easily (ab)used as a magical storage locker.
Freesword wrote: Lets not forget the FACT that a summonable mount that just appears and can be called multiple times per day is easily (ab)used as a magical storage locker. How about if you have a permanent mount that you can summon to yourself, but you can't put back in a "storage locker"? That would satisfy me (although, to be frank, I haven't played a paladin in over 20 years).
Freesword wrote: Lets not forget the FACT that a summonable mount that just appears and can be called multiple times per day is easily (ab)used as a magical storage locker. So?
BlaineTog wrote: Freesword wrote: Lets not forget the FACT that a summonable mount that just appears and can be called multiple times per day is easily (ab)used as a magical storage locker. So? It's a point to consider that some will see as a beneficial feature and others (myself included) will see as so much cheese it should come with a case of wine and an fondue pot.
Freesword wrote: BlaineTog wrote: Freesword wrote: Lets not forget the FACT that a summonable mount that just appears and can be called multiple times per day is easily (ab)used as a magical storage locker. So? It's a point to consider that some will see as a beneficial feature and others (myself included) will see as so much cheese it should come with a case of wine and an fondue pot. Those who dislike the mount will dislike the mount, and can take a pokesword. ;) If someone don't like the mount mechanics, change the theme.
If we'd like the mount to be able to be summoned more than once a day, and are concerned over feel and storage lockers, then perhaps making it take a few rounds to get there is the way to go. IE, it's less immediate.
An annoyed DM can ban "storage lockers" fairly easily. Just say: "only the mount's armor, saddle, and bridle can teleport with him/her. Everything else falls to the ground." Of course, a Handy Haversack and BoHs are even faster than a mount, and require less of an action to use (mount is currently a full-round action, then a standard to retrieve an item if it's strapped in, a move if it's easily available, and then often a standard to activate said item). BoHs are available at /far lower a level/. And, wizards and druids can be just masters of hidden storage. If it requires a spell slot to do, fine.
Quite honestly, then, I don't care about storage issues too much. :)
And please, let's stop with the "pokemount" business. It's fairly juvenile language, and with tempers flaring here and there, a little reduction could help. :)
Now, it's also a FACT that when wording was changed to "the paladin can teleport the mount in as opposed to summoning," alot of the resistance went away, even though teleporting it in created a great many more loopholes! So I think alot of it has to do with the "feel" of how the mount arrives. Personally, I play mine as a plea to the heavens. Or, the well-established mental link of calling forth an old friend when you really need them.
RP encouraged. Good times, mandatory. ;)
A few ideas:
1. Make the summoning take longer.
2. Give the summoning a different flavor.
3. Let summoning happen more often as the paladin levels up, but make it more difficult the more often that day the mount is summoned: ie, the Heavens gets Just a Little Tired of It. You know, the gods probably get pissed at a sacred, god-given mount being called in so many times a day "just" to be a storage locker. Make rules for it.
Whatever happens, the paladin /should/ be able to summon more times per day. ;)
Zaister wrote: Given the OP's track record on the board here I had no reason at all to assume this was intended as a joke. A writer must write for his intended audience. My intended audience have a sense of humor and aren't brain-dead chimpanzees.
Here we're going into the testosterone wrestlers fighting again...
Then, give the paladin more uses per day of the mount and call it a day. It's best for PF. I hate pokemount, so I'll never use it in my games (and never did), but for the general PF seems good.
Freesword wrote: It's a point to consider that some will see as a beneficial feature and others (myself included) will see as so much cheese it should come with a case of wine and an fondue pot. How is it overpowered? You can keep some stuff with the horse. Big deal. The only way it could really become an issue would be if the horse could drop whatever it was carrying in its home plane in a big pile perfectly safe from theft and take back whatever the players wanted when called.
Worst case scenario, only allow the horse to take back horse-related things, up to and including a lance, perhaps, and nothing else.
upsidedownlamp wrote: Of course, a Handy Haversack and BoHs are even faster than a mount, and require less of an action to use (mount is currently a full-round action, then a standard to retrieve an item if it's strapped in, a move if it's easily available, and then often a standard to activate said item). BoHs are available at /far lower a level/. And, wizards and druids can be just masters of hidden storage. If it requires a spell slot to do, fine. And I have no problem with any of these things as they all have a cost (be it money or spell slot). My issue with summonable mount as storage is that they get it free as a class feature.
I have issues with the way that the 3.x and current Beta mount work. I would prefer it to be an actual creature not a summonable outsider. I could even accept having an ability at higher levels to call it and have it arrive even if there is no obvious way for it to have gotten there. I happen to have a soft spot for the silliness of a hero in a cave at the bottom of a well whistling for their mount and have it walk in then turning to it and saying "Took you long enough."
upsidedownlamp wrote:
And please, let's stop with the "pokemount" business. It's fairly juvenile language, and with tempers flaring here and there, a little reduction could help. :)
I think it upsets you because you like the way the mount currently works but the comparison is too accurate for your liking.
Waring: Immaturity in spoiler may upset those with serious dispositions.
BlaineTog wrote: Freesword wrote: It's a point to consider that some will see as a beneficial feature and others (myself included) will see as so much cheese it should come with a case of wine and an fondue pot. How is it overpowered? You can keep some stuff with the horse. Big deal. The only way it could really become an issue would be if the horse could drop whatever it was carrying in its home plane in a big pile perfectly safe from theft and take back whatever the players wanted when called.
Worst case scenario, only allow the horse to take back horse-related things, up to and including a lance, perhaps, and nothing else. Cheese more in the sense of it being a cheap trick than being overpowered. There are other ways in the game to get a similar effect, but they all have a cost. This one is free as a class feature.
Freesword wrote:
And I have no problem with any of these things as they all have a cost (be it money or spell slot). My issue with summonable mount as storage is that they get it free as a class feature.
Well, wizards get spells as a class feature, too. So do druids, and these spells are capable of doing so many similar things--summoning, carrying, or hiding loot. If a caster has to sacrifice a spell slot towards toting around loot, well...that's alright. :)
It's only one spell slot, one out of a thousand class features they receive. As it is, the silly paladin's turning one of their more powerful class features, out of a more limited set than the full caster, into a tote bag. It's not "free" from that angle. The paladin is, overall, a fairly weak class. Hence the "silly," which I say with all the fondness in the world. Seriously. I really don't care what someone does with their character--I'm certainly not going to tell them /how/ to play it. "Silly" just refers to a mechanical aspect.
So, they are losing something by doing that, mechanically, when they could pay the druid or wizard to do the job instead. It costs the caster even less, if they pull some tricks with rods (only money, afterall!).
Now, they don't /have/ to. From one view, it'd be "better" for them to. Yet nor does the DM have to allow it. Again, all this is simply for the sake of discussion.
I think what we're getting at here is, it's the player causing the issue that's upsetting. Or, it's just the /conceptual/ idea of a /mount/ being used as summonable /luggage rack/? I'm not really sure, here. The player's behavior does take a feature and turn it into a raw mechanic (push the button, push the button again), instead of something roleplay-based.
That's so many features a player can do that to, though.
It comes down to the DM, and their peer group, to encourage the type of gameplay they want, if style is our issue, here.
Yet this is less about your particular issue, though, or even mine. We all admit that issues are there, so...
What did you think of the three ideas I'd posted? :) Would they encourage less annoyingness? I received no reply to /those/. It makes me quite sad.
Do you see the sad face?
Of course you do.
That's why you're going to feel remorse, and answer my question.
I worked so hard on them, you see. Slaved, even.
And you...ignored them.
upsidedownlamp wrote:
And please, let's stop with the "pokemount" business. It's fairly juvenile language, and with tempers flaring here and there, a little reduction could help. :)
Freesword wrote:
I think it upsets you because you like the way the mount currently works but the comparison is too accurate for your liking.
Not at all. I think it's kinda cute, actually. And so was your spoiler, btw. :)
*gives you serious look*
I'm really disappointed, though. I really thought we knew eachother better than that.
Come on, now. I think the comparison's accurate? I like /exactly/ how the mount currently works?
And here I thought...I thought...we /could/ be friends.
That's all over, now. :(
The storage thing actually bugs me the least. I really do want to see the mount become a real horse instead of a summoned outsider in horse form. I also wouldn't mind the chance to see some additional options including some exotics like griffons.
I wanted the storage thing brought into the light to be considered. That done, I'm not concerned enough to fight about it. It's more my personal preference than anything and I'm willing to accept that I may well be in the minority on this.
No, I'm not going to say it again here. It stops being funny if I over do it and I want this to stay funny for a while.
As of 3.5, Paladins could summon up all kind of crazy mounts. The more exotic and powerful the mount, the fewer bonuses that they get for being a Paladin's mount. You can find the rules on pages 204 and 205 in the DMG. I'm hoping that this list will be refined and expanded.
And Psychic_Robot is correct - Paladins DO need to be able to summon their mount more then once a day.
Recent threads in Classes: Cleric, Druid, and Paladin
|
