The Paladin rules don't contain the exhaustive listing of companions the Ranger does (it just says what it usually is, and gives examples of further types). They're both 'melee focused characters' (as opposed to the 'full Companion Class' (Druid) and the Paladin's Companion/Mount already gets significant bonuses on top their Animal Companion stats. Why is the Paladin 'attuned' to a broader ranger of animals than the Ranger? In my mind, the exact opposite (Paladin = less types but with special Paladin bonuses, Ranger = more animal types, nothing special) would be MORE justifiable... To the point where giving the Paladin full Companion Access could easily be part of a Paladin PrC dedicated to a God of Nature. ...???
Creative Director
|
The Paladin rules don't contain the exhaustive listing of companions the Ranger does (it just says what it usually is, and gives examples of further types). They're both 'melee focused characters' (as opposed to the 'full Companion Class' (Druid) and the Paladin's Companion/Mount already gets significant bonuses on top their Animal Companion stats. Why is the Paladin 'attuned' to a broader ranger of animals than the Ranger? In my mind, the exact opposite (Paladin = less types but with special Paladin bonuses, Ranger = more animal types, nothing special) would be MORE justifiable... To the point where giving the Paladin full Companion Access could easily be part of a Paladin PrC dedicated to a God of Nature. ...???
The paladin rules probably SHOULD have a list, on further recollection. And that list should probably say "Horse" or some such. Basically... Paladin mounts should be limited to things that serve as mounts in real life. Bears and wolves and lions don't count.
Of course, in the end, if you want to customize the list of animals available to rangers and paladins for your game world... you should absolutely do so! Especially if you're playing in a Dark Sun type campaign...
|
I think this is a case of intent versus rules as written.
The intent is to allow paladins for whom a horse companion doesn't make sense to be allowed an alternative that fits more closely. It's all subject to the DM's approval, and the DM should make sure that the Paladin has a darned good reason for picking something else, on top of employing good judgment in what he will and will not allow.
However, the munchkin would take those exceptions and run with them, and use it as justification for all sorts of headaches.
In this situation, it takes a good DM with a dose of common sense to enforce the intent of the rules instead of allowing the Paladin to get away with this sort of thing.
well a paladins must be a mount, that limits it alot really. If your a human paladin you do not have alot of options from the core book, 2 maybe 3. and with the line that says anything else is pure GM say so.
The size of the mount it's str and your size comes into play heavy with the paladin
Thanks for the answer.
I suppose it wouldn't be that far out for the Paladin's Mount to be Errata'd to be capable of bearing the Paladin (ala a Horse), though even that would allow a much broader list than the Ranger (Dinosaurs, etc) - maybe the current list of examples should just become a fixed list, allowing for further material to open up new options (like the Nature Paladin PrC I mentioned).
This sort of thing is exactly why I was doubtful that Rangers were in fact restricted to a narrow list. :-/
well a paladins must be a mount, that limits it alot really. If your a human paladin you do not have alot of options from the core book, 2 maybe 3. and with the line that says anything else is pure GM say so.
The size of the mount it's str and your size comes into play heavy with the paladin
Beyond the fact they call it a 'mount', it doesn't actually say it has to carry the Paladin, or even mention riding the Companion. A leopard could certainly be a mount for SOMETHING, perhaps just not a Half-Orc. It's just a matter of this being a rules-based game, and if they are to be enforced to the letter in another area (Rangers, for instance) you kind of should enforce them like that across the board.
Beyond the fact they call it a 'mount', it doesn't actually say it has to carry the Paladin, or even mention riding the Companion. A leopard could certainly be a mount for SOMETHING, perhaps just not a Half-Orc. It's just a matter of this being a rules-based game, and if they are to be enforced to the letter in another area (Rangers, for instance) you kind of should enforce them like that across the board.
Your talking loophole and the the intent of the rule and to be honest that is blatant abuse. It says mount, it is a gift from your god to you. Try to abuse that rule at my table and your find yourself playing a feat less fighter my friend
An explicit list would be nice, but would need to be taken with a grain of salt. Other campaign settings often have different traditional mounts, such as Eberron Halflings and their traditional dinosaur mounts.
yep it would change by setting. A world were horses were unknown and everyone rode axbeaks or the like would need a different list
yep it would change by setting. A world were horses were unknown and everyone rode axbeaks or the like would need a different list
Axbeaks? You mean chocobos?
i used both in a homebrew really, the stats are different enough to justify it really. One being more like a bulky ostrage and the other bring more of a predator
Your talking loophole and the the intent of the rule and to be honest that is blatant abuse. It says mount, it is a gift from your god to you. Try to abuse that rule at my table and your find yourself playing a feat less fighter my friend
I'm not looking at this from the perspective of PLANNING on 'abusing the rules' in this way, I'm looking at it from the perspective of looking at the rules as a whole, and James in fact said that the Paladin Mount should probably have been listed in a restrictive way akin to how the Ranger Companion was. This isn't even about whether or not you can ride it: Large Dinosaurs, Mammoths, plenty of stuff is easily ridable, but would be a large expansion of the Paladin Mount list while the Ranger is stuck with the restrictive wording (which apparently is the intent for the Paladin). Of course, setting-specific material may well expand on the given list, but this applies just as much to the Ranger list as the Paladin Mount.
I seem to recall an awesome thread that began with a guy asking what a decent paladin mount would be for his dwarf. Where is it?....
I seem to recall an awesome thread that began with a guy asking what a decent paladin mount would be for his dwarf. Where is it?....
e and your find yourself playing a feat less fighter my friend
Unfortunately any decent gamer doesn't need to be blatent. There are good gods out there who actually ride wierd beasts or whos most trusted lieutentants ride wierd beasts or who it says prefer acting thru some wierd beast. All of it adds up to it being hard to legitamise nerfing riding a celestial tiger if thats one of the gods 3 favorite ways to interact with mortals nevermind forbidding a creature type the same as the gods mount.
that was not what he said. He side no where did it say it had to be a mount the paladin could use. "I want a boar...I can't ride it...but I'll let the dwarf ride it..yeah thats it"
Your tiger example is pure homebrew stuff. No where does it state your god sends ya his animal of choice. Although myself I have zero issue with adding one or more fitting mounts for a paladin based off his god. I would so allow an elk for a paladin of Erastil, but thats not on the list as normal ones.
The wording is "This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable" of the 5 listed 2 are suitable for humans with 3 for small paladins. That is not a large list
Playing a Halfling Paladin on a faithful Riding Dog mount is one of those things on my "MUST DO" list. Unfortunately it's a long list, and never enough campaigns...
It's not just the visual silliness (though it partly is), but the utility. One of the worst things about mounts is that they can't go everywhere. Warhorses just don't go down the tunnel into the dungeon.
Riding dogs go anywhere! Mounted combat feats that never are unusable - oh yeah!
Oh - what was this thread about?
Right. I think the Ranger list is at least thematically appropriate for Rangers.
The Paladin "lack of" a list is one of those things that could have the DM arguing with a player, "BUT HE-MAN RODE A TIGER!!!"...ugh.
Yeah, I have no problem with exotic mounts, but I agree the list should have been limited, or at least give some guidelines for the DM to place logical restrictions.
|
Playing a Halfling Paladin on a faithful Riding Dog mount is one of those things on my "MUST DO" list. Unfortunately it's a long list, and never enough campaigns...
It's not just the visual silliness (though it partly is), but the utility. One of the worst things about mounts is that they can't go everywhere. Warhorses just don't go down the tunnel into the dungeon.
Riding dogs go anywhere! Mounted combat feats that never are unusable - oh yeah!
Oh - what was this thread about?
Right. I think the Ranger list is at least thematically appropriate for Rangers.
The Paladin "lack of" a list is one of those things that could have the DM arguing with a player, "BUT HE-MAN RODE A TIGER!!!"...ugh.
Yeah, I have no problem with exotic mounts, but I agree the list should have been limited, or at least give some guidelines for the DM to place logical restrictions.
I played a mounted Halfling Druid once, (rode a wolf). His tactic was basically to rush in, the wolf would attack and trip the opponent and the druid would hit them with his spear. (Prone opponent is Flat-Footed, Hafling gets +1 bonus for hitting from higher ground). He rarely missed. It was awesome that I could use mounted feats as much as I liked. The game ended before I got high enough for Air Walk (all fear the flying attack wolf). But I made a flying attack tiger for a friend when she wanted to play a druid.
This reminds me of Rifts, in which an Operator as part of his standard equipment package included "one personal vehicle of his choice". Needless to say, endless abusive/joke suggestions as to what amounted as a 'personal' vehicle...especially when you add their uber scifi stuff that a single person can pilot with computer/magic support :).
So, on that theme.....
Paladin Tarrasque rider!
I think NOT!
Playing a Halfling Paladin on a faithful Riding Dog mount is one of those things on my "MUST DO" list. Unfortunately it's a long list, and never enough campaigns...
It's not just the visual silliness (though it partly is), but the utility. One of the worst things about mounts is that they can't go everywhere. Warhorses just don't go down the tunnel into the dungeon.
Riding dogs go anywhere! Mounted combat feats that never are unusable - oh yeah!
Oh - what was this thread about?
Right. I think the Ranger list is at least thematically appropriate for Rangers.
The Paladin "lack of" a list is one of those things that could have the DM arguing with a player, "BUT HE-MAN RODE A TIGER!!!"...ugh.
Yeah, I have no problem with exotic mounts, but I agree the list should have been limited, or at least give some guidelines for the DM to place logical restrictions.
Lol I am playing a halfling druid in second darkness. First animal companion was a riding dog. Got totally mauled by a dire boar while trying to rescue the dwarven rogue from the nasty old thing. I think I used 20 charges on a CLW wand that fight, and the next adventure the rogue got rended by a skrag for about double her HP in one round.. coulda saved my dog and my wand if I just let her die the first time :) Seriously though riding dogs are so much fun. I would definately play a halfling paladin with a riding dog mount.(lets you keep up with the party without casting longstrider all the time)
Yeah, and if it's a "Paladin Mount" it becomes a lot less squishy than a regular dog.
It's not a fantastic combat creature or anything, it's just about keeping those mounted feats in pretty much any environment.
And...you get to be a halfling riding a dog.