|
I have a player in my group who tends to bend rules. Sometimes it is to his advantage, but just as often it is to fit a character concept. This player has made a human paladin and he wants to take a dog as his “mount”.
Rules as written say a paladin can choose a dog as a mount, implying that only a small paladin qualifies for it. Although he took it upon himself to ignore that rule, I’m still inclined to let it go. He has a bunch of backstory about choosing a dog because a hound archon of Sarenrae made him want to be a paladin, and historically horses in the party have been nuisances. However, is there something I’m missing? Can a paladin with a dog animal companion off-balance the party?
without playtesting it, I don't see it as a problem really. In fact, my take would be to encourage such backstory role playing stuff.
I don't see a huge problem, just that you can't really ride it, it's actually not an advantage to him really.
Its definitely a disadvantage to him as opposed to taking a horse. The horse is much bigger and stronger and has more attacks. Plus he could actually ride the horse without having to have a druid or wizard cast animal growth on it. I don't see anything in the section about the Paladin's mount that require he be able to actually ride the mount, so I don't think it goes against the RAW, although it might run afoul of the RAI. In any event, I don't see a problem with it.
I did just notice that it doesn't seem to state how long the mount is there for when it is summoned. 3.5 was an hour per paladin level I believe, maybe even 2/hr per level? The celestial bond is a minute per level, but thats in the section specific to the celestial bond. Perhaps its meant to be there until the paladin unsummons it?
|
|
without playtesting it, I don't see it as a problem really. In fact, my take would be to encourage such backstory role playing stuff.
It depends on the player. This player has given me numerous reasons to be suspicious of any suspension of the rules, even if he has a cool backstory to support the idea.
I don't see a huge problem, just that you can't really ride it, it's actually not an advantage to him really.
Here's where I'm worried: If it's a mount, it's more like a magic item. It may have its own abilities but ultimately it's an extension of the character. As an animal companion it's much more independent. He can have it attack while he's casting a spell or laying on hands. He can set up his own flanks. The dog isn't a combat monster so I'm not worried if he does do those things. I'm worried he'll do something I totally missed that gives him an unfair advantage
Its definitely a disadvantage to him as opposed to taking a horse. The horse is much bigger and stronger and has more attacks. Plus he could actually ride the horse without having to have a druid or wizard cast animal growth on it. I don't see anything in the section about the Paladin's mount that require he be able to actually ride the mount, so I don't think it goes against the RAW, although it might run afoul of the RAI. In any event, I don't see a problem with it.
Every time the paladin's animal companion is referenced in Divine Bond, it is referred to as a mount (or steed). Since he's picking a mount he can't mount, I consider that breaking RAW. Again, not strictly in a bad way.
I did just notice that it doesn't seem to state how long the mount is there for when it is summoned. 3.5 was an hour per paladin level I believe, maybe even 2/hr per level? The celestial bond is a minute per level, but thats in the section specific to the celestial bond. Perhaps its meant to be there until the paladin unsummons it?
This is a common confusion. The Pathfinder mount isn't an extraplanar creature summoned by the paladin. It's a regular animal that he's formed a bond with, just like a druid or ranger's bond. It's confusing because it says:
Once per day, as a full-round action, a paladin may magically call her mount to her side.
This isn't the same as a 3.5 paladin summoning his mount. This is more like when a paladin leaves a dungeon he can magically teleport his mount from its stables or wherever it is to the paladin's side. The same thing if the mount is tied outside the front of a bar and the paladin needs to chase someone who flees out the back. Instead of going around the bar the paladin can go out the back and summon the horse. We'll assume it's a big bar to make the full round action the quicker option.
Hm, there's something I missed. He could send his dog scouting and then magically summon him to his side to find out what's up ahead. Again, not strictly a bad thing but something else he can do.
well I would not allow him to even try and ride it, but he is really getting an animal companion with an int of 6 that he can not ride, unless he is a really small and light human as he would have to be less then 100 pounds for the mount not the suffer slowing down and he would take a -5 to ride even then
But I agree he is breaking RAW, but that may be ok if it's not game braking, Now if your paladin is already a powerful and min/maxed ya might want to say no but overall it should be fine as long as he knows he can not mount it. But I am not sure I would allow it, all in if it fits his god or not. After all the mount is a gift from his god
The real issue is probably he doesnt want a useless horse following him around or look silly in dungeons.
Either way I have no problem with it, he is giving up a potentially much more beneficial divine bond to have a dog sidekick.
Unless you see a problem with it being out off character in some way, I wouldnt make a problem out off it, so it is not a typical paladin, does it really matter ?
Really doesn't seem any more powerful then overclocking your weapons. Or even anything close to as powerful... It can't give him an extra attack or bypass the targets armor.
There's nothing keeping a paladin with a horse to... not ride the horse and have it attack enemies or track by its sense of smell.
As for 'overclocking his weapons'... a dog is smaller, weaker, has fewer attacks, and is slower, to boot, than a horse. And he can't ride it.
The only advantages dogs have is a somewhat higher Dex and some rather unimportant situational advantages of small size (more likely to be allowed to have a dog in the Inn, I suppose).
So, hey. Go nuts.
I don't agree that he's breaking RAW. It says he can pick a dog, so he picked a dog. RAI, I suppose, but it hardly matters.
It isnt game breaking because it is less powerful then a horse individually, and there is nothing stoping the horse from attacking or what have you with the paladin on its back.
The big difference comes from campaign style. If you have lots of open space combats, he will be less powerful then a paladin that went mounted combat with a horse. If its a classic dungeon crawl with lots of tight spaces he will be more powerful with the dog.
Personally I think its a good alternative. I dont like class features that have difficulty with dungeons, and I'll probably recommend this as an option to future paladins in my game, since I tend to like urban games, where the horse tends to be in the stable more then at the character's side.
This is a common thing I do for my NPC 3.5 paladins. A dog can guard the paladin while he sleeps, can travel into the dungeons with him (being carried when needed), can track foes or at least warn when they are around using scent. Unless you are doing a lot of open field combat where charging from horse back would be beneficial, the dog is a good solid choice.