|
Forgive my weak fu if this has been addressed... I am hindered by my iPad. I could find my question but could never find an answer.
Can a paladin dismiss a mount to gain a new one? I have a pkayer that might like to do this formthe sake of reconfiguring feats. My "sounds fun" sense says there shouldn't be a problem with it but if there are already rules or guidelines, I would rather not reinvent the wheel.
Thanks!
I don't see any reason why not, although how exactly would this benefit the character?
I see how that could make sense... >_>
|
I think he can't:
Paladin mount:
Should the paladin's mount die, the paladin may not summon another mount for 30 days or until she gains a paladin level, whichever comes first. During this 30-day period, the paladin takes a –1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.
against similar bonded creatures text:
Familiar:
If a familiar is dismissed, lost or dies, it can be replaced 1 week later through a specialized ritual that costs 200 gp per wizard level. The ritual takes 8 hours to complete.
Animal companion:
If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished.
In the paladin mount text there is no provision for dismissing or releasing him (he is a he, not a it, fully intelligent creature).
The rules for replacing him if he dies are more strict that those of the other classes too. Taking the above in account my opinion is that he can't dismiss his loyal companion for the sake of gaining power (or even worse for a whim). I would consider this kind of behaviour a slightly chaotic act and so not allowed by the paladin code.
On the other hand if for some reason the player has taken a feat that is useless for his mount I would allow him to retain it unless he as used it for several levels and now it is simply "obsolete" for a character of his level. The final effect is the same, but the "visual" is very different.
Allowing a player to correct a mistake is a thing, allowing him to remake his character because "feat X was good at level 1 but now, at level 10, it is not worth it" is another.
The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. 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. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level.
So the rules for Druid animal companions seems to be the rules to follow. Handy thing is that Paladins get a HEAVY horse vs a horse. (get a free advanced creature template)
This sets a bad precedent. If you don't allow him to replace the mount, unless it's killed, he'll get it killed to replace it.
That's a bad position to put him in.
Bonded Mount references Druid Animal Companion, so use those rules where they are not overridden by Bonded Mount. So, let him dismiss and replace as a Druid. The part about it taking a month and him losing his powers only occurs when the mount is killed.
You are looking at that part as the only way it get's replaced. That is the incorrect way to handle powers. When a power references another power that lists 3 ways it can do something, then changes one of those ways, it doesn't remove the first two (dismissed or lost). If it's dismissed or lost, it follows the normal rules for animal companions. If it dies, the Paladin has a harder time than a Druid does, that's all.
This sets a bad precedent. If you don't allow him to replace the mount, unless it's killed, he'll get it killed to replace it.
That's a bad position to put him in.
Bonded Mount references Druid Animal Companion, so use those rules where they are not overridden by Bonded Mount. So, let him dismiss and replace as a Druid. The part about it taking a month and him losing his powers only occurs when the mount is killed.
You are looking at that part as the only way it get's replaced. That is the incorrect way to handle powers. When a power references another power that lists 3 ways it can do something, then changes one of those ways, it doesn't remove the first two (dismissed or lost). If it's dismissed or lost, it follows the normal rules for animal companions. If it dies, the Paladin has a harder time than a Druid does, that's all.
This is what I was attempting to say in a poor poor manner. Thank you mdt.
This sets a bad precedent. If you don't allow him to replace the mount, unless it's killed, he'll get it killed to replace it.
Then he'll lose his paladinhood. Can't fool the gods. Problem solved.
This sets a bad precedent. If you don't allow him to replace the mount, unless it's killed, he'll get it killed to replace it.Then he'll lose his paladinhood. Can't fool the gods. Problem solved.
And this is why people say that GMs are out to screw over Paladins.
This is what I was attempting to say in a poor poor manner. Thank you mdt.
Happy to shed light. :)
And this is why people say that GMs are out to screw over Paladins.This sets a bad precedent. If you don't allow him to replace the mount, unless it's killed, he'll get it killed to replace it.Then he'll lose his paladinhood. Can't fool the gods. Problem solved.
It's a paladin. The code is there for a reason, not to be tossed aside when it is inconvenient. Getting your most trusted companion killed on purpose would fall out of almost everybody's definition of Lawful Good.
It's a paladin. The code is there for a reason, not to be tossed aside when it is inconvenient. Getting your most trusted companion killed on purpose would fall out of almost everybody's definition of Lawful Good.And this is why people say that GMs are out to screw over Paladins.This sets a bad precedent. If you don't allow him to replace the mount, unless it's killed, he'll get it killed to replace it.Then he'll lose his paladinhood. Can't fool the gods. Problem solved.
My point was, that you are putting them in the situation of either killing their own mount or having no option to ever modify the mount, even if they move from a desert to an underwater area, and they have a camel for a mount. Then, after you've forced them to ride their camel under water and drown it, you're staking their powers away on top of that? It's rulings like this, again, that make people not want to play Paladins.
Just let the ability work the way it's supposed to without trying to screw over the paladin in the process.
You've never heard of a sea camel???
My point was, that you are putting them in the situation of either killing their own mount or having no option to ever modify the mount, even if they move from a desert to an underwater area, and they have a camel for a mount. Then, after you've forced them to ride their camel under water and drown it, you're staking their powers away on top of that? It's rulings like this, again, that make people not want to play Paladins.
Just let the ability work the way it's supposed to without trying to screw over the paladin in the process.
In this case, to me at least, it isn't obvious how the ability is supposed to work. From an in-game standpoint, it makes about as much sense for a paladin to be able to abandon his most trusted companion without moral consideration than it does for a cleric of the God of Fidelity and Soulmates to be able to "trade up" to a hotter partner. You don't dump your comrade; you find a way to bring her along, or you count the days until you meet again.
You've never heard of a sea camel???
Sea camel? That's almost as absurd as a blue, elephant-trunked camel that munches magic.
In this case, to me at least, it isn't obvious how the ability is supposed to work. From an in-game standpoint, it makes about as much sense for a paladin to be able to abandon his most trusted companion without moral consideration than it does for a cleric of the God of Fidelity and Soulmates to be able to "trade up" to a hotter partner. You don't dump your comrade; you find a way to bring her along, or you count the days until you meet again.My point was, that you are putting them in the situation of either killing their own mount or having no option to ever modify the mount, even if they move from a desert to an underwater area, and they have a camel for a mount. Then, after you've forced them to ride their camel under water and drown it, you're staking their powers away on top of that? It's rulings like this, again, that make people not want to play Paladins.
Just let the ability work the way it's supposed to without trying to screw over the paladin in the process.
I think your idea of the relationship between the Paladin and her mount is both a bit disturbing, and illegal in 48 states.
In this case, to me at least, it isn't obvious how the ability is supposed to work. From an in-game standpoint, it makes about as much sense for a paladin to be able to abandon his most trusted companion without moral consideration than it does for a cleric of the God of Fidelity and Soulmates to be able to "trade up" to a hotter partner. You don't dump your comrade; you find a way to bring her along, or you count the days until you meet again.
And this is why people have so many arguments over paladins. It doesn't state or imply that a paladin cannot leave his comrades and that doing so would violate his oath.
Many people seem to enjoy adding words to the raw that fit their idea of a paladin. Druids as well a great deal lately on the forums.
Adding rules to enhance your world is a fine thing just make sure that you let your players know first.
In my experience, people try too hard to negate the entire code of the paladin, then take offense when they're called on it. There is a certain flavor implied by the ability--this steed is closer to you than a druid companion, as evidenced by the death rules, which don't exist for druid companions. It's not the kind of companion you can simply swap out. You can leave it behind to go somewhere it can't go, but you can't just trade it in for a newer model.
As usual, this is all subject to Rule 0, of course. If my player had a problem with it from a "this feat is old and busted" standpoint, I'd probably house-rule a method for respeccing the mount the same way some people house-rule a method for respeccing characters (quest hook!). If they wanted to play a paladin with a lesser bond to its mount, they're free to take bonded weapon, or we could work out what that freedom is worth and make a custom archetype or, barring that, trait or feat out of it.
/"I'll never let go, Jack! I'll never let go!" *lets go*
I think your idea of the relationship between the Paladin and her mount is both a bit disturbing, and illegal in 48 states.
What happens in Kaer Maga stays in Kaer Maga.
In my experience, people try too hard to negate the entire code of the paladin, then take offense when they're called on it. There is a certain flavor implied by the ability--this steed is closer to you than a druid companion, as evidenced by the death rules, which don't exist for druid companions. It's not the kind of companion you can simply swap out. You can leave it behind to go somewhere it can't go, but you can't just trade it in for a newer model.
If paizo wanted there to be an exemption for paladins preventing them from changing out animal companions as per the animal companion rules they are stated to follow then it probably would have stated it.
I'm not taking offense. Merely pointing out that adding words that you think are implied is a house rule.
Antipaladins have a death penalty as well. I don't think the oath implies it logic flies.
Here's another reason I believe that you cannot simply swap out the mount the way a druid can:
1. Paladin enters a cave, leaving trusty steed at the door, as it can't fit.
2. Paladin goes in for several minutes.
3. Paladin hears his trusty steed scream at getting mangled by The Tarrasque. It's clearly still alive because it's still screaming.
4. Paladin realizes that he can't get back in time to save his steed.
5. Paladin says "I release my steed from service."
Congratulations; the paladin has bypassed the explicit drawback placed on its mount ability without any violation of his moral code. I do not believe this was intended to be possible.
If a paladin absolutely must leave behind their steed, I would rule that they should at least go through the same period of "mourning" that they normally would before getting a new one (though I might waive the -1 penalty to rolls). Otherwise, why bother with the mourning rule at all? It just gets in the way of the player's munchkining.
If paizo wanted there to be an exemption for paladins preventing them from changing out animal companions as per the animal companion rules they are stated to follow then it probably would have stated it.
Not necessarily. They seem to have different ideas of what is obvious than many of us do.
I'm not taking offense. Merely pointing out that adding words that you think are implied is a house rule.
No offense intended, and none taken. In my view, your interpretation is a house rule, as to me it appears you are filling in the same informational void with an interpretation that appears counter to the spirit of the class.
Antipaladins have a death penalty as well. I don't think the oath implies it logic flies.
Different flavor of the same thing. They have an unholy bond with their servant, and severing that bond harms them. Note that they are even less likely to be allowed to swap companions willy-nilly, as their death penalty applies even if the servant is merely "banished". They're free to murder or dismiss their servant without violating their oath (hey, being evil always was easier), but they suffer the consequences.
If your players are reaching that hard to avoid penalties the problem isn't the rules.
Edit:
1. This is an irrelevant blanket statement. I mean no offense here. It just isn't evidence for anything other than you feel a certain way about certain things that aren't stipulated or named in any fashion. Which is to say that its either a profound truth or logically impossible to prove as most profound truths happen to be.
2. The mechanics are already written.
"The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. 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. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6."
"Unlike normal animals of its kind, an animal companion's Hit Dice, abilities, skills, and feats advance as the druid advances in level. If a character receives an animal companion from more than one source, her effective druid levels stack for the purposes of determining the statistics and abilities of the companion. Most animal companions increase in size when their druid reaches 4th or 7th level, depending on the companion. If a druid releases her companion from service, she may gain a new one by performing a ceremony requiring 24 uninterrupted hours of prayer in the environment where the new companion typically lives. This ceremony can also replace an animal companion that has perished."
A paladin's level is treated as her druid level. Under the animal companion power it states the mechanics for swapping animal companions. At no point does it state any alteration under the paladin heading that affects releasing and binding animal companions.
Edit 2.0 for quotation:
"Should the paladin's mount die, the paladin may not summon another mount for 30 days or until she gains a paladin level, whichever comes first. During this 30-day period, the paladin takes a –1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls."
The above is the only text anywhere in the article altering the swapping of animal companions rules and it only addressing the death of one.
Adding rules to fit the spirit of the class is a house rule.
3. Different flavor of the same thing? That is precisely my point. Antipaladins have rules stipulating changing servants. Paladins have rules for changing mounts. Neither has anything to do with their respective oath other than than the fact that if they violate said oath then they lose their respective class feature.
If your players are reaching that hard to avoid penalties the problem isn't the rules.
In that, we are in complete agreement.
Since the rules don't go into what is required to release an animal companion/mount, I would say it is up to the GM what is required. Given that it requires a ritual to get a new one, then I think it is equally valid to require a ritual to dismiss one (even if it's a minor one), thus your extremely situational caveat would be covered.
However, as Jak said, if you're players are cheesing that badly, you have bigger problems than adjudicating the game in a fair manner.