I hate how most archetypes that gain mount don't call it mount.

[swoosh]

Blood Rider bloodragers, horse lord rangers, mounted fury barbarians and so on all functionally get the same class feature as the cavalier's mount, but can't actually take any mount related feats because they have a different name. Like Monstrous Mount.

S'shame. Horse Lord Ranger is especially hilarious because rangers normally can take feats like monstrous mount, but the horse lord's feature has a different name.

Though they do all qualify for the crappier and more confusingly written monstrous companion I guess.

[Rysky]

Monstrous Mount wrote:

You have learned how to tame and ride exotic beasts.
Prerequisite(s): Handle Animal 4 ranks; Ride 4 ranks; divine bond (mount), hunter's bond (animal companion), or mount class feature with an effective druid level of 4.

Note the last part, all of these archetypes have a mount class feature and qualify for Mount related feats and items.

Cavalier's Mount (Ex) wrote:

A cavalier gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level.

Horse Lord's Mounted Bond (Ex) wrote:

At 4th level, the horse lord forms a bond with an animal he can use as a mount, which becomes his animal companion. A Medium Ranger can select a camel or a horse. A small Ranger can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or dog if he is at least 7th level.
This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability except that the Ranger’s effective druid level is equal to his Ranger level – 3.

Bloodrider's Feral Mount (Ex) wrote:

At 5th level, the bloodrider gains the service of a feral mount. This ability functions as the druid's animal companion, using the bloodrager's level – 4 as his effective druid level.

Mounted Fury's Bestial Mount (Ex) wrote:

At 5th level, the mounted fury gains the service of a feral mount. This ability functions as a druid’s animal companion, using the barbarian’s level –4 as her effective druid level.

[The Mortonator]

Rysky, I don't think you are reading it quite right. You are confirming what the poster said. Even thought they all have mount written in them, they do not call themselves out as counting as the mount class feature.

[Rysky]

Um, no, "Mount" is just the specific name for the Cavalier's Animal Companion class feature.

Cavalier's Mount (Ex) wrote:

A cavalier gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level.

A Mount class feature is just an Animal Companion that can be used as a mount, wording that all of these archetypes have.

All Classes with ACs refer back to the Druid, including the Cavalier itself. You won't find any class abilities that say they function "as the Cavalier's Mount", it will always be "as a Druid's Animal Companion".

[The Mortonator]

Rysky wrote:

Um, no, "Mount" is just the specific name for the Cavalier's Animal Companion class feature.

Cavalier's Mount (Ex) wrote:

A cavalier gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level.

A Mount class feature is just an Animal Companion that can be used as a mount, wording that all of these archetypes have.

According to the original poster, who far as I know is right, a mount class feature is SPECIFICALLY a class feature named Mount. Which only the Cavalier has regardless of the word being used within the other features. It's the same reason Shadow Jump does not technically qualify for Dimensional Agility on it's own.

[Rysky]

Probably won't sway you any but I made an addendum to my last post.

And the Shadow Jump/Dimensional Agility analogy doesn't quite work since DA specifically says you have to CAST Dimension Door, not have a DD class ability.

[Scythia]

While I agree that if it is for all purposes a mount class feature it ought to be counted as one, the clarification recently on what counts as weapon training, for advanced weapon training, makes it clear that not all features are actually considered "same enough".

Which leads me to suspect the pedantic stance is probably correct here.

[Rysky]

Which would be a very annoying stance since then only Cavaliers could take mount related anything despite all of the classes and archetypes that have mount class abilities.

[Melkiador]

I suspect this is intentional. It would be so easy to just call these other abilities "mount", but they are consistently given other names.

[Claxon]

Scythia wrote:

While I agree that if it is for all purposes a mount class feature it ought to be counted as one, the clarification recently on what counts as weapon training, for advanced weapon training, makes it clear that not all features are actually considered "same enough".

Which leads me to suspect the pedantic stance is probably correct here.

I think this is because they don't want other classes poaching the fighters nifty new powers. Fighters finally got something nice, and everybody was trying to take it.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

swoosh wrote:

Blood Rider bloodragers, horse lord rangers, mounted fury barbarians and so on all functionally get the same class feature as the cavalier's mount, but can't actually take any mount related feats because they have a different name. Like Monstrous Mount.

S'shame. Horse Lord Ranger is especially hilarious because rangers normally can take feats like monstrous mount, but the horse lord's feature has a different name.

Though they do all qualify for the crappier and more confusingly written monstrous companion I guess.

It's called giving the cavalier a reason to exist, or less harshly, a niche to call it's own. The base cavalier class is essentially THE mounted knight. It stands to reason that it should have the potential for mount mastery beyond that of any other class.

Not the other classes that have the capability of a mounted mount have such stinky features, after all.

[hiiamtom]

I have to agree that it's aimed to benefit the Cavalier only, but I wish cavalier archetypes could use it - though on the same note it makes Beast Rider redundant.

Claxon wrote:

Scythia wrote:

While I agree that if it is for all purposes a mount class feature it ought to be counted as one, the clarification recently on what counts as weapon training, for advanced weapon training, makes it clear that not all features are actually considered "same enough".

Which leads me to suspect the pedantic stance is probably correct here.

I think this is because they don't want other classes poaching the fighters nifty new powers. Fighters finally got something nice, and everybody was trying to take it.

The problem with this (as it relates to Advanced Weapon Triaining), is that it is a class ability that needs continued support with time that will likely not get continued support with time because it is Fighter only.

Part of the reason spells are easy and fun to make new ones is because they land on multiple lists, same for feats, same for Rogue Talents or Rage Powers.

[swoosh]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

It's called giving the cavalier a reason to exist, or less harshly, a niche to call it's own. The base cavalier class is essentially THE mounted knight. It stands to reason that it should have the potential for mount mastery beyond that of any other class.

Not the other classes that have the capability of a mounted mount have such stinky features, after all.

Quite possibly true, though I'm not sure how intentional it always is. In the example feat, Rangers qualify along with Cavaliers, but one of the archetypes mentioned (Horse Lord) stops qualifying because of a name change to the feature. Likewise Cavalier archetypes that rename the class feature (admittedly only the beast rider and ghost rider as far as I can tell) can't benefit either.

On the other hand as far as that protection angle, Divine Commander Warpriests and Inquisitors that take the Chivalry Inquisition do just outright gain the cavalier's mount class feature and I don't really see either them being less egregious than a Barbarian in terms of overlapping.

Claxon wrote:

I think this is because they don't want other classes poaching the fighters nifty new powers. Fighters finally got something nice, and everybody was trying to take it.

Well, non fighter classes with Weapon Training can qualify for AWT though. The people who get the most screwed by it are fighter archetypes that have a class feature that's basically weapon training under a different name.

Most infamously the Archer Fighter, Expert Archer is literally Weapon Training restricted to bows, but because it's called Expert Archer they can never take AWT.

[CWheezy]

My guess is the writers didnt really know how the rules work for weapon training.

[Lamontius]

I am gonna do it the way that makes sense

[Scythia]

Lamontius wrote:

I am gonna do it the way that makes sense

I always do that in my own games. Raw is for veggie trays at my house. :P