PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Mounts, how far do you let them go?



Coidzor
2010-11-28, 08:33 AM
So I've been reading up on mounted builds and mounts (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7414.0)and skimmed through the supermount (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19866958/Supermount!)thread and saw the excesses (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142554)possible, and I was wondering what playgrounders considered their personal limits and general limits of good taste in regards to optimizing a mount.

So what's your stance on the matter?

AstralFire
2010-11-28, 08:41 AM
The mount can be as powerful as the player wants as long as player and mount combined are not unbalanced relative to my stated expectations for the game - same as any other player character combined with all of their assets.

AslanCross
2010-11-28, 08:50 AM
Rule of cool is the primary determiner in my games, but exotic mounts usually come as a reward for doing something unexpected (such as unpetrifying the stone wyvern in the Stone Wyvern Tavern or pulling out the picked Dire Lion in the preservative vat in RHOD).

Zen Master
2010-11-28, 11:20 AM
As a general rule of thumb, my players will ride a horse. If there are any special reasons - like the PC is a paladin - it may be an enhanced horse!

Of course where applicable they have also had airships (Earthdawn), war wagons pulled by mekillots (Dark Sun), spaceships (Shadowrun), Helicopters (also Shadowrun) and so on and so forth.

But generally, powerful mounts is usually a way to detract from the game rather than to add. My reasoning being that if they invest heavily in a mount, they are likely to want to get some actual use out of it - and that rarely has much benefit for anyone.

Greenish
2010-11-28, 11:29 AM
But generally, powerful mounts is usually a way to detract from the game rather than to add. My reasoning being that if they invest heavily in a mount, they are likely to want to get some actual use out of it - and that rarely has much benefit for anyone.What do you mean?

Zeofar
2010-11-28, 11:36 AM
But generally, powerful mounts is usually a way to detract from the game rather than to add. My reasoning being that if they invest heavily in a mount, they are likely to want to get some actual use out of it - and that rarely has much benefit for anyone.

I don't get what this means at all. If you invest heavily in weapons or armor you want to get some use out of it and that obviously doesn't detract from anything. Why are mounts different? On a similar note, if Ranger X takes Natural Bond a couple times to get Druid effective levels and because his additional classes don't advance his animal companion, he's heavily invested in his companion and will want to get some actual use out of it. Does that have benefit for nobody? Wouldn't it hurt everyone more to not get use out of it? Next, consider that many animal companions can be viably used as mounts. Does it still benefit nobody to get use from mounts in which you've heavily invested?

AshDesert
2010-11-28, 11:51 AM
If the PCs work for it, I'll let them get just about anything they want to. If they want to do the effort to make a super-powered dragon mount, I'll let them, they just have to come up with a reasonable character to roleplay for the build they use and they'll probably have to do some additional adventuring (to find dragon eggs or babies, to find a dragon trainer etc.). My players are really lax about other players' characters being ridiculously powerful, since a) it's fun to watch thousands of damage pop up with regularity and b) they trust me to make encounters and challenges for them.

Also, mounts aren't always feasible to use, so they aren't always going to be a problem.

AstralFire
2010-11-28, 12:03 PM
I don't get what this means at all. If you invest heavily in weapons or armor you want to get some use out of it and that obviously doesn't detract from anything. Why are mounts different? On a similar note, if Ranger X takes Natural Bond a couple times to get Druid effective levels and because his additional classes don't advance his animal companion, he's heavily invested in his companion and will want to get some actual use out of it. Does that have benefit for nobody? Wouldn't it hurt everyone more to not get use out of it? Next, consider that many animal companions can be viably used as mounts. Does it still benefit nobody to get use from mounts in which you've heavily invested?

I suspect he's referring to the fact that if you DM a lot with actual dungeons, there are many situations where a mount won't fit or make sense.

Akal Saris
2010-11-28, 12:10 PM
Well, the linked "world record" build offends my sensibilities with its ridiculous assumptions and the questionable rules that it uses, but overall I'll let my PCs go pretty far with a mounted build, so long as the effort put into it is reasonably close to the cost.

A warbeast mount from MM2, for example, is vastly under-priced for its benefit, and I wouldn't allow it in my games without adjusting the price. But the typical supermount build makes some heavy sacrifices for its awesome mount by leaving the main PC handicapped in feats and actual class abilities, so I'd allow it and would certainly play it given the opportunity.

In actual games that I run, there's 2 "mounted" PCs. One is a centaur PC "ubercharger" with the mounted combat chain, who allows other PCs to ride him, and the other is a crusader/wiz gish who has Dragon Leadership for his mount. Neither has proven too unbalanced for my games, though other DMs might feel differently.

Zen Master
2010-11-28, 12:48 PM
I suspect he's referring to the fact that if you DM a lot with actual dungeons, there are many situations where a mount won't fit or make sense.

Exactly. In many cases, the theme of a game just fits the concept of having a special form of transport - and in other cases, not so much. And I'd much rather advice against a player heavily investing in something like that than having to forcefully squeeze in situations that reward this investment.

AstralFire
2010-11-28, 12:56 PM
See, on my end, I don't actually keep the PCs anywhere near a 'dungeon' that often. They bore me.