Rhino as a mount?

[CyberThread]

Why are DM's so iffy on letting a pally have a rhino has a mount?

[Flickerdart]

The earliest level a paladin can have such a mount is 7th. At that level, the paladin is likely to have an attack bonus of maybe 13 (7 BAB, +6 Strength, +1 sword) that deals 2d6+10 damage. With the bonus HD, a rhino has +15 to attack and deals 2d6+12 - double that on a charge. It is understandable that a DM who doesn't really understand the game yet might think that a creature stronger than its rider is not permissible. However, the obvious rebuttal is that a 7th level rider should not be weaker than a CR4 creature, and if anything, the rhino boosts the paladin up to a useful level. After all, level 7 is also when druids get their rhinos, and nobody complains about that.

[Urpriest]

They aren't, in my experience. If one that you know is, you could ask.

[ArcturusV]

The only time I've really seen a problem with alternate mounts for a Paladin it came down to this.

Player: I want something other than a horse.

DM: ... but you're a Paladin...

Player: Yeah, but I don't like horses. Look, the book says instead I could get a (Insert Critter).

DM: ... but that's not right. I mean Paladin. Shiny knight. Horse. Whoever read a story about a shiny knight that rode on a griffin? Horse!

It tends to be less about "power" and more about what the DM thinks is the iconic image. They might be persuaded for a Dragon Mount eventually as the Knight riding a Dragon is an image they get get behind. Maybe even a Griffin. But they'll balk at something like riding an Ooze, or a Lion, or a Dire Wolf, etc.

[Amphetryon]

The only time I've really seen a problem with alternate mounts for a Paladin it came down to this.

Player: I want something other than a horse.

DM: ... but you're a Paladin...

Player: Yeah, but I don't like horses. Look, the book says instead I could get a (Insert Critter).

DM: ... but that's not right. I mean Paladin. Shiny knight. Horse. Whoever read a story about a shiny knight that rode on a griffin? Horse!

It tends to be less about "power" and more about what the DM thinks is the iconic image. They might be persuaded for a Dragon Mount eventually as the Knight riding a Dragon is an image they get get behind. Maybe even a Griffin. But they'll balk at something like riding an Ooze, or a Lion, or a Dire Wolf, etc.
The closest I've come to this is requesting and expecting a certain level of what I call "cultural consistency" in Mount/Animal Companion choices. If you want a Rhino, cool. . . but I need to know which culture you're coming from where riding Rhinos has some sort of history or basis. I wouldn't say no, but I would want to make the Player make choices that make sense for his concept besides "this looks kewl."

[Flickerdart]

The closest I've come to this is requesting and expecting a certain level of what I call "cultural consistency" in Mount/Animal Companion choices. If you want a Rhino, cool. . . but I need to know which culture you're coming from where riding Rhinos has some sort of history or basis. I wouldn't say no, but I would want to make the Player make choices that make sense for his concept besides "this looks kewl."
Why? A druid needs to get animals from his surroundings. A paladin summons his animal from thin air. If he thinks that the legendary rhinoceros he's heard so much about from travelers will do better in his fight against evil than a horse, he can summon one and see how it fares with literally zero consequence.

[Amphetryon]

Why? A druid needs to get animals from his surroundings. A paladin summons his animal from thin air. If he thinks that the legendary rhinoceros he's heard so much about from travelers will do better in his fight against evil than a horse, he can summon one and see how it fares with literally zero consequence.
That's still consistent, if "he's heard so much about it from travelers." It's not consistent if - for an off-the-cuff example - dinosaurs only exist in a small, hidden glen that the Paladin and all those with whom he interacted for 4 levels had never heard tales of (and had no Knowledge investment to indicate having heard the tales). Once he meets such a traveler, it's perfectly kosher in my book, and if the Player lets his wishes be known ahead of time, I can arrange the story to accommodate that. I don't feel like asking the PCs not to ignore the game's ongoing story - including their own write-ups - is terribly overbearing on my part as a DM.

[Humble Master]

I agree that to get some exotic animal like a Rhino as your Paladin mount you really need to know what a Rhino is to ask for one. However if the PC's want a Rhino and have see/heard of a Rhino then there is no reason for the Paladin to not get a Rhino! I guess I'm personally biased because I think horses are just about the worst mounts in the game.

[Flickerdart]

That's still consistent, if "he's heard so much about it from travelers." It's not consistent if - for an off-the-cuff example - dinosaurs only exist in a small, hidden glen that the Paladin and all those with whom he interacted for 4 levels had never heard tales of (and had no Knowledge investment to indicate having heard the tales). Once he meets such a traveler, it's perfectly kosher in my book, and if the Player lets his wishes be known ahead of time, I can arrange the story to accommodate that. I don't feel like asking the PCs not to ignore the game's ongoing story - including their own write-ups - is terribly overbearing on my part as a DM.
How exactly do you expect a paladin to gain four levels while never leaving a "small hidden glen"?

[ArcturusV]

I don't even think you'd have to have heard of it. I mean, where do Paladin Mounts come from? Note that the Paladin's Mount ability actually says "Summoned from the Celestial Realms in which it resides".

It's not pulling the Dinosaur from some Land of the Lost hidden vale. Nor snatching a Rhino off the Savannah.

It's less pulling something you know from the world, and more like "Hey, Forces of Good that I'm serving. I need a hand. Give me something." and them going "Hmm. New Paladin (Or old looking for a new mount). Well... he could really use a _____" and throwing it out to you. Course once you call it you're bound and will continually summon the same one, sure.

[Amphetryon]

I agree that to get some exotic animal like a Rhino as your Paladin mount you really need to know what a Rhino is to ask for one. However if the PC's want a Rhino and have see/heard of a Rhino then there is no reason for the Paladin to not get a Rhino! I guess I'm personally biased because I think horses are just about the worst mounts in the game.

Yep. A single rank in Knowledge (Nature) for someone in your party, or a passing mention of it in your backstory, or even mentioning the desire to have one as a Mount at some point OOC to the DM, isn't a horrible in-game price to show that you have seen/heard of the beastie, IMO.

Apparently, others think that's excessively heavy-handed. *shrug*

[Coidzor]

That's still consistent, if "he's heard so much about it from travelers." It's not consistent if - for an off-the-cuff example - dinosaurs only exist in a small, hidden glen that the Paladin and all those with whom he interacted for 4 levels had never heard tales of (and had no Knowledge investment to indicate having heard the tales). Once he meets such a traveler, it's perfectly kosher in my book, and if the Player lets his wishes be known ahead of time, I can arrange the story to accommodate that. I don't feel like asking the PCs not to ignore the game's ongoing story - including their own write-ups - is terribly overbearing on my part as a DM.

So the DM gets to be woefully inconsistent, eh? Making dinosaurs only exist in a small, hidden glen means that very quickly there won't be any dinosaurs left. :smalltongue:

[Waddacku]

How exactly do you expect a paladin to gain four levels while never leaving a "small hidden glen"?

You're misreading, he said the paladin has never heard of the glen.

[angry_bear]

In this type of situation as a GM, I usually make sure that the character would somehow know what the animal was. Especially something like a rhino which to my knowledge, isn't a typical mount for anyone out of game, or in game...

I'm not saying that a Paladin can't have a rhino for a mount; I'm just saying he actually needs to know what one is, and ideally have some sort of precedent for the creature being used as a mount. (Not essential, it just bugs me less if they can provide the precedent lol) A character born and raised in the spine of the world isn't going to be able to say, "Remember the rhinos that lived around the Ten-Towns when we were kids? I always wanted to ride one," A player who lives in a more region appropriate place could probably do that, but to me, it's region dependent on what kind of mounts and summons are available to PC's.

[Amphetryon]

You're misreading, he said the paladin has never heard of the glen.

Or met anyone who had, or justified meeting anyone who had by backstory, or mentioned to the DM that he might like a dinosaur for a Mount before the moment came when he got to summon one.

Apparently, that's too restrictive on my part.

[Thewaitingman]

I'd accept that if of course, as you've noted, he's heard of the animal before or something; but for such decisions I've found that you must make the player understand the gravity of his goal. An easy way is to demand some time "mastering" the feat and maybe ask that the player must consult others and ask their help if the campaign allows it. If the player really wants it he'll be willing to stay a couple of months or even more "perfecting his connection" with the beast. Not to mention making the rest of the group follow you. This way you make him feel (and the DM) that he earned it and not that he just exploited the rules.. Otherwise he'll just be bored to go through all that and move on to the next wild idea :P

[Slipperychicken]

If you're chatting up the gods every morning before breakfast, and they offer you a mount in exchange for your excellent service to them, which they allow you to conjure from thin air, you should be able to score whatever mount you ask for.

If you're going to let the Wizard pull a demon-gorilla out of his hat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterIII.htm) without seeing one before, no questions asked, the Paladin should be able to get a rhino. At least the rhino lives on the same plane...

[Cirrylius]

But they'll balk at something like riding an Ooze
How DARE you impugn the reputation of my noble Mister Drippy?? The Archons had nothing but excellent things to say about him!

[Bogardan_Mage]

That's still consistent, if "he's heard so much about it from travelers." It's not consistent if - for an off-the-cuff example - dinosaurs only exist in a small, hidden glen that the Paladin and all those with whom he interacted for 4 levels had never heard tales of (and had no Knowledge investment to indicate having heard the tales). Once he meets such a traveler, it's perfectly kosher in my book, and if the Player lets his wishes be known ahead of time, I can arrange the story to accommodate that. I don't feel like asking the PCs not to ignore the game's ongoing story - including their own write-ups - is terribly overbearing on my part as a DM.
I don't think that's the same situation at all, and I think the reason people are misinterpreting you is that they're assuming that it is. What you're talking about is a setting issue: you can't take character options that don't fit the setting. It's no different from ruling that you can't take Psion levels in a world where psionics don't exist. As far as I can tell the original poster is talking more about something that applies specifically to Paladins. Rhinos exist and everyone knows they exist, but there's some arbitrary force that prevents Paladins from riding them.

[Amphetryon]

So the DM gets to be woefully inconsistent, eh? Making dinosaurs only exist in a small, hidden glen means that very quickly there won't be any dinosaurs left.If you've had a DM that's been unwaveringly consistent with the real-world implications of where the monsters are placed and how they act, I'd love to hear more. In particular, I'm fascinated by the amount of lift and downforce a Dragon would have to exert in order to fly at the rate of speed given (any Dragon with a Fly speed suffices for the example). A detailed methodology of the metabolic production of the breath weapon is also appreciated.

If this level of consistency of application of real-world implications seems too stringent, then perhaps the demands for such consistency are being applied. . . inconsistently. If that's the case, then I'm interested in learning why my suggested level of consistency in the Dragon example is WrongBadFun, while the suggested level of consistency inherent in allowing a newly minted 5th level Paladin (or appropriate-level Conjurer) to summon a Rhino or a Dinosaur - when nothing in the Character's history to that point indicates he was aware of such animals - is an appropriate level of consistency.


If you're chatting up the gods every morning before breakfast, and they offer you a mount in exchange for your excellent service to them, which they allow you to conjure from thin air, you should be able to score whatever mount you ask for.

If you're going to let the Wizard pull a demon-gorilla out of his hat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterIII.htm) without seeing one before, no questions asked, the Paladin should be able to get a rhino. At least the rhino lives on the same plane...Sure, and again, all that I'd ask in that situation is that the Paladin in question provided some clue beforehand that a Rhino (or a Dinosaur, or another "legal" choice for Mount that is considerably far afield from the particular environment(s) in which the Paladin has spent time to that point) has been introduced to the Character's knowledge-base, as opposed to just the Player's. Spending a single Skill point (this part holds true for summoning strange and exotic representatives from the Summon Monster/SNA listings and variants, incidentally); mentioning it in the backstory; chatting with some mysterious stranger from another land at an inn about exotic flora and fauna one drunken night; or even saying to me, the DM, out-of-Character "Hey, is it okay if I get a Rhino/Dinosaur/Pegahippogriffagon as my Mount?" before the moment arrives to call said Mount are all perfectly okay with me. As I have said, over and over, I am sorry these requirements are seen as so terribly onerous as to cause so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about them here in response to my clearly tyrannical demands on a Player.

[Coidzor]

If you've had a DM that's been unwaveringly consistent with the real-world implications of where the monsters are placed and how they act, I'd love to hear more. In particular, I'm fascinated by the amount of lift and downforce a Dragon would have to exert in order to fly at the rate of speed given (any Dragon with a Fly speed suffices for the example). A detailed methodology of the metabolic production of the breath weapon is also appreciated.

If this level of consistency of application of real-world implications seems too stringent, then perhaps the demands for such consistency are being applied. . . inconsistently. If that's the case, then I'm interested in learning why my suggested level of consistency in the Dragon example is WrongBadFun, while the suggested level of consistency inherent in allowing a newly minted 5th level Paladin (or appropriate-level Conjurer) to summon a Rhino or a Dinosaur - when nothing in the Character's history to that point indicates he was aware of such animals - is an appropriate level of consistency.

Thankfully none of that is needed due to the power of handwavium.

You, on the other hand, are espousing a tactic of writing yourself into a corner and opening yourself up to criticism and ridicule when the flaw in your attempt to weasel out of banning dinosaurs altogether by writing them out of your setting but also make sure that the players can't use them anyway.

Far better to leave details that are irrelevant unfilled until such time as they actually need to be dealt with than to say it's like this without having thought it through. Just makes you look bad, and doesn't really disguise that you really just want to say "no" to your players very well if at all.

Edit: But maybe this is all a bit of overblown semantics.

[Slipperychicken]

Sure, and again, all that I'd ask in that situation is that the Paladin in question provided some clue beforehand that a Rhino (or a Dinosaur, or another "legal" choice for Mount that is considerably far afield from the particular environment(s) in which the Paladin has spent time to that point) has been introduced to the Character's knowledge-base, as opposed to just the Player's. Spending a single Skill point (this part holds true for summoning strange and exotic representatives from the Summon Monster/SNA listings and variants, incidentally); mentioning it in the backstory; chatting with some mysterious stranger from another land at an inn about exotic flora and fauna one drunken night; or even saying to me, the DM, out-of-Character "Hey, is it okay if I get a Rhino/Dinosaur/Pegahippogriffagon as my Mount?" before the moment arrives to call said Mount are all perfectly okay with me. As I have said, over and over, I am sorry these requirements are seen as so terribly onerous as to cause so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about them here in response to my clearly tyrannical demands on a Player.

That's reasonable. I was assuming the Paladin PC had at least a basic concept of what a Rhino is, presumably from common stories spread between travelers, or part of his education if he received one. How could he ask for one otherwise?


Besides, it's totally within your domain as a GM to restrict character options which you deem inappropriate or unsuitable for the character or game. I have no problem with this.

[Flickerdart]

If you've had a DM that's been unwaveringly consistent with the real-world implications of where the monsters are placed and how they act, I'd love to hear more. In particular, I'm fascinated by the amount of lift and downforce a Dragon would have to exert in order to fly at the rate of speed given (any Dragon with a Fly speed suffices for the example). A detailed methodology of the metabolic production of the breath weapon is also appreciated.

If this level of consistency of application of real-world implications seems too stringent, then perhaps the demands for such consistency are being applied. . . inconsistently. If that's the case, then I'm interested in learning why my suggested level of consistency in the Dragon example is WrongBadFun, while the suggested level of consistency inherent in allowing a newly minted 5th level Paladin (or appropriate-level Conjurer) to summon a Rhino or a Dinosaur - when nothing in the Character's history to that point indicates he was aware of such animals - is an appropriate level of consistency.

Sure, and again, all that I'd ask in that situation is that the Paladin in question provided some clue beforehand that a Rhino (or a Dinosaur, or another "legal" choice for Mount that is considerably far afield from the particular environment(s) in which the Paladin has spent time to that point) has been introduced to the Character's knowledge-base, as opposed to just the Player's. Spending a single Skill point (this part holds true for summoning strange and exotic representatives from the Summon Monster/SNA listings and variants, incidentally); mentioning it in the backstory; chatting with some mysterious stranger from another land at an inn about exotic flora and fauna one drunken night; or even saying to me, the DM, out-of-Character "Hey, is it okay if I get a Rhino/Dinosaur/Pegahippogriffagon as my Mount?" before the moment arrives to call said Mount are all perfectly okay with me. As I have said, over and over, I am sorry these requirements are seen as so terribly onerous as to cause so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about them here in response to my clearly tyrannical demands on a Player.
I'm reasonably certain that nobody was suggesting that paladins should be allowed to summon whatever the hell they feel like in the heat of battle, so you're kind of really overreacting there.

[Amphetryon]

That's reasonable. I was assuming the Paladin PC had at least a basic concept of what a Rhino is, presumably from common stories spread between travelers, or part of his education if he received one. How could he ask for one otherwise?


Besides, it's totally within your domain as a GM to restrict character options which you deem inappropriate or unsuitable for the character or game. I have no problem with this.

Given the amount of disagreement on this point, you and I appear to have different definitions of "reasonable" from the majority of respondents here.

[TuggyNE]

Given the amount of disagreement on this point, you and I appear to have different definitions of "reasonable" from the majority of respondents here.

For what it's worth, Amph, I think this is a case where Knowledge skills or something of the sort would be called for to get a mount. (Technically, they'd be called for for any mount, but most PCs should auto-succeed on the DC for horses. Not that they would, of course! :smallyuk:)

I'm not totally sure what the backlash here is triggered by, but oh well.

[Chronos]

The character need not even have a clue what a rhino is. He could just ask the Forces of Good to grant him a mount well-suited for charging headlong straight into the face of danger, or something like that. He'd then probably be very puzzled the first time this horned monstrosity appeared to answer his summons, but would accept it as the gift of the gods.

[Cikomyr]

I don't see how a player gets to control what he's being given. A Celestial Mount is litteraly a case of the Gods granting a boon to one of their Holy Warrior; you don't look it in the teeth.


I'd say, for certain exceptional occasion, an exotic Celestial Mount might be interesting. For example; you need to storm the gates of an evil bastion, and need something with more punch than a horse. There is nothing to say that you cannot make the REQUEST for something more. And then, the GM might even ask you to do something special in return.

Make it part of the story, rather than handwave or make it a "game balance" issue. Celestial Rhino are cool, but are even cooler when you did something special to acquire it rather than just reaching Level 4

[Cirrylius]

you don't look it in the teeth.

Heh.:smallbiggrin:

[Mr. Zolrane]

Or met anyone who had, or justified meeting anyone who had by backstory, or mentioned to the DM that he might like a dinosaur for a Mount before the moment came when he got to summon one.

Apparently, that's too restrictive on my part.

And here is yet another fine example of what I like to call "please pass the salt" DMing, in which a DM puts up paper-thin roadblocks to whatever it is the player wants to do, lifts it as soon as they do this perfunctory task and then pretend to not understand why the player is puzzled as to why their time was wasted in this manner at all.

So named for a DM I once had who, when the party was sitting down to dinner one evening and I said "I sprinkle some salt on my ostrich leg and start eating" informed me that "The salt is on [Fighter]'s side of the table," and that I did not, in fact, salt my ostrich leg. I said "Okay... [Fighter] could you please pass the salt." *[Fighter] passes the salt* Me: "Okay, NOW I sprinkle some salt on my ostrich leg and eat it." DM: "Okay, good." What did that add to the game exactly that simply assuming that the salt had been passed would have bereaved us of? You don't need a narrative reason for every little choice a player makes, especially when it comes to mechanics. If the paladin wants a rhino and the only barrier to you permitting him to have one is that he once did a favor for the a priest of the church of Hieronius who just happened to be St. Horny, Patron Saint of Rhinoceri in disguise, why bother?


Thankfully none of that is needed due to the power of handwavium.

You, on the other hand, are espousing a tactic of writing yourself into a corner and opening yourself up to criticism and ridicule when the flaw in your attempt to weasel out of banning dinosaurs altogether by writing them out of your setting but also make sure that the players can't use them anyway.

Far better to leave details that are irrelevant unfilled until such time as they actually need to be dealt with than to say it's like this without having thought it through. Just makes you look bad, and doesn't really disguise that you really just want to say "no" to your players very well if at all.

Edit: But maybe this is all a bit of overblown semantics.

This. It's been my experience that players will respect you more if you just rule and explain why honestly rather than trying to give some high-minded explanation that serves only to mask a preference.


I don't see how a player gets to control what he's being given.


Hoo, boy... now there's a can of Fiendish Dire Half-Beholder Purple Worms if ever I saw one. Where does that stop? Should the DM pick divine casters' spells for them too, because, you know, that's what Pelor decided he should be packing that day? I could go on with more examples but I think you get the idea. Paladins get to pick their mount for the same reason players pick anything.

[Chronos]

And even if the character can't choose, that doesn't mean that the player can't. I mean, heck, a character can't even choose to be a paladin at all: You're either called, or you're not, and all you can do is choose whether to accept the call. But it's taken for granted that if a player wants to play a paladin, we can just assume that the character was in fact called.

[Coidzor]

I don't see how a player gets to control what he's being given. A Celestial Mount is litteraly a case of the Gods granting a boon to one of their Holy Warrior; you don't look it in the teeth.

Well, generally you don't want to look a DM in the teeth, but they're hardly gods.

...Actually, isn't believing one's self to be a god a sign of megalomania? One of its relatives at least...

Not a healthy line of thinking is what I'm getting at here. The DM might be god in-character, but not to the players of the game, and that's a distinction which should not be forgotten.


Make it part of the story, rather than handwave or make it a "game balance" issue. Celestial Rhino are cool, but are even cooler when you did something special to acquire it rather than just reaching Level 4

You know what's even cooler? Not wasting everyone else's time with a silly quest to get the Paladin a mount other than a boring old horse.

There's only a finite amount of play-time in a session and a group can only meet so often, after all. Taking that kind of time in a sandbox game, that might work, but if there's any other kind of plot? That's basically become a "No, but I want to weasel out of actually just giving you a flat NO, so I've come up with some malarkey to justify it," or "Sure, you can get a decent mount... as part of the falling action when the campaign is winding up."

[Flickerdart]

The gods don't have anything to do with it; the paladin doesn't have to follow a god, or anyone, to get his powers. If the cleric's god decides to give him a rhino for free, that's a gift from the heavens and he shouldn't complain. The paladin has a class feature that lets him do it, so he should be able to exercise his options when using it.

[Kristinn]

I agree with the "let the pally have his rhino" camp. It's all about player options. We had a similar thread a while back, where a player had a fighter character, and he wanted to add a level of wizard. In that case it was the DM posting, feeling it would break immersion if the fighter all of the sudden started to throw around Magic Missiles. My opinion was the same there, I don't feel DMs should limit players' choices, it just makes the game less fun for them.

And if this is a balance concern, then the DM should stop worrying after the Druid summons in three Rhinos.

[Oryan77]

So much player entitlement going on in this thread. There was a time when the DMG existed for a reason. Now everything just goes into the PHB (like magic items) for no other reason than because players expect to obtain whatever they want in the world.

DMG 3.5 pg 204 (Suitable Mounts):

"You have the final decision on what is or is not a suitable mount."

Of course, players these days don't care about comments like that in the rulebooks. They demand a DM to justify his decision making (which is understandable, to a point). The problem is, no justification will be reasonable to the player because there is always some way for a person to come up with some reason to disprove an "opinion". It's like when people are debating politics or religion. One side is always going to come up with a way to prove the other side wrong. Players pull this tactic on DMs just so they can get what they want. That is even going on in this thread.

The problem is, at the end of the day, it is the player trying to control the game world rather than letting the DM do his job (which is controlling the game world around the PC). Player's won't let the DM decide what is suitable anymore. The thing is, the OP isn't denying the PC his Paladin mount option. He's denying the PC the ability to dictate how he customizes that option and people are whining about it.

I don't mind a player requesting something. The problem is when he starts whining about not getting his way and bombards the DM with reasons why he should be allowed to control what the game world provides him.

[Coidzor]

So much player entitlement going on in this thread.

Or we're pointing out when people say things, like this sentence right here, which demonstrate a profound lack of respect for and antipathy towards their group of players. :smallwink:

The DM is not some kind of God-King, so if they want respect, they need to be someone worth respecting. Disrespecting one's players, which I suppose is the DM equivalent of "negging," is a very poor tactic in the long run.


DMG 3.5 pg 204 (Suitable Mounts):

"You have the final decision on what is or is not a suitable mount."

Of course, players these days don't care about comments like that in the rulebooks. They demand a DM to justify his decision making (which is understandable, to a point). The problem is, no justification will be reasonable to the player because there is always some way for a person to come up with some reason to disprove an "opinion". It's like when people are debating politics or religion. One side is always going to come up with a way to prove the other side wrong. Players pull this tactic on DMs just so they can get what they want. That is even going on in this thread.

If one decides to be the FUN police then, yeah, you've got to be able to deal with the burden of not giving lame excuses.

Players are kind of expected to try to circumvent, overcome, or diplomance barriers to fun, after all. Granted that's usually in-character.


The problem is, at the end of the day, it is the player trying to control the game world rather than letting the DM do his job (which is controlling the game world around the PC). Player's won't let the DM decide what is suitable anymore. The thing is, the OP isn't denying the PC his Paladin mount option. He's denying the PC the ability to dictate how he customizes that option and people are whining about it.

Character Build =/= Entire Game World, or even a significant component of it.


I don't mind a player requesting something. The problem is when he starts whining about not getting his way and bombards the DM with reasons why he should be allowed to control what the game world provides him.

Calling the DM on it if they're BSing or just really have not considered things is hardly whining, and automatically framing things like that does both you and your players a disservice.

[Amphetryon]

So much player entitlement going on in this thread. There was a time when the DMG existed for a reason. Now everything just goes into the PHB (like magic items) for no other reason than because players expect to obtain whatever they want in the world.

DMG 3.5 pg 204 (Suitable Mounts):

"You have the final decision on what is or is not a suitable mount."

Of course, players these days don't care about comments like that in the rulebooks. They demand a DM to justify his decision making (which is understandable, to a point). The problem is, no justification will be reasonable to the player because there is always some way for a person to come up with some reason to disprove an "opinion". It's like when people are debating politics or religion. One side is always going to come up with a way to prove the other side wrong. Players pull this tactic on DMs just so they can get what they want. That is even going on in this thread.

The problem is, at the end of the day, it is the player trying to control the game world rather than letting the DM do his job (which is controlling the game world around the PC). Player's won't let the DM decide what is suitable anymore. The thing is, the OP isn't denying the PC his Paladin mount option. He's denying the PC the ability to dictate how he customizes that option and people are whining about it.

I don't mind a player requesting something. The problem is when he starts whining about not getting his way and bombards the DM with reasons why he should be allowed to control what the game world provides him.

You're forgetting modern Gaming theory, which holds that the GM is there as an employee of the other Players, as far as I can tell.

[Flickerdart]

You're forgetting modern Gaming theory, which holds that the GM is there as an employee of the other Players, as far as I can tell.
Then you can't tell very far at all.

[Coidzor]

You're forgetting modern Gaming theory, which holds that the GM is there as an employee of the other Players, as far as I can tell.

Everyone's there to have fun, the DM has greater power in-game because they have a much broader and more difficult role, not because they're supposed to be some kind of tyrant. Anyone, DM or Player, actively acting as a barrier to enjoyment of the game is to be discouraged without good reason, and even then there's a bit about deciding to react differently (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) which should always be considered.

Like, say, if the game has before now had an agreement not to engage in heavy PvP, going off the deep end out of the blue is kind of a **** move.

If there's a gentleman's agreement not to use things like Disjunction or use certain broken combos, then violating that without provocation or agreement to change the terms of the game is kind of a **** move.

Be up front with one another as much as possible, show some measure of respect for one another, that sort of thing.

So, yeah, if one trusts the DM, one might let being denied X mount or y mount pass without comment or question, but trust only goes so far, so if all alternate mounts are denied out of hand with no real explanation given, there's going to be questions, voiced or no. Or if one repeatedly runs into lame explanations, then that can and will weaken trust over the long term if it's habitual. DM trust is generally not something one wants their players to lose.

[Oryan77]

Or we're pointing out when people say things, like this sentence right here, which demonstrate a profound lack of respect for and antipathy towards their group of players.

I show my players plenty of respect and I think they realize it with the amount of work I put into the game and the fact that I listen to them and keep an open mind. I go above and beyond as the DM.

Funny enough, this past week I've been in the process of figuring out how to get our Paladin a Dire Boar mount (Pathfinder) without going over the groups power level. It fits his character concept, it makes sense in the world we play in, and I don't think it degrades the current setting. But I would not hesitate for a second to tell him "no" if I felt I had a reasonable explanation for saying "no". If he starts to argue with me about it though, then I have a problem.

I will point out that I am also a player. And as a fellow player, it boggles my mind that other players will be selfish enough to the point that they'll cause static with their DM over something as piddly as not getting a rhino paladin mount cause "that's what I really want!"

Sure, I'll think, "Dang, that would have been cool." But I'm not going to whine about it and be argumentative. I'm definitely not going to go online and talk crap because this DM didn't give me what I wanted. I'm grownup enough to still have fun with the options given to me. If I won't have fun, then I'll simply not play that game. As a DM, I respect what other DMs do and I try not to be a problem player. I don't always agree with their decisions, but I've also never let those decisions be game breakers for me.


You're forgetting modern Gaming theory, which holds that the GM is there as an employee of the other Players, as far as I can tell.
Aren't you the poster that I'm basically defending? :smallconfused:

So now modern game theory states that DMs are employees? I hope you are just being sarcastic. If so, that's actually very funny. If not, that's actually very scary.

DMs are supposed to be referees for the players. That doesn't mean DMs don't build and control the world around the PCs. And for anyone that uses the "DMs aren't gods" excuse, that's just something a problem player says when they want to bully a DM around in order to get their way.

I create the world, I present the adventures, I make and run the NPCs, I can decide if laser guns are allowed or not, and in fact, I can roleplay the gods. The players don't get to do any of that in any of the games I've ever played in. So technically, as awful as it sounds in discussions like this, DMs are the gods of a gaming world. :smallwink:

[Amphetryon]

Then you can't tell very far at all.

Nice ad hominem.

[Flickerdart]

Nice ad hominem.
Not at all. I am merely disagreeing with your opinion, based on my own experience.

[Chronos]

Why would anyone ever think that the DM controls the game world? If that's the case, there's no game at all, just a story the DM is telling everyone else. The way the game is usually set up, the DM controls most of the game world, but the players each control one little fragment of the world known as a character, and those characters can end up having a pretty big impact on the rest. If a player said "I want all stores to stock wands of Locate City Bomb", the DM would be well within his rights to say "No", and to complain about the players being over-entitled. But that's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking about a player wanting to make decisions about a certain aspect of his character. Which is exactly what the player's domain is.

[Harrow]

I believe that, as long as rhinos exists somewhere in the game world it should be ok for the PC's to interact with them for things like choosing a Paladin Mount. I follow the Core assumption that PC's are inherently weird/exotic/special in some way. You may be playing in pseudo-medieval England, so most people, especially the peasantry, should be in awe of the strange beast, possibly even the Paladin himself if the player decides it was his god's idea, but that doesn't invalidate the idea, and certainly shouldn't be grounds for messing up someone's fun or mechanical balance.

Something not being what you associate with swords-and-sorcery doesn't mean you should ban it from your games. It means you should roleplay appropriate responses to it.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Why would anyone ever think that the DM controls the game world? If that's the case, there's no game at all, just a story the DM is telling everyone else. The way the game is usually set up, the DM controls most of the game world, but the players each control one little fragment of the world known as a character, and those characters can end up having a pretty big impact on the rest. If a player said "I want all stores to stock wands of Locate City Bomb", the DM would be well within his rights to say "No", and to complain about the players being over-entitled. But that's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking about a player wanting to make decisions about a certain aspect of his character. Which is exactly what the player's domain is.
Because, as I observed earlier, everyone's talking about different things. On one side you've got "I think it's fair for the DM to restrict character options based on the setting" and on the other side "No no no! There's no reason my Paladin shouldn't be able to get a Rhino mount if the Druid can get a Rhino companion" and even though that's not actually what the other side said they're now so entrenched that it doesn't really matter what they're actually saying (much less what the OP was saying, which doesn't seem to ever have been resolved). I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but I do think in general this whole argument is basically a misunderstanding.

[TuggyNE]

I'm oversimplifying a little bit, but I do think in general this whole argument is basically a misunderstanding.

Partly a misunderstanding, partly an overreaction. :smallsigh:

[Oryan77]

We're talking about a player wanting to make decisions about a certain aspect of his character. Which is exactly what the player's domain is.

There is a limit on what decisions a player gets to make for his PC. That's what entitled players refuse to accept. The DM isn't taking away the paladin's mount. The player still gets everything provided to him. The DM's just not allowing the player to dictate which creature he gets to pick from the monster manual.

Sorry, but something like this isn't "the player's right". Otherwise, what is the limit on the players choice? The player has every right to request an alternate mount, but the DM has every right to refuse it.

I had a player think that she gets direct contact from the gods cause she wrote it in her backstory. Then she got mad cause I said that isn't an appropriate backstory. Nobody tells me what the gods do except for me. That's over stepping your boundaries as a player. Just like it is over stepping a DMs boundaries if he names the players character and tells him which spells his caster has to choose.

Unfortunately, too many players don't give a damn about the DMs enjoyment of the game even though most DMs try their hardest to make their game enjoyable for the players. It's all about the players these days and if they don't get exactly what they want, they throw a hissy fit and claim that a DM is bad.

[Oryan77]

"No no no! There's no reason my Paladin shouldn't be able to get a Rhino mount if the Druid can get a Rhino companion"

That's not what the thread seemed to turn into though. The books mention that a Paladin can have an alternate mount if the DM thinks it is appropriate. The Druid also gets to cast certain spells that are not available to a Paladin. Doesn't mean a player should expect those spells. Besides, I'm sure most DMs here are saying that an alternate mount is fine, as long as it makes sense to the DM and his vision of the world he is trying to run.

What's going on in this thread is that people are saying that even if a DM says it is not appropriate (in this case, the rhino mount), the players want to argue about it rather than accept his reasoning and try to work out a type of alternate mount that both player and DM can find acceptable.

The entitled player will not accept any explanation as being a reasonable explanation, even when the DM is justifying it in a perfectly logical way. This type of player is so selfish that he'll figure out a way to disprove any logical explanation just to get what he wants. That's what I see is going on here.

[Bogardan_Mage]

That's not what the thread seemed to turn into though. The books mention that a Paladin can have an alternate mount if the DM thinks it is appropriate. The Druid also gets to cast certain spells that are not available to a Paladin. Doesn't mean a player should expect those spells. Besides, I'm sure most DMs here are saying that an alternate mount is fine, as long as it makes sense to the DM and his vision of the world he is trying to run.
The point I was trying to make is that people are talking past one another and not paying attention to what the DMs (or anyone else) are actually saying.


What's going on in this thread is that people are saying that even if a DM says it is not appropriate (in this case, the rhino mount), the players want to argue about it rather than accept his reasoning and try to work out a type of alternate mount that both player and DM can find acceptable.

The entitled player will not accept any explanation as being a reasonable explanation, even when the DM is justifying it in a perfectly logical way. This type of player is so selfish that he'll figure out a way to disprove any logical explanation just to get what he wants. That's what I see is going on here.
What I see is two sides interpreting each others' perfectly reasonable (and mostly unrelated) arguments in the worst possible way and refusing to accept that there isn't someone making the argument they initially (though mistakenly) believed was being levelled at them. I'm trying very hard not to get in to who's "right" because that just validates the whole ridiculous process.

[Coidzor]

I show my players plenty of respect and I think they realize it with the amount of work I put into the game and the fact that I listen to them and keep an open mind. I go above and beyond as the DM.

Funny enough, this past week I've been in the process of figuring out how to get our Paladin a Dire Boar mount (Pathfinder) without going over the groups power level. It fits his character concept, it makes sense in the world we play in, and I don't think it degrades the current setting. But I would not hesitate for a second to tell him "no" if I felt I had a reasonable explanation for saying "no". If he starts to argue with me about it though, then I have a problem.

I will point out that I am also a player. And as a fellow player, it boggles my mind that other players will be selfish enough to the point that they'll cause static with their DM over something as piddly as not getting a rhino paladin mount cause "that's what I really want!"

Sure, I'll think, "Dang, that would have been cool." But I'm not going to whine about it and be argumentative. I'm definitely not going to go online and talk crap because this DM didn't give me what I wanted. I'm grownup enough to still have fun with the options given to me. If I won't have fun, then I'll simply not play that game. As a DM, I respect what other DMs do and I try not to be a problem player. I don't always agree with their decisions, but I've also never let those decisions be game breakers for me.

Mostly fair enough, but expecting people to never ask "why not?" is pretty damn extreme. :smalltongue:


And for anyone that uses the "DMs aren't gods" excuse, that's just something a problem player says when they want to bully a DM around in order to get their way.

Or for pointing out when people sound like they're on a power trip and helping let some air out of their balloon so it doesn't burst. :smalltongue:


Nice ad hominem.

Less ad hominem and more a less than kind way of pointing out that you're not getting it if you truly think that instead of the comment being facetious.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I'm going to skip the step of chainquoting all the DM whining that I've seen on this thread and speak frankly, as someone who's been DMing for several years and been through all the stages of denial of one simple fact:

Your job as the DM is, for everything else you do, one thing and one thing only: for the players to have fun.

Everything else is in service of that goal or a side-effect of achieving that goal. Your own fun falls into the latter category. Your fun comes from their fun and if it comes from anything else you are the child with the magnifying glass burning ants. I'm going to go ahead and disagree with those here who say the DM is not a god. As far as the setting is concerned you are not only a god but the omnipotent overdeity in charge of all the other gods. How you use this divine power is up to you but when you make the choice to be a vindictive, bullying deity who swings his power around like a cudgel don't act surprised when anti-theism starts to spread. You are entitled to do absolutely whatever you like. You do not, however, get to come crying when your players desert you. I should know. The fact that I narrowly averted a mutiny on the part of my players is what made me into the DM I am today. Right now, and for the past couple years? My players, by in large, love me. My first campaign. They were a hair's breadth away from leaving and I realized that I could keep twirling my godhood away and smacking down anything that offended my divine sensibilities or I could actually behave in a way that inspires worship. (this all, of course, is an extended metaphor; I used the terminology I did because I felt it would speak more directly to those the message was intended for)

[Oryan77]

Your job as the DM is, for everything else you do, one thing and one thing only: for the players to have fun.
I've heard noble DMs say this before, and although it's a nice thing to say, it is totally incorrect.

If your job was "one thing and one thing only; for players to have fun", then there wouldn't be DMs posting on forums complaining about a player doing this, or a player doing that. According to that logic, they would have nothing to complain about if their player is having fun.

First and foremost, the DM has to be having fun DMing. I'm sure everyone can agree that a game is extremely boring if the DM doesn't enjoy running it. It can also quickly lead to DM burnout. A campaign I was just playing in just ended because the DM got tired of DMing a group full of random players that all had different gaming styles. He kindly ended it because of the drain on him and he decided to find his own game to be a player in.

Of course, any good DM wants his players to have a ton of fun. That does not mean you should not also run things in a way that will keep it fun for you. If I have to DM in a way that I don't enjoy, just because the players want me to cater to them, then I won't DM because it will suck for me and I don't want to waste their time (or mine). Someone else can DM that game.

Sorry that I keep ranting. I wasn't even going to post in this thread. But I kept seeing all of these comments targeting the DM & his role in a group and I've seen this attitude all over various forums for the past decade. It's really disappointing. I figured if I can point out how that attitude is wrong to at least 1 player, then I just helped a group & their DM somewhere have a better player at the table.


How you use this divine power is up to you but when you make the choice to be a vindictive, bullying deity who swings his power around like a cudgel don't act surprised when anti-theism starts to spread.
I agree 100%. Just because I'm putting the DM on a pedestal doesn't mean I think the DM can do whatever he wants. I mean he can, but like you pointed out, he won't be DMing long.

But it goes both ways. If a player thinks he can do whatever he wants and run over a DM with his entitled attitude, he won't be playing in any games that I run.

[Oryan77]

Mostly fair enough, but expecting people to never ask "why not?" is pretty damn extreme. :smalltongue:

I'm pretty sure I said that a player has the right to ask "why not". There is no harm in that. The problem comes when the DM tells him why not, and the player then starts badgering him about it and complaining on the internet. As a DM, I don't like to defend my reasoning to the teeth as if I'm in a religious or political debate. When a player wants something and is willing to be a prick about it, no logical explanation from the DM will be good enough for that player. :smallamused:

[Chronos]

The goal of the DM is for the players, plural, to have fun. If one player's idea of fun is decreasing the fun of everyone else, then yes, that player needs to be quashed. The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one.

[Mr. Zolrane]

It is also incumbent on the players to be good players and make the DM's job as smooth as possible. Don't hear me saying that it's not. My tirade, however, was not directed at players, it was directed at DMs, as that seems to be the topic that the thread has gravitated towards. Player's are a whole 'nother rant, but suffice to say that players need to be mature, compassionate and empathetic toward their DM and realize that God is here to have fun too.

The best way to view the relationship, I think, is as analogous to that of a host and his or her guests (and indeed, given that games are frequently played at the DM's home, there is some overlap there). As someone who typically plays the role of host in this analogy I feel more qualified speaking from experience to hosts; to impress upon them the fact that they invited their guests there with the promise of a good time means that the host will have the same expected of him, despite the fact that it's his house and can ultimately do what he wants. This doesn't mean that I won't chastise unruly guests who complain about the food they're being given for free and attempt to orgy on the dinner table, despite a strictly-stated no-orgy policy on the part of the host. It just means that that's a discussion for another time, and, I will add, I felt it went without saying, honestly :/.

EDIT; NINJA'D:


The goal of the DM is for the players, plural, to have fun. If one player's idea of fun is decreasing the fun of everyone else, then yes, that player needs to be quashed. The fun of the many outweighs the fun of the one.

Not going to disagree there, but "quashed" is, I think, too strong a term for what you need to do there. I typically try to save discussions of that sort for after the session, in private. Hopefully a player is mature enough, once it's brought to his or her attention, that the thing they were doing was ruining the game in some way for the others to stop it or alter it into something less obnoxious. If they can't understand that, yes, you will have to use your power to protect the greater good fun-wise. It should never have to come to that, however, and if it does regularly you need to seriously consider why your'e gaming with this person.

[Harrow]

It is everyone's responsibility at the table to make sure everybody is having fun. I don't think either DM fun or Player fun should be put in front of the other. However, I also think it's unreasonable to say a DM is having less fun because someone does have a rhino, whereas it is totally reasonable for a a player to have less fun because they don't have a rhino.

It is not the Dungeon Master's game. It is everyone's game. The DM is expected to do most of the world-building, but there shouldn't be any problems with the players doing world-building as long as it doesn't mean other people aren't having fun by doing something like interfering with the DM's world-building, let them overshadow other characters, that kind of thing.

I will admit though, probably the biggest reason I'm arguing that any given Paladin should be allowed a Rhino mount (or anything like that) as long as they meet the level prerequisite is because 'Rhino's don't exist at all' is the only reason I could think of for why they shouldn't. If a DM gives any other reason for not letting a player have a rhino mount that I have thought of, I wouldn't accept it as a player.

[Mr. Zolrane]

It is everyone's responsibility at the table to make sure everybody is having fun. I don't think either DM fun or Player fun should be put in front of the other.

My point is that DM fun should be part-and-parcel of player fun. DMs should derive their fun from players being wowed by excellent worldbuilding, from players shining in RP based on situations the DM put them in, from players wrestling with the big, surly nasties the DM throws at them.

[dascarletm]

The best way to view the relationship, I think, is as analogous to that of a host and his or her guests.

I agree, that is a very apt metaphor.

The "dinner" is this nice campaign world, and since it is a pot-luck, each player is bringing their own dish. The host is right to keep a general theme for the dinner (red wine and poultry would be a horrible occurrence), and should let the players in on what the dinner will be generally consisting of. He should make sure that the dishes they bring work well together, and are appropriate for the main course. The dishes they make however are up to the guests to prepare. If one guest likes to add a little less nutmeg to his apple crisp, then it is up to him. However, some dinners have guests who are lactose intolerant, and the host should make sure the cheese content of the side dishes are low.:smallwink:

This is making me hungry...:smallannoyed:

[Oryan77]

there shouldn't be any problems with the players doing world-building as long as it doesn't mean other people aren't having fun by doing something like interfering with the DM's world-building

I think we're all agreeing here. What is going on though is that people are ignoring what is happening once a player starts to attempt world-building to the point where he is interfering with the DM's world-building.

Once the DM says, "No, I don't think a rhino is going to fit in with the vision I'm trying to establish in the game world I'm trying to run here.", and then the player begins to argue with him and tries to prove how the DM's reasoning for this decision is not good enough, then we fall into the "problem player" situation.

You can't claim that a player can contribute to world-building decisions as long as it doesn't interfere with the DM, and then when it interferes with the DM, start arguing and complaining about it and calling him a bad DM. Otherwise you don't actually believe what you're preaching unless you tack on the line, "unless it means that I still don't get what I want." :smalltongue:

[dascarletm]

The guests are all adults, and as such, should weigh how important the chili-powder (mount) that the guest wants to put into his dip versus how much the host is not a fan of spicy foods, is to the main course.:smallamused:

[illyrus]

...a player starts to attempt world-building to the point where he is interfering with the DM's world-building.

I think it depends how the player approaches the issue:

Player: I WANT A RHINO MOUNT BITCH, GIVE ME ONE OR I'MMA GONNA TEMPER TANTRUM ALL UP IN THIS HOUSE!!
GM: Calm down and pack up, we're done here.

vs:

Player: I think it would be cool if my paladin could have a rhino mount.
GM: You might get some stares from peasants but sure, Tim the wizard has been conjuring angels to act as delivery agents for the past few sessions now.

Small story time:
I came up with a campaign world that didn't have a hint of Eastern flavor to it. One player wanted to play a ninja with full Eastern flavor. I would have been fine with the class with flavor fitting the world I had created, but with him wanting Eastern flavor too presented a problem. There was a simple solution though, I told him that I didn't have any Eastern stuff in the game world so I asked him to help me craft it into the campaign.

The player went above and beyond (I think by the end I had like 8 pages of stuff from him) and we tied it in very nicely and it added quite a bit to the overall world. Was it my original vision of the world or where I would have taken it had the ninja PC not been present? No. Did allowing it in get the player to be more invested in the world and end up creating a more memorable campaign for the entire party? Yes.

I never felt like I was making a great sacrifice by giving the player some agency into world building so they could play the type of character they wanted to. While some ideas might be a bit much (wanting a Star Destroyer in a stone age campaign) I've never had a player seriously request something like that.

[Flickerdart]

I agree, that is a very apt metaphor.

The "dinner" is this nice campaign world, and since it is a pot-luck, each player is bringing their own dish. The host is right to keep a general theme for the dinner (red wine and poultry would be a horrible occurrence), and should let the players in on what the dinner will be generally consisting of. He should make sure that the dishes they bring work well together, and are appropriate for the main course. The dishes they make however are up to the guests to prepare. If one guest likes to add a little less nutmeg to his apple crisp, then it is up to him. However, some dinners have guests who are lactose intolerant, and the host should make sure the cheese content of the side dishes are low.:smallwink:

This is making me hungry...:smallannoyed:
Is rhino steak a thing? :smallwink:

[TuggyNE]

Is rhino steak a thing? :smallwink:

Yeah. It tastes a bit like bald eagle for some reason, though.

[dascarletm]

Yeah. It tastes a bit like bald eagle for some reason, though.

Like Freedom?

[TuggyNE]

Like Freedom?

I was going more for "tastes like endangered species", but that works too I guess.

[Coidzor]

Like Freedom?I was going more for "tastes like endangered species", but that works too I guess.

So not Metal Boxes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO3MttgvHUY), then?

[Chronos]

Of course world-building is primarily the DM's baliwick. What does that have to do with the paladin's mount? He's not riding the world; he's riding one animal. If the paladin wants a dinosaur, and the DM says "Sorry, no dinosaurs in this world", OK, that's reasonable. But is the DM actually saying that there are no rhinos in the whole world?

[Mr. Zolrane]

Of course world-building is primarily the DM's baliwick. What does that have to do with the paladin's mount? He's not riding the world; he's riding one animal. If the paladin wants a dinosaur, and the DM says "Sorry, no dinosaurs in this world", OK, that's reasonable. But is the DM actually saying that there are no rhinos in the whole world?

"And yeah, while I'm at it, the Spirited Charge feat was never um... discovered, either... can't take that one."

[Oryan77]

Of course world-building is primarily the DM's baliwick. What does that have to do with the paladin's mount? He's not riding the world; he's riding one animal. If the paladin wants a dinosaur, and the DM says "Sorry, no dinosaurs in this world", OK, that's reasonable. But is the DM actually saying that there are no rhinos in the whole world?

1. The Paladin is not the mount. The mount is the equivalent to an NPC, like it or not. Granted, most DMs let the player control it (like I do), but it is also in the DM's right (if he so chooses) to control any mounts, animal companions, or familiars. What happens when a player abuses an animal companion? The DM can decide that the animal leaves. Therefore, it is not a player character.

2. The player can request an alternate mount. He can't demand or dictate what mount he gets. He still gets a mount; the DM isn't denying him a mount.


"And yeah, while I'm at it, the Spirited Charge feat was never um... discovered, either... can't take that one."

Ah yes, when a problem player doesn't get his way, he results to petty arguments. That sounds about right.

[Tragak]

1. The Paladin is not the mount. The mount is the equivalent to an NPC, like it or not. Granted, most DMs let the player control it (like I do), but it is also in the DM's right (if he so chooses) to control any mounts, animal companions, or familiars. What happens when a player abuses an animal companion? The DM can decide that the animal leaves. Therefore, it is not a player character.

2. The player can request an alternate mount. He can't demand or dictate what mount he gets. He still gets a mount; the DM isn't denying him a mount. The mount is a class feature, just like Fighter Bonus Feats or Cleric Domains. Does the DM have the right to dictate what Bonus Feats a Fighter is allowed to choose, or what Domains for a Cleric, because the players should be thankful enough for getting anything?

If the DM doesn't want the players to do something, he should tell them out of game before it can come up in the first place. And, if he doesn't want them to play for somebody else instead, follow up with an agreeable reason. Not "reasonable," not "realistic," "agreeable."

Plus: Fantasy. This is a fictional Game that players are taking time out of their real lives for - and not one of those competitive games where the other players are each others' enemies - and looking for excuses to make cool ideas happen is a lot less boring than looking for excuses not to.

[Deepbluediver]

I guess I'm personally biased because I think horses are just about the worst mounts in the game.

Mechanically, horses aren't so hot. But there where other reasons why they are pretty much the ONLY mounted creature in RL (elephants and camels being the only other common animals I can think of, and neither was particularly widespread).

None of those reasons really apply to D&D, but just so you are aware:

Horses are relatively tame and easy to train, especially compared to something like rhino or bison, both of which have reputations for agression and unpredictability.
Horses can be good long-distance travelers. Other animals might be able to match them in a sprint, but they can't gallop or even trot for hours like a horse can.
They are comparatively easy to mount; look at a picture a rhino and try to imagine what sort of saddle you would need to stay on top of a creature that is so wide your legs stick practically straight out.


As I admitted, you can handwave any of that in the game even for a real mount, let alone a special divine-magical animal. But for paladins, it might just be easiest (fluff-wise) for them to be working with creatures they already are familiar with, and in 99% of cases, that means horses.

[Amphetryon]

If the DM doesn't want the players to do something, he should tell them out of game before it can come up in the first place. And, if he doesn't want them to play for somebody else instead, follow up with an agreeable reason. Not "reasonable," not "realistic," "agreeable."Is it your assertion that the DM will know everything that a Player may want to do over the course of a campaign? Because I'd be both delighted and terrified to meet a DM with that level of precognitive skill - particularly when dealing with a new Player or Players. If not, then how would a DM who - in this example - had never had a Player bring up the notion of getting a dinosaur for a Paladin's Mount be reasonably expected to have already made ruling on something that's never come up before?

[Tragak]

Is it your assertion that the DM will know everything that a Player may want to do over the course of a campaign? Because I'd be both delighted and terrified to meet a DM with that level of precognitive skill - particularly when dealing with a new Player or Players. If not, then how would a DM who - in this example - had never had a Player bring up the notion of getting a dinosaur for a Paladin's Mount be reasonably expected to have already made ruling on something that's never come up before? Which is why it is a good idea for the players and DM to establish - before the game starts - that since the goal is to make the game as awesome as possible, the DM/players will look for excuses to make any cool new idea happen instead of looking for excuses not to, that way the players don't need to worry about stopping the game to ask permission for everything that comes to mind instead of just doing it.

If a reason has not already been established why something couldn't happen, then there's no reason for it not to happen.

[dascarletm]

I can see a player not enjoying riding the same-ol horse as a paladin and wanting to ride a rhino more than I can see a DM's fun being ruined by the player riding said rhino.

PC: A rhino sounds awesome! I can totally picture Sir John Goodfellow riding one! I say, I must have one. :smallbiggrin:

DM: Ummm well...:smallannoyed: See a rhino wasn't what i pictured Goodfellow riding around. It's not normal. I mean how can you even ride a rhino anyway? :smallconfused:

PC: Who cares! PC2 over there has his wizard, Sabastian Arcanithan Fireballington, creating matter! I just think a rhino is cool. :smallconfused:

DM: Rhinos do not exist in my campaign. :smallsigh:

PC: Could you write them in then for me? :smallfrown:

DM: No, MY world is sacred and any change in it would be ruining it for me.:smallyuk:

[Amphetryon]

Which is why it is a good idea for the players and DM to establish - before the game starts - that since the goal is to make the game as awesome as possible, the DM/players will look for excuses to make any cool new idea happen instead of looking for excuses not to, that way the players don't need to worry about stopping the game to ask permission for everything that comes to mind instead of just doing it.

If a reason has not already been established why something couldn't happen, then there's no reason for it not to happen.

To my mind, this still doesn't address what happens when something happens that the DM found too unlikely to mention, while the Player found it too common to mention . . . both based on either past experience or simply different readings/expectations. Feel free to reverse "unlikely/common" for DM and Player role, since it does run both ways.

A Player fresh from one of Emperor Tippy's games may well presume that the Dark Chaos Shuffle is SOP in any campaign, and not bring up that he's likely to use it, while his new DM may have never had a Player even consider asking her for it, and is equally unlikely to mention that she's not familiar or comfortable with that particular level of Char-Op in her campaigns.

[Oryan77]

The mount is a class feature, just like Fighter Bonus Feats or Cleric Domains. Does the DM have the right to dictate what Bonus Feats a Fighter is allowed to choose, or what Domains for a Cleric, because the players should be thankful enough for getting anything?
Uhm, yes, he does have that right. It is called "restricting sourcebooks and any material he either doesn't want to allow, thinks is broken, or thinks will be abused".


Not "reasonable," not "realistic," "agreeable."
Unfortunately, "agreeable" to problem players means, "until I get what I want." None of you guys have given suggestions that the DM & player can agree on unless it has to do with the player ending up with his rhino mount. That's still an entitled outlook, not an agreeable outcome.

[Tragak]

To my mind, this still doesn't address what happens when something happens that the DM found too unlikely to mention, while the Player found it too common to mention . . . both based on either past experience or simply different readings/expectations. Feel free to reverse "unlikely/common" for DM and Player role, since it does run both ways.

A Player fresh from one of Emperor Tippy's games may well presume that the Dark Chaos Shuffle is SOP in any campaign, and not bring up that he's likely to use it, while his new DM may have never had a Player even consider asking her for it, and is equally unlikely to mention that she's not familiar or comfortable with that particular level of Char-Op in her campaigns. Yes, it does address what happens, because it stops mattering which ideas the DM or the players thought common or uncommon if the DM and players agree to make all of the cool ideas work.


Uhm, yes, he does have that right. It is called "restricting sourcebooks and any material he either doesn't want to allow, thinks is broken, or thinks will be abused". I really don't see the point of banning "broken" combos: as the characters get stronger, they fight stronger enemies. If the enemies you already have planned aren't strong enough, make them stronger (possibly by having them learn to do the same thing that the character has started doing).


Unfortunately, "agreeable" to problem players means, "until I get what I want." None of you guys have given suggestions that the DM & player can agree on unless it has to do with the player ending up with his rhino mount. That's still an entitled outlook, not an agreeable outcome. And I could say exactly the same thing about "problem DMs." It doesn't sound like you would suggest anything but stopping the player from having the rhino mount, and somebody might say that that sounds like an "entitled outlook, not an agreeable outcome."

[Deepbluediver]

Unfortunately, "agreeable" to problem players means, "until I get what I want." None of you guys have given suggestions that the DM & player can agree on unless it has to do with the player ending up with his rhino mount. That's still an entitled outlook, not an agreeable outcome.


And I could say exactly the same thing about "problem DMs." It doesn't sound like you would suggest anything but stopping the player from having the rhino mount, and somebody might say that that sounds like an "entitled outlook, not an agreeable outcome."

So what I'm hearing is we need to compromise: instead of a rhino OR a horse, the player can ride a Unicorn! :smalltongue:

[the_david]

From the DMG:

"You have the final decision on what is or is not a suitable mount."

I interpret this as the DM has the final decision, as the entire book is about the DM.

My question: If there aren't any horses in the setting, would anyone complain about not being able to summon a horse as your mount?

[3WhiteFox3]

My question: If there aren't any horses in the setting, would anyone complain about not being able to summon a horse as your mount?
No, but I would expect there to be a horse-equivalent (ie. a mount/draft animal for the masses, there are good reasons why we still use them extensively). Fantasy worlds should be mostly like ours in most respects, you take too many things away and it starts to lose player interest.

Besides, there should be various choices of mounts, just as there were in real life. That just makes sense.

[Oryan77]

I really don't see the point of banning "broken" combos: as the characters get stronger, they fight stronger enemies. If the enemies you already have planned aren't strong enough, make them stronger (possibly by having them learn to do the same thing that the character has started doing).I'm going to assume you either don't have any DMing experience, you have very little DMing experience, or you have never DMed a long term campaign. There are plenty of reasons why a DM won't simply do what you suggest (lack of time, lack of interest, etc, etc). I don't want to go into it because it's a whole other can of worms.


It doesn't sound like you would suggest anything but stopping the player from having the rhino mountI didn't suggest anything because other people already suggested the alternative solution. It's the same solution I would have suggested; have the player roll a nature knowledge check to see if he knows a rhino could be a suitable mount, have an in-game reason for having it instead of a horse that is more than just, "cause it's more powerful and would look awesome!"

Yet, even those reasonable solutions were shot down by the entitled players in this thread with comments along the lines of, "A player shouldn't have to have any other reason other than simply wanting it."

Anyway, it is obvious that argumentative players here are going around in circles and refuse to accept that the game will be just as fun and possibly better if they eased up on the DM and stopped being spoiled. I can't add to this anymore, so I'm done. Let's just be thankful that we don't have to play together. :smallamused:

[ArcturusV]

Well, it could be say, a campaign world modeled after the Americas, pre-1492, where Horses were not a thing at all. In which case the Paladins should probably be told to change their Mount Ability out for some ACF...

But somehow riding a giant chicken seems a much stranger option than merely letting them have Horses, Rhinos, Dire Tigers, etc.

[the_david]

Real life?
- Camel
- Cow
- Donkey
- Elephant
- Horse
- Mule
- Pony

That's about all I can think of. Which one would you choose? All right, I'd also go for the elephant. Or the camel if it was a desert setting. And maybe a donkey or a mule in the mountains.
But in most situations, I'd go for the horse. It's the best choice overall for a mount. If you'd want something that attacks your opponents you should consider playing a cleric or a druid.

I challenge everyone who thinks a rhino is a good choice for a mount to mount a rhino.

[3WhiteFox3]

Real life?
- Camel
- Cow
- Donkey
- Elephant
- Horse
- Mule
- Pony

That's about all I can think of. Which one would you choose? All right, I'd also go for the elephant. Or the camel if it was a desert setting. And maybe a donkey or a mule in the mountains.
But in most situations, I'd go for the horse. It's the best choice overall for a mount. If you'd want something that attacks your opponents you should consider playing a cleric or a druid.

I challenge everyone who thinks a rhino is a good choice for a mount to mount a rhino.

I challenge anyone who wants to cast spells to actually cast spells. What? Can't do it?

There is a difference between what's cool and what's possible or practical. Why allow spellcasting (and the goofiness related to it) but not things like mounting a Rhino? Is that so much more unrealistic than summoning a giant crocodile to maul your enemies?

I'm not denying the in 'Real Life' horses are very versatile mounts, however, we aren't talking about real life, but fantasy. Where the rule of cool is very much in play.

[Coidzor]

So what I'm hearing is we need to compromise: instead of a rhino OR a horse, the player can ride a Unicorn! :smalltongue:

But he's a half-orc and unicorns hate everyone but elf or human virgin maids.

Actually, that sounds hilarious. The unicorn hates the Paladin and keeps trying to find ways to weasel out/escape/kill the Pally and the Pally, being a typical paladin, doesn't have the mental ability scores or skill ranks to notice.

[NeroMcNamara]

I'd be on the side of "Give the paladin a rhino". In all reality letting a Paladin ride a rhino is nowhere NEAR as bad as giving a Druid a rhino as an animal companion.

1) Buff the Rhino
2) Get 2 wooden lances
3) Cast spikes on both lances
4) Wild shape into Dire Ape
5) Buff yourself
6) CHARGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, a paladin may get a bonus whenever he gets his rhino to charge but it's not significant enough to break the game. Now if he wanted a T-rex mount I would give a very firm NO!

[Tragak]

I challenge anyone who wants too cast spells to actually cast spells. What? Can't do it?

There is a difference between what's cool and what's possible or practical. Why allow spellcasting (and the goofiness related to it) but not things like mounting a Rhino? Is that so much more unrealistic than summoning a giant crocodile to maul your enemies?

I'm not denying the in 'Real Life' horses are very versatile mounts, however, we aren't talking about real life, but fantasy. Where the rule of cool is very much in play. Bingo. :smallbiggrin:

[Stux]

Why? A druid needs to get animals from his surroundings. A paladin summons his animal from thin air. If he thinks that the legendary rhinoceros he's heard so much about from travelers will do better in his fight against evil than a horse, he can summon one and see how it fares with literally zero consequence.

If we're talking fluff, surely the mount is granted by the Paladin's deity? A Paladin doesn't really get to say "hmm, think I'll have a rhinoceros", rather their god decides that their faithful servant could use a mount to better do their divine work.

As such it should be something it would make sense for the deity to give them. It's not just the average DM that has an image of a holy knight on horseback, it is what a commoner in a western fantasy setting would expect in their hero, and as a paragon of virtue this is the image that the deity would likely want him to espouse.

I would certainly allow variant mounts in principle, but I would definitely expect the player to justify it with fluff.

EDIT: While I'm at it, same goes for animal companions. As a DM, for me it has to either be something that is indigenous to the setting, or have a reason why it is present as an exception. But maybe that's just me :)

[3WhiteFox3]

As such it should be something it would make sense for the deity to give them. It's not just the average DM that has an image of a holy knight on horseback, it is what a commoner in a western fantasy setting would expect in their hero, and as a paragon of virtue this is the image that the deity would likely want him to espouse.

Please back up this statement. Why would the commoners of a fantasy setting necessarily think of the horse as the standard hero's mount? What about another iconic choices, like pegasi or dragons?

Also, why do we even care what the commoners think? Paladins do not gain their power from commoners, IIRC Paladins gain their power from the pursuit of Good not any specific deity. And even if the mount came from a deity it should align with the Deity's beliefs and ideas, and why wouldn't a Deity (who wants to reward his servant) not grant what the Paladin asks for; especially if it would be more effective?

Also under the special mount ability text, the Paladin specifically calls for a mount, implying they get to choose which mount they call. One could argue that they simply call any random mount, but that seems counter-intuitive. If the Paladin specifically calls for a Rhino, why not give them one?

[Tragak]

Also under the special mount ability text, the Paladin specifically calls for a mount, implying they get to choose which mount they call. One could argue that they simply call any random mount, but that seems counter-intuitive. If the Paladin specifically calls for a Rhino, why not give them one? Ultimately, because the DM doesn't feel like it.

[ArcturusV]

Why would a Paladin care about what a Commoner thinks?

Hearts and Minds, hearts and minds.

A Paladin wants to inspire and be an exemplar of the Good life and it's choices.

Having a guy who walks into town looking like an average bandit, riding on top of some strange monster that Barbarians ride, etc... not exactly doing much for that.

Having the shiny knight on his recognizable, noble animal? Probably more so.

But that's really the only justification, and a fairly flimsy one. I mean all mounts are by definition celestial beings (They do reside in, and are Called from a Celestial Ream)... so they probably got the Shiny Beacon of Goodness covered naturally.

[Stux]

Please back up this statement. Why would the commoners of a fantasy setting necessarily think of the horse as the standard hero's mount? What about another iconic choices, like pegasi or dragons?

Well its obviously setting specific. I'm just saying the mount should match the setting unless there is a good reason why this character is an exception.


Also, why do we even care what the commoners think? Paladins do not gain their power from commoners, IIRC Paladins gain their power from the pursuit of Good not any specific deity.

Fair point. As a DM I wouldn't buy that the universe just spits out a mount because you have been good though, there would be a sentient being of power behind that. But again, setting specific.


And even if the mount came from a deity it should align with the Deity's beliefs and ideas, and why wouldn't a Deity (who wants to reward his servant) not grant what the Paladin asks for; especially if it would be more effective?

Gods rarely give people what they ask for, they more often give people what they want to give them to help further their own machinations. Agree about it having to align with the deity's beliefs and ideas of course!


Also under the special mount ability text, the Paladin specifically calls for a mount, implying they get to choose which mount they call. One could argue that they simply call any random mount, but that seems counter-intuitive. If the Paladin specifically calls for a Rhino, why not give them one?

It also implies that they always call the same mount. They are granted a celestial mount (be that by their god, or simply by the universe for being good), then they can call that specific mount when they want it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative though, just giving my reasons for why I would call it a certain way. It certainly isn't wrong to do it a different way, especially if that works for your setting!

[Coidzor]

Having a guy who walks into town looking like an average bandit, riding on top of some strange monster that Barbarians ride, etc... not exactly doing much for that.

The average bandit rides strange monsters and can afford expensive magical heavy armor? :smallamused:

Let's not even get into how he walks into town while riding a rhino.

[dascarletm]

Meh, If you can't imagine a paladin on a rhino still looking like a holy warrior, you aren't trying hard enough.

[Tragak]

Having a guy who walks into town looking like an average bandit, riding on top of some strange monster that Barbarians ride, etc... not exactly doing much for that. Even mortal kings use greater beasts than just horses (elephants in real life, who knows what in fantasy) to strengthen their armies and the soldiers in them; surely the armies of the deities themselves could use even more magnificent mounts than that? When it says that Paladins do not need to serve specific deities, that does not mean that they are serving none of them, it means that they are serving all of them.

[ArcturusV]

Always depends. I've had Paladins who rather grab up things like Studded Leather +3 rather than Plate Armor +2 (I AM NOT DROWNING THIS GAME!), come into town caked in mud, blood and other gore, carrying lots of loot they obviously got from shedding other beings of their life. The only time they've seen a Rhino is when the local Gladiator Arena had a special on the 'Barbarians of the Southlands" where Rhinos and barbarians were fighting the Civilized Warriors of the local lands.

Again, setting particulars I realize. But my mind naturally goes and fills in these details. It's not a huge leap of logic to me. It might be to other people.

Not that I considered the original reason necessarily all that valid obviously. If you're calling forth mounts from the Celestial Realms, they're probably going to come out looking properly good aligned awe inspiring.

[Stux]

Additionally I would think a paladin would most likely be granted a mount they could use effectively.

Of course mechanically there is no difference between controlling a horse and controlling a rhino, but again from a fluff perspective a paladin in a standard setting would normally have spent years, decades even, training with horses before they reach the point of being granted a mount.

If the particular character has a back story that involves working with a different mount, such as an eastern paladin who grew up training with elephants and such, well that changes things a bit.

[Flickerdart]

Of course mechanically there is no difference between controlling a horse and controlling a rhino, but again from a fluff perspective a paladin in a standard setting would normally have spent years, decades even, training with horses before they reach the point of being granted a mount.
Not really, no. The number of CR-appropriate encounters to level up is 13.3. Assuming that the paladin follows the standard 4 CR appropriate encounter day, and adventures only once a week (or adventures for four days straight to clear a dungeon or something and takes a break for the rest of the month), it will take him 4 months per level (well, fewer, but rounding up), or 16 months to reach level 5 when he gets his mount. And this is a lazy paladin who only gets off his butt once a week. A paladin campaigning actively against the forces of evil might be expected to face a full day of encounters every day. Let's say he gets weekends off. That's 20 encounters per week. In 3 weeks he will surpass the 55.2 encounters necessary to reach level 5. If he doesn't take weekends off, that's 28 encounters per week, or two weeks until level 5.

Now, there's a very real chance that the average paladin will die before he reaches level 5, and given how much dedication the paladin's path requires, there aren't that many who even start on this journey. Once they start paladining though (if you're rolling for age, it takes 3.5 years to go from base adult age to paladin), they will rise through the levels quickly or die. Your average wizard or fighter might go adventuring once a year and spend the rest of the time guarding a room or reading books, but paladins? Hell no.

Fun fact: Since a CR-appropriate encounter is supposed to expend 20% of resources, and a low level paladin's only real resource is HP (LoH doesn't really count - the values are marginal at this level), we can calculate what the minimum time to level 5 is. Assuming a generous encounter length of 4 rounds and Constitution of 14, we have the following values:
Level 1: 12 HP.
Level 2: 19 HP.
Level 3: 28 HP.
Level 4: 37 HP.
The average result on a Wand of CLW is 5.5. The paladin never exceeds a point where 20% of his HP is meaningfully greater than that value. Therefore, it will take him on average 1 round to recover after each battle. In total, every battle requires 5 rounds, or 30 seconds. Given that he must have 55 encounters, it will take him less than half an hour to get to level 5, assuming that he has a constant stream of CR-appropriate enemies directed towards him.

[pyromanser244]

mechanically there isn't any reason not to have a rhino. fluff wise there can be any number of reasons, none of them really work in the general way the original question was asked. there are too many ways to rewrite fluff for general reasons, which is kinda why it was made an option to begin with.

and it does help getting things ironed out if BOTH the players AND GM can come to an agreement as to the particulars of the world. heck this shouldn't even be talked about in players vs DM terms. that way leads to useless arguments, hurt feelings and the loss of fun FOR EVERYONE. better to treat others as equals than to lord rules over them.:smallmad:

[Flickerdart]

Oh man, I just realized. Rhino-riding Paladins of Slaughter are D&D's biker gangs.

[pyromanser244]

Oh man, I just realized. Rhino-riding Paladins of Slaughter are D&D's biker gangs.

.........
thank you sir. I needed that.:smallbiggrin:

[ArcturusV]

That would make Shadesteel Golem riding Paladins of Tyranny the Mafia?

[Flickerdart]

That would make Shadesteel Golem riding Paladins of Tyranny the Mafia?
Do Shadesteel golems fulfill the criteria for being a mount?

[ArcturusV]

I dunno. I thought off the top of my head that A&EG had a Golem Saddle that let you ride Golems.

[pyromanser244]

I see no reason why golem mounts wouldn't work. even less than rhinos. I mean they're designed to be a certain way, so someone somewhere is maniacal enough to design one with intent to use it as a mount.

fun fact; we just proved that here.:smallcool:

[Stux]

it will take him 4 months per level (well, fewer, but rounding up), or 16 months to reach level 5 when he gets his mount.

A very good point.

I was working on the assumption that the character had been training to be a paladin all their life up to the time where they began adventuring, but of course that completely goes out the window if you multiclass in to it!

Fluffing multiclassing is a whole other can of worms though...

[Flickerdart]

I see no reason why golem mounts wouldn't work. even less than rhinos. I mean they're designed to be a certain way, so someone somewhere is maniacal enough to design one with intent to use it as a mount.

fun fact; we just proved that here.:smallcool:
While you could build an Effigy creature of anything shaped for riding, I am pretty sure all Golems are bipedal and thus don't fulfill the "must be able to carry a rider" clause in the optional special mounts section (which points out Giants as creatures that are not able).


A very good point.

I was working on the assumption that the character had been training to be a paladin all their life up to the time where they began adventuring, but of course that completely goes out the window if you multiclass in to it!

Fluffing multiclassing is a whole other can of worms though...
Like I said, 3.5 years on average to go from 15 year old schmuck to level 1 paladin. If you don't take any ranks in Ride during that time, you weren't training with horses.

[pyromanser244]

While you could build an Effigy creature of anything shaped for riding, I am pretty sure all Golems are bipedal and thus don't fulfill the "must be able to carry a rider" clause in the optional special mounts section (which points out Giants as creatures that are not able).


is a giant unrideable because it's bipedal or because it has a humanoid shape? there is a difference. twist a human's proportions enough and you could have something you could ride. and a T-Rex should be rideable and it's bipedal.

:shrugs: doesn't matter. fun to think about though.......

[Flickerdart]

They don't elaborate, they just say "a giant may be willing but not able". Personally, I wouldn't let a paladin pick a golem as a special mount.

However, as an interesting aside, astral constructs are technically distinct creatures that exist independently of the power, and thus could be used as mounts (especially astral constructs with Agile Loper, which are explicitly quadrupedal) if the DM is crazy like I am. They hit Large at CR5, so a typical paladin should be able to call one at 8th (one level later than the rhino). They also scale really well for their CRs - at level 14 a paladin would be able to call a 9th level Astral Construct with 19 hit dice and the flying ability, because they're CR10 nominally. Two abilities from menu C means that it can have damn good AC, pounce, and a couple of neat movement modes or other fancy bonuses.

[pyromanser244]

oh I wouldn't let a pally have a golem for his special mount either. but that'd be because golems are innately neutral and artificial. there are no celestial golems to summon, let alone ride. now say a wizard wanted to have a golem mount.......

you're right the astral construct should work.......... that's a strange cosmology we'd have going but, 9 hells, if it wouldn't be awesome. :smallamused:

[Flickerdart]

oh I wouldn't let a pally have a golem for his special mount either. but that'd be because golems are innately neutral and artificial. there are no celestial golems to summon, let alone ride. now say a wizard wanted to have a golem mount.......
A paladin's mount is not Celestial unless he takes the feat. It does not have to be lawful good aligned, either. In fact, horses are Neutral, like all animals.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, wouldn't have to BE Celestial, just for the PHB standard paladin it'd have to RESIDE in the Celestial Realms. Which could just mean some Good Aligned Wizard with abundant free time on his hand made a golem when he was visiting the Seven Heavens or the like.

I don't know where variant Paladins get their mounts. I can see the Paladin of Tyranny has the Special Mount ability. But it does not say it's changed from the PHB Paladin at all... meaning he also, by RAW... calls forth a Mount from the Celestial realms? Doesn't seem right...

[Flickerdart]

I don't know where variant Paladins get their mounts. I can see the Paladin of Tyranny has the Special Mount ability. But it does not say it's changed from the PHB Paladin at all... meaning he also, by RAW... calls forth a Mount from the Celestial realms? Doesn't seem right...
Lowercase celestial - it's not referring to Celestia (which is product identity and can't possibly be in the SRD) but to general divine planes, which includes evil deities as well.

[Coidzor]

is a giant unrideable because it's bipedal or because it has a humanoid shape? there is a difference. twist a human's proportions enough and you could have something you could ride. and a T-Rex should be rideable and it's bipedal.

:shrugs: doesn't matter. fun to think about though.......

And if not, a regular old battletitan is a fairly decent mount.

[the_david]

Just took the time to look up what a rhino can do. You can have your rhino, it only has a speed of 30 ft. anyway.

[Flickerdart]

Speed isn't a huge issue - for a +2 increase in level we can make it Half-Fey, which gives it flight at double its highest speed, plus a fat stack of SLAs. Half-Celestial is +3 level for a similar benefit.

[pyromanser244]

so a paladin can summon any old critter that happens to be in the right planes? regardless of how long it's been there or where it's actually from?:smallconfused:


were they high when they made this?

[Flickerdart]

so a paladin can summon any old critter that happens to be in the right planes? regardless of how long it's been there or where it's actually from?:smallconfused:


were they high when they made this?
The actual guideline is Paladin level -3 >= CR. The planar location of the mount is fluff and doesn't figure into it.