The Paladin's extra-dimensional storage space...

[Amphimir Míriel]

Special Mount (Sp): Upon reaching 5th level, a paladin gains the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil (see below). This mount is usually a heavy warhorse (for a Medium paladin) or a warpony (for a Small paladin).

Once per day, as a full-round action, a paladin may magically call her mount from the celestial realms in which it resides. This ability is the equivalent of a spell of a level equal to one-third the paladin’s class level. The mount immediately appears adjacent to the paladin and remains for 2 hours per paladin level; it may be dismissed at any time as a free action. The mount is the same creature each time it is summoned, though the paladin may release a particular mount from service.

Each time the mount is called, it appears in full health, regardless of any damage it may have taken previously. The mount also appears wearing or carrying any gear it had when it was last dismissed. Calling a mount is a conjuration (calling) effect.

Should the paladin’s mount die, it immediately disappears, leaving behind any equipment it was carrying. The paladin may not summon another mount for thirty days or until she gains a paladin level, whichever comes first, even if the mount is somehow returned from the dead. During this thirty-day period, the paladin takes a –1 penalty on attack and weapon damage rolls.
Emphasis mine

Is there anything that prevents a paladin character to use her mount as the party's secret chest? Other than the carrying capacity of the mount?

Comments?

[Fixer]

Not by RAW.

And as a GM, I see no reason to disallow it either.

The horse will not appreciate being regularly used as a pack mule so there will be that factor if abused, but to use it ocassionally is not game-breaking.

[Mad Wizard]

I do this on my paladin. We kind of lack storage space, as we have no bags of holding, handy haversacks, and one of the characters is a dragon, and has no where to hold stuff, so it's very useful.

[Kurald Galain]

Only if it fits in the pokeball.

[Fizban]

New hiding spot for the lich (party or otherwise)'s phylactery: on the paladin's horse. No one will think to look there, and even then they'll have to track it across the good aligned planes.

[Amphimir Míriel]

Thanks a lot for the comments everyone...


New hiding spot for the lich (party or otherwise)'s phylactery: on the paladin's horse. No one will think to look there, and even then they'll have to track it across the good aligned planes.

This is a great idea for hiding the McGuffin/BBEG's-Phylactery! Have a minion do it in a moment of distraction in the middle of battle...

[Nerd-o-rama]

Also remember that the mount can only be called/dismissed once per day, regardless of how long it's actually in use, unless the Paladin prepares the Call Mounst Spell (SC).

[SoulCatcher78]

My only concern as a player would be what is that mount doing while "in the celestial realm"? Is he/she/it being groomed and therefore unsaddled by something while there? As a DM, I would find it a convenient way to get rid of things I didn't want the PCs to have. Yes you may abuse a gaping loophole in the rules and yes I may abuse you for doing so. If the DM sees no problem with it, great, if he does though you had better take to making a complete inventory and checking it regularly so that next time you reach into the saddlebag for the wizards wand of fireballs, it's still there.

[Quietus]

My only concern as a player would be what is that mount doing while "in the celestial realm"? Is he/she/it being groomed and therefore unsaddled by something while there? As a DM, I would find it a convenient way to get rid of things I didn't want the PCs to have. Yes you may abuse a gaping loophole in the rules and yes I may abuse you for doing so. If the DM sees no problem with it, great, if he does though you had better take to making a complete inventory and checking it regularly so that next time you reach into the saddlebag for the wizards wand of fireballs, it's still there.


I'd take issue with any DM who had the creatures of the Upper Planes suddenly resort to stealing my stuff.

[FdL]

Emphasis mine

Is there anything that prevents a paladin character to use her mount as the party's secret chest? Other than the carrying capacity of the mount?


Yeah. Honesty as a player and playing for fun and not "FTW".

[Don Beegles]

I dunno, Fdl; if my paladin player was the sort to take control of his mount and force it to continue its work even while it rests in the outer planes, he's welcome to. Of course, in most cases that's not very good, and I could think of something interesting things to try if he really started abusing it.

[Belteshazzar]

I'd take issue with any DM who had the creatures of the Upper Planes suddenly resort to stealing my stuff.

Bwahahahaha (non-evil laughter for once) I can see it now the busty Valkyries are brushing down Glimmermane (or whater light sounding name this horse has) and decide to play with the wand of fireballs (with DR/ anything is a toy) and use up half the charges, clean out the parties food supply (that nasty gnawed on cheese and bread was making horsey smell bad) and manage to loose the All-Important McGuffen because 'That large shinny rock too heavy for horsy.

[Behold_the_Void]

I honestly don't see the point in penalizing players for coming up with an interesting idea regarding a seldom-used class feature of a sub-par class. It's a good idea, I say go with it. The horse is smart enough to understand the importance of the items, and if he has no problems storing them for his master, why not?

[OzymandiasVolt]

If the DM decided that good-aligned outsiders randomly stole my stuff, I would quit the game immediately.

It isn't rules abuse, it's making use of the way things are. Or should the paladin be forced to carry a saddle in his backpack all the time? Consistency is important.

[skywalker]

Yah, no reason for stuff to disappear, as long as it's in a saddlebag, strapped to it's back, or what not.


I would quit as well if my DM said anything had disappeared.

It's just dumb hubris, really.

[SpiderBrigade]

Yeah, it really depends how it's being used/abused.

Putting some stuff in the saddlebags and sending the horse temporarily to its celestial home for safekeeping, that shouldn't cause any problems. It's clever.

On the other hand, loading the animal down with so much loot that it becomes completely encumbered and can't move, and then dismissing it, so that you can call it again once you're back in town at the local merchant...that's abusive.

[Overlord]

If the DM decided that good-aligned outsiders randomly stole my stuff, I would quit the game immediately.

It isn't rules abuse, it's making use of the way things are. Or should the paladin be forced to carry a saddle in his backpack all the time? Consistency is important.

Indeed.

Making the horse carry a maximum load's worth of the PC's stuff is kind of cruel, but would the horse also "rest in the outer planes" with it's full plate barding on? Obviously the horse doesn't 'rest' with it's full armor on, it's as uncomfortable for a horse to wear as it would be for a human (well presumably, since RL horses can't talk. But the paladin would know if his horse found it unconfortable). So clearly, the horse or any supernatural attendants it has takes off it's burden, so thus it/they must have a place to put the PC's loot. Besides, by the time the PC's level five, he could probably afford to buy a Bag of Holding anyway, so this isn't some game-breaking ability to have at level five.

Regardless of whether or not you like the Players loading down the pally's mount with the 10,000 copper pieces they found, it's unfair to say that the horse can carry a saddle and barding but nothing more. Besides, you shouldn't have forced them to carry that loot that heavy.

On the other hand, this could lead to some Commoner Quarterstaff Railgun-esque munchkin fun.

For example, if you paralyze the horse while it's standing and then proceed to stack junk on top of it, supporting the load by lashing it to the horse with silk ropes, how much weight could the horse carry until it's bones snapped? How high a pile of loot could you create, if you used, say, empty boxes? That'd be a pretty tall tower if you just tied ladders to it and propped the horse up. What happens if you cast flesh to stone on the mount (although I guess if you can cast flesh to stone, carrying capacity isn't that big of a deal, but still, it could be a lot of weight)?

Interesting thoughts, no?

[AtomicKitKat]

Leomund's Secret Chest spell on the saddlebags? That should prevent too much pesky thievery.

[Demented]

Wait, why's that abusive, again?

Unless....
_________


BBEG: "Ah ha! I have you now, Paladin!"

Paladin: "Not this time! I have cleverly tied myself to my horse!"

BBEG: "What? What does that have to do with–"

Paladin + Mount: *pop*

BBEG: *blink*

Evil Minion: "So... Break for lunch?"

_ _ _ _ _
Somewhere in the outer planes
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

Paladin: "Hah! We sure escaped that... By the gods! I have never seen such a bounty of... horse... dung."

Mount: *snort*

Paladin: "When we get out of here, mark my words... I'm never unsummoning you again. And all this time I thought you were spending your time being massaged by gentle servant maidens in an equine spa! Oh, what folly..."

[Tallis]

I don't really see a problem with it. I would probably house rule that you shouldn't go over the light encumberance limit. The horse would not be able to rest properly and would beome fatigues the next time it was summoned. Doing this continually would be considered abuse and the paladin would risk losing his mount.

[Overlord]

I don't really see a problem with it. I would probably house rule that you shouldn't go over the light encumberance limit. The horse would not be able to rest properly and would beome fatigues the next time it was summoned. Doing this continually would be considered abuse and the paladin would risk losing his mount.

I'd like to point out that a human who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. Why should a horse wearing medium or heavy barding be any different? Also, I'm no horse expert, but if I recall correctly, sleeping with a saddle on is bad for a horse.

That means that if you don't take your saddle and barding off your horse, it's going to be fatigued the next day. And, if you do it continually, you're abusing your horse, and the mount will run away.

That's silly. The only way that would make sense is if either:
A: You ignore such fatiguing effects on a paladin's mount, meaning it doesn't matter how much weight you put on him.

-or-

B: The mount can remove or have removed his barding, saddle, and burden when he's resting in the Outer Planes. In that case, there's certainly no reason you can't keep at least some stuff on your horse.

[Pestlepup]

I might even go as far as to postulate, that whatever the mount is carrying, is kind of "stuck between the planes". Consider it an extradimensional relief for the horse. It would be silly for the paladin to carry around a saddle, barding, saddlebags and so forth, as it would be silly for the horse to strut around the heavens in full gear. No resting in that scenario. Equally strange would be to assume that the horse has access to a private oracle and a cadre of servants to inform him or her the exact moment the paladin will be summoning him/her next time, and have the mound all prepped and groomed a moment before said occasion. I'd likely rule that the equipment simply aren't really anywhere (or in an inaccessible extradimensional space, whatever rocks your boat) while the mount rests in the upper planes, as the beast of burden / warhorse gig is more a part of the mounts terrestrial existence. But as always, it's up to the DM.

I'd probably consider it rude, on a personal level, not generally, to reduce a celestial mount to a glorified pack mule, but that on the other hand, is up to the paladin whose mount is in question.

[TheOOB]

So long as your arn't making your mount PO'd (remember it is intelligant, it knows when it's being abused), theres no problum using it to store stuff, heck I think it would be honored to be able to assist you even when its not in active service.

The equivelent of a bag of holding is not overpowered for what is one of the least powerful classe sin the PHB.

Anyways, remember that if you hide something important on your mount, a plane traveling foe can, in theory, steal it, if they know where your mount is.

[Starsinger]

"Windstriker! We must protect this artifact from the wrong hands! I'm putting it in your saddle bag, keep it safe with you." That is neat.

"Windstriker! Carry this 800 metric tons of loot from the dragon's lair!" That is not.

Paladin mounts should be allowed to be used as such. It's a heck of a lot safer than portable holes, handy haversacks, and bags of holding which can be broken into. I'm so calling the next paladin mount I see "Safety Deposit" :smallamused:

[Renegade Paladin]

I would like to state for the record that 1.) my only current paladin character who's high enough level to have a mount stores both his lance and his composite bow on the gryphon, because he only really gets use out of either of those while riding him, and 2.) I would be very upset of the DM decided that he lost the weapons for no apparent reason. There's no real reason why the stuff on the mount should disappear if it keeps its saddle and barding in the meantime.

[Pestlepup]

Renegade Paladin, by which ungodly means did you bribe and/or coerce your DM to allow you to have a Griffon as a mount? I'm mostly professionally curious, as my Tiefling conjurer-of-demons-and-such needs all the pointers he can get. Torture is a hobby of his, you see.

And I concur with Starsinger. At least on some parts. Reducing the mount to a Mule of Holding is just disrespectful. However, that is a judgement left to the players and DM to sort out. RAW allows it, so if you're comfortable with that, no problem.

[Kurald Galain]

Remember that scene where well-meaning Elan had all of Roy's useful equipment at the cleaner's at a point where he needed it? I can certainly imagine celestials doing the same. Or they could discard a ragged-looking magical cloak and replace it with a clean sparkling new coak that only happens not to be magical. Or if one of the items is evil-aligned they'd definitely want to protect the player from it.

[Jack Mann]

The DMG suggests allowing a paladin to take Leadership and use his cohort as a mount. Griffons count as level ten characters for cohort purposes.

Kurald, what DM would do that? I mean, granted, if they start to abuse it, you should tell them to stop, but to take away their magic items out of spite is bad DMing. The Mount ability specifies that any gear they had returns with them. Therefore, unless the DM says otherwise, the player should expect it to work that way. The player should not be punished for understanding how his class features work. You might as well say to the ranger, "Oh, and your animal companion eats your magic bow in the middle of the night. Too bad, so sad. You shouldn't have summoned a wolf in the first place."

[SoulCatcher78]

OK, I wasn't being clear in what I thought would be a rule abuse. If it fits in the saddle bags *if you want to pay for enchanted saddle bags, so be it* or other "normal" keep with the animal things *the bow and lance for instance* then great, that's within reason. Loading up a dragons horde worth of treasure, not such a good idea. Good aligned beings of the upper plains might not steal things but things could be misplaced...just how long do you expect it to take to load the horse *whatever* back up and send it your way? What it comes down to is being reasonable, if you and the DM come to an agreement on what that is then that's the ruling *Dragons horde or not*.

[Kurald Galain]

to take away their magic items out of spite is bad DMing.
Not at all. It merely is unavailable for a short period, or it provides an adventure hook to get it back. Relying on a Game Rule to keep things save is not particularly realistic: actions have consequences, and sending an evil-aligned item to the celestial planes will get noticed. It's essentially the same that if a wizard uses mainly cold-based magic, he will at some point face creatures immune to cold; or if a fighter is extremely optimized to using one particular sword, he will at some point spend a session and a half without said sword. Of course he gets it back, but adaptation is an appropriate challenge to PCs.

Bottom line, if players start to abuse something, I don't tell them to stop, I simply show them a disadvantage to their method.

If a DM pulled this on me, I would stick a note on my warhorse to please give my cloak back and send that to the celestial plane. Or use Contact Other Plane to register a complaint. Or something like that. Makes for a nice side quest.

[Bender]

If the DM spots abuse, he should just let the mount disappear with a reasonable amount of gear, while the rest falls on the ground where the mount was.

Let's stuff some halflings in the saddlebags to hide them :smallbiggrin:

[Ikkitosen]

I love the idea of the BBEG torturing the paladin: "Summon your mount - I know you hid my phylactery in its saddlebags". "Never!"

Lol.

[Pestlepup]

I like your attitude Kurald! It's not bad DMing to let the players hit a wall every now and then, but it's petty on the part of the players to demand complete obedience from the entire multiverse. True, the world is in a sense made for the players, but the world doesn't know that. It goes on as it wants, and if some player preconceptions get trod on every now and then, big deal. For the world to feel alive, it must have existence beyond that which is taking place around the players. So there is a rogue Eladrin collecting fascinating items, it happens. So said Eladrin stumbles upon a horse laden with intriquing plunder, it happens. The Eladrin sees that no one actually seems to own the horse, so what's the harm in relieving the beast of a few interesting items? If you don't know you're stealing, it's not really a crime now is it? I mean, it's not like the paladin ever actually comes to visit the horse. Just because it pops out every now and then doesn't really mean anything. A lot of celestials have a tendency to teleport or plane shift.

Just one possible scenario, though I'd likely go with my previous "temporary state on nonexistence" solution.

[Zaeron]

I like your attitude Kurald! It's not bad DMing to let the players hit a wall every now and then, but it's petty on the part of the players to demand complete obedience from the entire multiverse. True, the world is in a sense made for the players, but the world doesn't know that. It goes on as it wants, and if some player preconceptions get trod on every now and then, big deal. For the world to feel alive, it must have existence beyond that which is taking place around the players. So there is a rogue Eladrin collecting fascinating items, it happens. So said Eladrin stumbles upon a horse laden with intriquing plunder, it happens. The Eladrin sees that no one actually seems to own the horse, so what's the harm in relieving the beast of a few interesting items? If you don't know you're stealing, it's not really a crime now is it? I mean, it's not like the paladin ever actually comes to visit the horse. Just because it pops out every now and then doesn't really mean anything. A lot of celestials have a tendency to teleport or plane shift.

Just one possible scenario, though I'd likely go with my previous "temporary state on nonexistence" solution.

Stealing is an evil act. Taking some object and not even attempting to return it to its rightful owner is probably a Neutral act at best.

This ignores the fact that a paladin's mount is intelligent. Celestial creatures are Good in a way that normal mortals cannot be. They ARE Good, not as an attitude but as a state of being.

A celestial creature would never intentionally take an object that might belong to someone else, without a good reason. Any DM that pulled what yyou and Kurald are discussing on me, I would leave a game sooner than play with.

Your attitude isn't 'the players should hit walls', it's 'I don't like the way you're losing your class features, so I'm going to punish you in game rather than being a man (or woman) about it and telling you I don't approve.' The fact that you have to think of twisted, insane scenarios by which a celestial might STEAL from a paladin just to effect this 'wall' is just plain mean.

What paladin would dismiss his mount, knowing that his lance might get 'removed for polishing' and not be there when he called for it?

[Pestlepup]

Take a breather Zaeron, this is merely discussion, not an attack on your persona. We're all friends here.

First, it would hardly constitute as an evil act if it were in no way apparent that the horse or the items were owned by anyone. The only thing apparent "up there" is a lone horse with too much to carry. Recovering drifting trinkets would fit well into an Eladrins chaotic mindset, though if it found out later that the items were owned by someone, and even a paladin in this case, it would likely return them. Or return them after having a few harmless laughs.

And true, the mount is intelligent, but it hardly speaks. It might not even notice the Eladrin. Or the item missing for that matter.

Well, it really isn't up to us what a celestial would do. They're good, true, but that doesn't mean they don't have personalities or can't make mistakes.

Besides, is offering entertaining, if challenging, side quests a way of punishing players? Well, you could see it that way. I for one am more inclined to let the players act as they please and suffer or enjoy the repercussions rather than dictate from behind my screen what they should or shouldn't do. I won't go ruining their entire game for some minor rules abuse, but maybe make them run a few laps around the barn just for laughs. As I said, a living world thrives on not being reduced to a passive and static playground. Unexpected things happen, and those might just be what the players will reminisce in the future. If done right, it adds flavor, keeps the players from developing power-hubris and makes simulated fantasy life just a little bit more enjoyable.

As for your "What paladin would etc.", now you're talking! Even if it only happens once, it will keep the players on their toes. They may even have to seriously consider if hiding the Grand MacGuffin in the mount's packs is really a good idea, and then breathe a sigh of relief when it's still there the next time the mount is summoned. THAT makes it a worthwile exercise. :smallsmile:

[Douglas]

The only thing apparent "up there" is a lone horse with too much to carry.
A lone, very high quality, superbly trained, intelligent horse in a celestial plane, with gear. Unless paladins are absurdly rare in the setting that should be a dead giveaway to practically any celestial that it is a paladin's horse. Even if it were not and an eladrin assumed it was all unowned, it would have no reason to sneak up on the horse in order to relieve it of its burden, so the horse would almost certainly notice and object.


Besides, is offering entertaining, if challenging, side quests a way of punishing players?
Offering an entertaining and challenging sidequest, no. Ignoring what is explicitly stated in the rules with no warning and no good explanation why (sorry, but the celestial not being aware of it being theft just doesn't make sense), yes.

[Kurald Galain]

Cue a young, eager celestial who wants to be helpful to the Magic Horse Person, feed the horse, and clean the gear (what, you don't expect all celestials to be superintelligent and clairvoyant, now do you?). Mommy, why is Mr. Adventurer so mad at me? I made him a pretty new cloak myself as a gift, and now he's screaming that he wants his ragged filthy one back... he is soooo mean to me, mommy... actually my players would find that funny, and said cherub (or whatever) could well become a recurring character.

If the players were never surprised, the game would become boring to them. Suppose one of the players has an archer character and for whatever reason said character breaks an arm - would it make for a more fun game if (a) said player complains that there are no rules for breaking limbs, and therefore it couldn't happen, and quit the game; or (b) said character has the chance to show off his creativity by using things he usually doesn't, until the party gets to the nearest temple for a healing spell?

[AtomicKitKat]

Said Eladrin won't necessarily "steal" it. Perhaps they take said ragged cloak off to patch it up, and don't make it back by sunrise. Or they think "Hmm, I could use a couple charges of this Wand of ____ for _____. I'll leave some gold in the pouch for remuneration."

[Zaeron]

Huh, sorry I came off as sharp, I stumbled on this thread in the last five minutes of my lunch break and wanted to reply before I had to go back to work. I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was just in a hurry to jot down all my thoughts on it. Hence all the typos in that post too >.<

Anyway, I do think it's a bit unfair to do something like that without warning. As a PC, I wouldn't take kindly to a 'plot hook' like that. Especially since it would make me feel like I could no longer dismiss my mount safely.

I suppose I was a little sore because I've played with DMs that did similar stuff before, because it was 'funny at the time' or similar. They were less forgiving about returning the items than it sounds like most of the DMs suggesting it in this thread would be, but it still rankles to be 'surprised' by a class feature you thought worked great suddenly being not helpful, but a hindrance.

I don't generally think it's a good policy to make players skittish about using their class features unless they were really abusing them - and I stand by my comment that no celestial would take items from a Paladin's mount without a darn good reason. And if I was going to have an adventure based off of a paladin losing an item from his dismissed mount, I'd make darn sure that the player knew out of game that this was an exception, not something that would happen again - and I'd also make sure it happened at a time that losing the item wouldn't be a big deal to the player.

Plus, I do think the whole thing sort of smacks of DM punishment - it reminds me a lot of the sort of things some childish DMs I've played under would do whenever they were angry at a specific player for something that happened earlier in the session or whatever.

Sorry again that I came off as heated, it wasn't intended at all. And hopefully there are less typos in this post than the last.

[Tor the Fallen]

The horse is quite intelligent; at least 6 int. It would be easy to ask the beast whether they could load it down with gear or not.

"Starshine, do you mind if we load you down with all this loot we captured from the Dragon's horde? I won't be able to give it away to orphans if we leave it here for those evil kobolds! You'll have to carry it for the next day, and it's really heavy! Can you do us this favor? As always whiny for no, or neigh for yes!"

Kurald-
Do you randomly have the party's fighter's feats stop working? What about when the wizard casts identify, do you sometimes have him identify the object as its polar opposite because of an eclipse on the plane of magic interfering with his spell? Maybe when the party ranger is using his weapon style: archery class ability, his bow explodes in a shower of splinters. You know, because predictability makes it boring for the players.

[Callix]

This sort of thing could be fun with the right players and DM, like almost any aspect of D&D, but some DM's would be vindictive, and some players would be thoroughly PO'd. I personally wouldn't recommend this tactic, but if you think it's fun, and you know your players would too, then go for it. Fun is the sole objective. But if the player is either a bit of a powergamer or a true roleplayer immersed in a deep, serious crusading type, which at least some paladins are, they could get annoyed, so be careful.

[Pestlepup]

Huh, sorry I came off as sharp, I stumbled on this thread in the last five minutes of my lunch break and wanted to reply before I had to go back to work. I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I was just in a hurry to jot down all my thoughts on it. Hence all the typos in that post too >.<

No offense taken, no harm done. :smallsmile:


Anyway, I do think it's a bit unfair to do something like that without warning. As a PC, I wouldn't take kindly to a 'plot hook' like that. Especially since it would make me feel like I could no longer dismiss my mount safely.

This I understand, and given that I'd go for the equipment being in a state of nonexistence while the mount is resting, it wouldn't likely even become an issue in my games. I do, however, also understand if a DM would want go for this kind of twist. Even if it is a class ability, those are not entirely predictable either. I look at it from an in-game point of view. A valorous knight fighting for his god has no conception of a "class ability" or even "class" for that matter. As far as the paladin is concerned, he has been given the company of a fine and intelligent beast, which will on occasions answer his prayers and come to his aid. Depending on how the whole mount thing is handled in-game, the Paladin might not even know the horse is extraplanar in a sense. It just comes and goes, and stays as long as it can, or until the paladin wishes to dismiss it. The paladin has absolutely no idea where his mount is, or how it manages to stay safe the entire time it's absent. It might try to explain via the empathic link that it's in a safe place, but it's still a horse, so it'll lose much in the translation. Especially since it's not telepathy, but rather feelings.

If this kind of thing was intended as a punishment instead of a hook, a warning would be appropriate, yes.


Plus, I do think the whole thing sort of smacks of DM punishment - it reminds me a lot of the sort of things some childish DMs I've played under would do whenever they were angry at a specific player for something that happened earlier in the session or whatever.

I'll assume you were not trying to imply anything personal with this. But yes, if handled or used improperly this kind of event could constitute as a punishment. However, the intention is not to be petty, but rather help uphold the mystique of the world. And even to add a touch of realism into the game. Unexpected things happen, and most of the time they will sort out just fine. It's all in the purpose of making the game-world feel alive. I understand that immersion is a very difficult thing to achieve in D&D, since the players have access to so much more information about themselves and even the world and the creatures that inhabit it than we do in real life. Players do not have the luxury of uncertainty to help them become emotionally invested in the game. If a guy threatens you with a knife you'll think "ohmigodimgonnadie". If an NPC threatens a PC with a knife he/she'll think "meh, 1d3 damage, I can take it".

I real life we cannot know when we "run out of hit points". We can't be certain that the arythmia won't develop into a serious heart condition over the years, and we learn to live with the fact that most of the stuff happening around us we can't control. Half of the time we don't even know what happened. A game becomes easily the opposite; players have access to most all the information governing the game-world, so they build fortresses of rules to protect them from the unexpected. They will rely on the fact that the rules are adamant, and anything circumventing or flexing them will not be allowed to touch them on the grounds of "you can't do that, says so in the rules". This, however, is counter-productive to the purposes of the game. The DM's responsibility is to challenge and entertain the players, but if the players are always certain that nothing that they haven't anticipated will be able to touch them, they lose a great part of what makes a game thrilling. Security is fine in real life, and understandable that players will want to recreate the same security in a simulated life, but safety and certainty make for a poor adventure. Almost everyone after a certain age will stop getting kicks from killing ancient dragons at level 3, but the real challenges that stay with you aren't the ones that can be found in the sourcebooks. Some enjoy power-tripping, but I find challenge, suspense and dealing with the unexpected much more satisfying.

That being said, it's also important not to make the world too unexpected. Uncertainty to a degree will add to any game, but if taken to extremes, the players will become anxious and won't be motivated to play anymore. I recommend using it as a spice and not a main ingredient. After all, even in real life there are more things we can expect than those we can't.


Sorry again that I came off as heated, it wasn't intended at all. And hopefully there are less typos in this post than the last.

No need to apologise. In writing it is far easier to appear aggressive than it is speaking in person. No harm no foul. :smallsmile:

[Renegade Paladin]

Renegade Paladin, by which ungodly means did you bribe and/or coerce your DM to allow you to have a Griffon as a mount? I'm mostly professionally curious, as my Tiefling conjurer-of-demons-and-such needs all the pointers he can get. Torture is a hobby of his, you see.

And I concur with Starsinger. At least on some parts. Reducing the mount to a Mule of Holding is just disrespectful. However, that is a judgement left to the players and DM to sort out. RAW allows it, so if you're comfortable with that, no problem.
8th level paladins may take a griffon as a mount instead of a warhorse. Besides, I didn't convince this DM; I convinced a previous one (who was allowing all kinds of crazy crap, including a full-blooded bronze dragon PC), and when that campaign imploded, some of the players convinced a much more skilled DM to take it up again with our same characters. The griffon was part of the deal.

In the new iteration of the campaign, said griffon was dropped to 2 HP within one round of his first summoning courtesy of a pit fiend's meteor swarm. I of course dismissed him and haven't summoned him since; the use so far has been practically nil. (In the first attempt at this, he was much more successful; Flyby Attack + Pounce + evil wizard = finely shredded wizard.)

[Behold_the_Void]

I would honestly probably walk from a game if my DM pulled something like that on me, and I think a lot of people feel the same.

I just don't buy any excuse I've seen of a celestial walking off with the items a celestial warhorse who should be quite obviously the mount of a paladin carries. Ever.

One, the warhorse should know to protect its masters belongings (if it's not being abused, and seriously how much abuse can you get out of a small bag-of-holding like effect?). Two, I can't see most celestials thinking "oh, I should stitch up this cloak" or "oh, it's OK to borrow this item without permission". Especially since most of the celestials should know it's magic and can figure out that whoever owns it likely will need it.

Especially with this. I mean, really, it's a clever use of a class feature that doesn't see a whole lot of use in many campaigns for a class that's generally pretty terribly underpowered. If I were playing a Paladin and the DM asked if he was going to do this, I'd say I would be very upset if they did, and if they pulled it on me, I'd seriously just leave the campaign. I do not take kindly to that, and I'd have trouble seeing it as anything besides a willful attempt to screw with me.

[Pestlepup]

I would honestly probably walk from a game if my DM pulled something like that on me, and I think a lot of people feel the same.

Then it's not for you, point taken. I won't change my my opinion on behalf of you not liking it, but neither will I force-feed the idea to you. I have stated my reasons for supporting this individual idea and, more importantly, the principle behind it. If that won't sell, it won't sell. We're all free to form our opinions. I, however, do not see it as "pulling stuff on PCs" (Well, at least not in the sense of it being a petty stunt to harass the players with.), but that all has been already explained.

As lame as it sounds, agreeing to disagree is a valid choice.

[Behold_the_Void]

Then it's not for you, point taken. I won't change my my opinion on behalf of you not liking it, but neither will I force-feed the idea to you. I have stated my reasons for supporting this individual idea and, more importantly, the principle behind it. If that won't sell, it won't sell. We're all free to form our opinions. I, however, do not see it as "pulling stuff on PCs" (Well, at least not in the sense of it being a petty stunt to harass the players with.), but that all has been already explained.

As lame as it sounds, agreeing to disagree is a valid choice.

I'm perfectly fine agreeing to disagree, I just wanted to make sure that my side was properly represented ^_^

[Kurald Galain]

Wow, some people get so angry if you do something unexpected at them :smallcool: I take it you've never played Paranoia? You should definitely try that some time.

Roleplaying is about suspension of disbelief, not about following rules. Things don't happen at random, nor to bug the players; things happen because they make the game world more alive and more interesting. If you don't see the difference beteen "randomly making feats stop working" and "if an NPC horse is in a far-away location for a long time it might, you know, meet something there" there's really no point in discussing this. Oh, here's a thought... a warhorse in the celestial plane could plausibly meat another paladin's warhorse. The two are intelligent enough to communicate. What if they fall in love? And then the other horse's owner gets captured by some evil? Plot hook again!

If the ranger's bow explodes into splinters, that would be because a nearby enemy cast Shatter on it, and the PCs will likely want to kick his ass (the enemy's, not the ranger's). If Identify fails, that means you've got an artifact on your hands (possibly with such an overwhelming magical aura that looking at it with detect magic dazzles you). Both are valid plot hooks. If you want every game item or NPC to always react the way you expect it to, go play a computer game.

[Koji]

It's bad DMing to react to OOC concerns with IC measures. If you think the paladin is abusing the mount, tell the player and he'll fix it. Don't resort to passive-aggressive OOH NOW MY OMNISCIENT POWERS EXTEND TO ROBBING THE CHARACTER THAT ONLY EXISTS BECAUSE OF OUR SHARED IMAGINATION.

That is, however, totally different from ICly stealing something from the mount while on the celestial planes to advance the plot. Know the difference.

[nagora]

Oh, here's a thought... a warhorse in the celestial plane could plausibly meet another paladin's warhorse. The two are intelligent enough to communicate. What if they fall in love? And then the other horse's owner gets captured by some evil? Plot hook again!


I think it would have to be some extrodinary plot device for a Paladin's mount to be raided. Just saying "oh, someone must have stole your wand of fireballs" isn't going to cut it. But "Your mount does not come when summoned" could lead into a long plot arc just fine. There is an implication that paladin mounts are looked after in some way - they can't surely walk around in armour all the time they're away, can they? I've usually assumed that the LG dead get to do minor services for Good like that in the afterlife, just as LE get to be tormented by the devils. So there would be other reasons why casual pilfering would be ruled out.

[Behold_the_Void]

Wow, some people get so angry if you do something unexpected at them :smallcool: I take it you've never played Paranoia? You should definitely try that some time.

Roleplaying is about suspension of disbelief, not about following rules. Things don't happen at random, nor to bug the players; things happen because they make the game world more alive and more interesting. If you don't see the difference beteen "randomly making feats stop working" and "if an NPC horse is in a far-away location for a long time it might, you know, meet something there" there's really no point in discussing this. Oh, here's a thought... a warhorse in the celestial plane could plausibly meat another paladin's warhorse. The two are intelligent enough to communicate. What if they fall in love? And then the other horse's owner gets captured by some evil? Plot hook again!

If the ranger's bow explodes into splinters, that would be because a nearby enemy cast Shatter on it, and the PCs will likely want to kick his ass (the enemy's, not the ranger's). If Identify fails, that means you've got an artifact on your hands (possibly with such an overwhelming magical aura that looking at it with detect magic dazzles you). Both are valid plot hooks. If you want every game item or NPC to always react the way you expect it to, go play a computer game.

There's a huge difference between being against unexpected occurrences (which I am not at all against) and some random, highly implausible thing that sounds to me like the DM's just going out of his way to screw with me.

Seriously, maybe I'm not trusting enough but unless I knew the DM really well, I would see that as a personal attempt to screw with me if I'm just informed that my items are gone when my horse returns. Seriously, what the hell? I couldn't prevent it, I couldn't prepare for it, I wasn't even advised beforehand that in this world, this is what happens to your horse so doing such things might lead to that results. It sounds random, arbitrary, and maliciously targeted just at me.

All of those descriptions might be considered acceptable, but to me they just sound like the DM's trying to justify screwing my character for some reason. Horse fell in love and one got kidnapped so it's going on some grand quest and won't give me any kind of answer when I call it? I'm not buying that.

There's a saying my friend likes, "throw a dragon at your players and they'll say their characters are scared. Throw a rust monster at your players, and THEY will be scared." I'm probably in the same boat. My character worked hard to earn his equipment. Leave his crap alone unless you've a darn good reason not to, and at least give me some measure to prevent it if you intend to take it away.

(Also for the record, if I were ever doing this I'd probably ask my DM beforehand if there's anything I need be concerned with and the nature of how my equipment is stored, and would only do it if I was assured it was safe. Thus, if it were pulled on me I would be quite irate to say the least.)

Oh, and on the Paranoia thing, I've not had a chance to play it yet, but I'm looking forward to the opportunity. I have played Great Ork Gods, which is an absolute blast. But that's the game where you expect to get screwed over. When I play D&D I play with the expectation that I'm not going to go out of my way to make my DM's life miserable and in return they're not going to go out of their way to screw my character.

[Kurald Galain]

Horse fell in love and one got kidnapped so it's going on some grand quest and won't give me any kind of answer when I call it? I'm not buying that.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant the other paladin (some NPC you don't even know) gets kidnapped, and his horse tells your horse, and your horse "tells" you. Plot hook, no?

[Behold_the_Void]

No, that's not what I meant. I meant the other paladin (some NPC you don't even know) gets kidnapped, and his horse tells your horse, and your horse "tells" you. Plot hook, no?

That's fine. It also doesn't involve my stuff getting randomly taken without me being able to do anything to prevent it though :smalltongue:

[Bender]

If stuff occasionally disappears from a paladins mount, it would have happened to a lot of paladins before, and any paladin would know (unless you rule that paladins are rare and self-learned). So when a player tries this abuse (which isn't even that bad imho), the DM might want to tell the player that the PC knows about such things happening (which goes for most house rules that concern a class).
Another possibility, like I said before, is just prevent the abuse instead of punishing it afterwards: the abusive amount of stuff just remains behind when the mount disappears.

I have the impression that most people here won't do it as punishment (I think a DM should never punish, rather than prevent), but it's still a stretch as a plot hook.
If something must disappear from a mount, I would make it an evil NPC (possibly recurring villain) who specifically targets the party, or a raid of evil creatures in the celestial realms, which would be a much more powerful plot hook. (there is not really anything wrong with a celestial taking something, but in my opinion it's a bit of an anticlimax to have the PC's track down this celestial, just to have him return it and apologise when they find him)

In conclusion:
If the DM does this to avoid abuse, I think it's wrong
For a plot hook: nice, but it would happen only once (or repeatedly during the same plotline, once the paladin knows what's going on)

PS: I probably wouldn't really care if a DM pulled this on me, since I'm not really attached to the stuff of my PC's, but I would like it if there was a good reason for it

[factotum]

I think the guy who suggested the paladin should ask the horse if it's willing to act as a temporary beast of burden was right on the money. A well-played paladin would do that as a matter of courtesy; the mount is intelligent, and it is presumably only with its consent that the paladin can do ANYTHING to it.

I'm not suggesting that deliberately overloading their warhorse is something that would cause a Paladin to Fall, but it's definitely an indicator they're not playing their class the way it's supposed to be played! (Paralysing the mount and then loading it up with enough gear to break its legs--now THAT would be an instant ticket to Tan City).

Making it essentially the horse's decision means the DM can allow or disallow it depending on his own viewpoint on the matter--no need for thieving celestials or other oddities; if the horse doesn't want to be used as a beast of burden then it won't allow itself to be used that way, end of story.

[Douglas]

Wow, some people get so angry if you do something unexpected at them :smallcool: I take it you've never played Paranoia? You should definitely try that some time.
That's a whole different game. I haven't played it myself, but from what I've heard the game is deliberately designed in such a way that everyone should automatically expect to be screwed over in a major way at every opportunity and characters will rarely survive even one entire session. When you go into the game with that expectation already there, it's fine.


Oh, here's a thought... a warhorse in the celestial plane could plausibly meat another paladin's warhorse. The two are intelligent enough to communicate. What if they fall in love? And then the other horse's owner gets captured by some evil? Plot hook again!
That's fine. That's a plot hook, not theft out of the blue.


If the ranger's bow explodes into splinters, that would be because a nearby enemy cast Shatter on it, and the PCs will likely want to kick his ass (the enemy's, not the ranger's).
Perfectly acceptable. That's the result of an in game action of a nearby enemy using commonly known rules in an obvious way, and the players have ways and means immediately available to make it less likely to work (high will save) and to strike back at the guy who did it. I'd get a bit annoyed if it was a magic bow and the enemy had gone to the trouble of casting Dispel Magic first to get the Shatter to work, though.


If Identify fails, that means you've got an artifact on your hands (possibly with such an overwhelming magical aura that looking at it with detect magic dazzles you).
Valid plot hook.


Both are valid plot hooks. If you want every game item or NPC to always react the way you expect it to, go play a computer game.
We don't want perfect predictability of everything we ever meet or do. We do want our equipment to stay put unless there's a damn good reason for it. A thief making off with a valuable magic item in a big city when I failed to adequately protect against such things is fine. Thieves are expected to be plentiful in big cities, some of them may be very good, adventurers are obvious targets with tons of good stuff to steal, and there are plenty of ways for characters to make the thief's job harder. Gear vanishing from a paladin's mount just seems like arbitrary punishment because a) all available rules and fluff indicate that the horse should be in an absolutely perfectly safe place, b) there was no warning it was even possible, c) there was no way to safeguard against it, and d) it's the character's hard earned gear.

For a lot of people, I think point d may be the most important. You spend a lot of time over a character's life carefully acquiring useful and powerful magic items. Those items represent a large investment of time and effort. That investment should not be taken away at whim.

[AtomicKitKat]

For a lot of people, I think point d may be the most important. You spend a lot of time over a character's life carefully acquiring useful and powerful magic items. Those items represent a large investment of time and effort. That investment should not be taken away at whim.

Unless rolling from a list, those items were technically given at "whim". DM giveth, DM taketh. Besides which it would be more likely to be an unusual item(like Valtor's Mark of Prescience), rather than a "common parlour trinket"(read, most wands, scrolls, unless spells are of unusual rarity).

[Zaeron]

Replying to Pestlepup's reply to me:

That's actually a pretty interesting take on it. I certainly hadn't meant to imply that you seemed to be a childish DM, and your clear explanation as to why you think it's a viable plot hook certainly disproves, in my eyes, any claim that you'd be doing it just to screw with your players.

I think that most of my opposition to the idea comes from the fact that I highly doubt most of the DMs I've played under would actually reason through it the way you do. They'd be far more likely to simply decide they didn't want me 'storing items using my horse', and at some key point in the game suddenly my horse would appear naked when I summoned it, or with saddlebags or the Important Magic Thingy conveniently removed.

As a kneejerk reaction, I still think I'd be upset if a DM pulled it on me out of the blue, probably mostly because I've been burned by past DMs. It just seems a little bit too close to "oh, you rolled a 1. Your +5 sword snaps in half" for my comfort.

If it makes you feel any better, I am convinced that it could be a cool plot hook though! Certainly more interesting than I'd thought it might be when I first posted.