Should paladins have horsemanship ability?

[Kayolan]

Paladins get divine mount at 4th level, and yet aren't consumate mounted warriors, i.e. knights (Horsemanship ability). However, they do pay a heavy amount of XP for their levels.

Can it (should it) be assumed that they do in fact have horsemanship, though it's not stated specifically in the class description?

Thoughts?

[Giant2005]

I think at some point Knights and Paladins were the same thing and then they were split up for unknown reasons. There are plenty of places in the books where the existence of Knights is just completely forgotten (like the minimum age table in the CKG, or the entire Mystical Companions book). During that split, Paladins got screwed over by the Horsemanship ability being given to the Knights.

[alcyone]

There was some conversation about the split in the Book of Familiars discussion.

It's funny the knight gets a horse that can't fight but can fight from horseback, and the paladin gets a warhorse and can't.

The Paladin and Cavalier classes go way back, but they've always overlapped in my mind.

[Treebore]

Yeah, as Kayolan knows (Or should, considering how much we discussed this when I played a Knight in one of his old campaigns) I consider Paladins the Knights that went the holy route during their squire years. So have the Horsemanship ability, just don't get the higher charging multiplier on Lance damage. Being extra kick butt while on horseback is completely within the Knight's realm, and I have even Paladins stay out of it.

[Captain_K]

How often do whole parties fight and do their thing from horse back? Seems like a minor annoyance and one that doesn't matter too often or too much.. BUT that said... skills or the like could help to fill that gap.

[Treebore]

How often do whole parties fight and do their thing from horse back? Seems like a minor annoyance and one that doesn't matter too often or too much.. BUT that said... skills or the like could help to fill that gap.

Depends on the campaign. The VAST majority of the time they fight on foot, either in the forest, or in tunnels and caves. Which makes sense, because all the classes, except the Knight, get some pretty hefty penalties while fighting from Horseback. So it is best if they dismount to fight.

[Fizz]

The Paladin and Cavalier classes go way back, but they've always overlapped in my mind.

Is that due to the original Unearthed Arcana, when paladin become a subclass of cavalier?

-Fizz

[Fizz]

In principle, I think i would say that paladins should not get horsemanship. Unlike AD&D Unearthed Arcana, they aren't connected classes. So i don't think you should assume that they share any abilities.

-Fizz

[Tadhg]

Yes!

[alcyone]

The Paladin and Cavalier classes go way back, but they've always overlapped in my mind.

Is that due to the original Unearthed Arcana, when paladin become a subclass of cavalier?

-Fizz

Well, that and if they came to your door trick or treating you'd guess what the costume was and you'd be right 50% of the time.

[Lurker]

it shouldn't be surprising that I - someone that loved playing a paladin - think they should get the horsemanship ability. I agree that the knight/Cavalier should be better at it, but still the paladin as a holy knight should be a devastating combatant from horse back.

If they can't, why give them the class ability of calling their war horse ... Yeah you have an awesome mount but if you try and use it for what it was bread and designed for, you'll fall off it and hurt yourself ... If they can't fight from horseback, trade that ability out for something else

How often do whole parties fight and do their thing from horse back? Seems like a minor annoyance and one that doesn't matter too often or too much.. BUT that said... skills or the like could help to fill that gap.

Depends on the campaign. The VAST majority of the time they fight on foot, either in the forest, or in tunnels and caves. Which makes sense, because all the classes, except the Knight, get some pretty hefty penalties while fighting from Horseback. So it is best if they dismount to fight.

Wellllll that depends on the player(s) and the DM. I remember one game where we were traveling along and got ambushed by some hill giants ... while everyone else were jumping off their horses and getting ready for the fight, my paladin/knight charged the first giant and skewered it. Then road to the rock outcropping the other giants were behind tossing boulders, lept off my horse onto the top of the rock, stuck another with the lance -using it like a spear - use my sword on the 3rd, until my horse road around the rock outcrop, then I jumped back into the saddle, and road around charging the rest ... all the while the rest of the party shot arrows etc etc etc.

A good knight/paladin given half a chance to use the horseman attack can be devastating if played properly.

[Giant2005]

In principle, I think i would say that paladins should not get horsemanship. Unlike AD&D Unearthed Arcana, they aren't connected classes. So i don't think you should assume that they share any abilities.

-Fizz

Then how do you justify the Paladin's Deity giving them a faithful mount... that they cannot use. That is less a reward for faithful service and more a sign of his Deity having a spiteful sense of humor. Sure that trait might apply to some Deities, but as far as I know, there is no requirement of Godhood that would compel all of the Deities to have that same spiteful sense of humor.
Those Deities that don't want to be jerkoffs to the people in their service would give the Paladin something more useful if the Paladin is not capable of riding a mount.

[Fizz]

Then how do you justify the Paladin's Deity giving them a faithful mount... that they cannot use. That is less a reward for faithful service and more a sign of his Deity having a spiteful sense of humor. Sure that trait might apply to some Deities, but as far as I know, there is no requirement of Godhood that would compel all of the Deities to have that same spiteful sense of humor.
Those Deities that don't want to be jerkoffs to the people in their service would give the Paladin something more useful if the Paladin is not capable of riding a mount.

I wasn't passing judgement on that portion of it. All i was saying is that the two classes are not related. In C&C, no two are (there are no sub-classes), so you shouldn't assume that one class has an ability just because another has. For example- an assassin doesn't have all rogue abilities, even though they appear related.

That said, i think the two are reconcilable. Not having horsemanship does not mean you can't ride a horse. Any class can ride a horse, but knights are superior at it. A non-knight can attempt horsemanship benefits while riding, but he doesn't gain any level bonus to it (since it's the class skill of the knight, default C&C rules say no level bonus). So the paladin is no different from any other class.


-Fizz

[Rigon]

One way to "fix" it would be to grant the Paladin the Horsemanship ability while on his divine mount, but not while on other mounts. Hm, maybe something to add to the old house rules.

R-

[Lurker]

One way to "fix" it would be to grant the Paladin the Horsemanship ability while on his divine mount, but not while on other mounts. Hm, maybe something to add to the old house rules.

R-

That I like, it gives the Palladian a use for his mount, a reason to have it as a gift from the god, but doesn't put him on the same footing as the knight.

[alcyone]

One way to "fix" it would be to grant the Paladin the Horsemanship ability while on his divine mount, but not while on other mounts. Hm, maybe something to add to the old house rules.

R-

That I like, it gives the Palladian a use for his mount, a reason to have it as a gift from the god, but doesn't put him on the same footing as the knight.

And it makes the loss of the warhorse very dear.

[serleran]

No, they should not get it.

There are many things the paladin can do from horseback which does not require any sort of check including basic combat functions, but as this is a secondary form of combat to them, they should not be considered equals with someone whose major focus is the same. Like more intelligent beings, I also don't think the paladin's mount would necessarily want to engage in direct combat -- all the paladin needs is a lance or they can attach a chariot or something. Leave knighting to knights.

Further, I do not believe the mount must be a horse -- in fact, I distinctly remember a gnome paladin who have a walrus mount.

Anyway, I actually dislike the knight class whole cloth and consider it something one must earn. Similar to paladin. So, in fact, I would allow a paladin to obtain the ability but would not assume they just get it.

[Giant2005]

There are many things the paladin can do from horseback which does not require any sort of check including basic combat functions

That is probably something that needs to be hashed out prior to any talk about whether or not the Paladin needs the Horsemanship ability.
What exactly can a non-Knight do with a horse without a check?
Personally, I don't think they can do anything. All of that stuff it lists a Knight can do without a check requires the Knight's skill. If the Paladin doesn't have that skill and isn't Dex Prime, he doesn't have much hope of even being able to saddle a horse.

[alcyone]

No, they should not get it.

There are many things the paladin can do from horseback which does not require any sort of check including basic combat functions,

The context here, with all humility addressing the guy who wrote the book:
M&T, Horse:
"A heavy warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but unless the rider is a knight, the rider cannot attack at the same time." <-- Usually what the Paladin gets (or a war pony).
"A light warhorse can fight while carrying a rider, but unless the rider is a knight, the rider cannot also attack."
"A riding horse cannot fight while carrying a rider, and may rear, buck, or bolt when faced with obvious danger." <-- What the Knight gets.

PHB, Knight, Horsemanship:
"fight from a mount during combat (melee and ranged) without penalty; control the mount in combat; guide a mount"

PHB, Situational Modifiers:
"Melee attack from mount or unstable platform –2
Ranged attack from mount or unstable platform –4"

So, being that the Paladin doesn't have horsemanship, they either:
1. Can't fight from a mount without penalty
2. Could make a horsemanship check without level if the CK allows

Now, the specific things mentioned in the horse descriptions might specifically be that the horse can't use bite or hoofs concurrently with a mounted attack, rather than that it can't guide the rider to a melee attack at all.
In any case, it's silly that a lance or large mace could ever do double damage from horseback for everyone but the Knight if no one else can do it.

I think the -2 penalty is probably fine for Paladins in any case. I'd interpret the horse fighting as mentioned above; horse doesn't get any attacks if the rider is attacking also.

[Giant2005]

I think the -2 penalty is probably fine for Paladins in any case. I'd interpret the horse fighting as mentioned above; horse doesn't get any attacks if the rider is attacking also.

I agree with that, but if the Paladin has to make a check first, it still isn't worth even trying. Especially if he isn't Dex Prime.

[Tadhg]

If the Paladin doesn't have that skill and isn't Dex Prime, he doesn't have much hope of even being able to saddle a horse.

I think not. Most if not all PCs should be able to saddle and ride a horse. Assume they've learned from a young age. Or assume that as they advance in levels they can be more skilled at utilizing a horse in a battle.

But, my thinking about the paladin - he gets the divine mount at 4th lvl. And guess what, it's DIVINE - so perhaps the horse is divinely skilled and so the paladin can do many, if not all the horsemanship mounted actions. Heck, mebbe he/she can do them better than a 1st and 2nd lvl knight - because he/she has been riding horses for (several levels)!!!

Yeah, I like that!

[Kayolan]

So, if we were to go by the "core" rules as written, the only way a paladin could have horsemanship would be if the paladin was class and a half with knight. The knight as a supporting class gives horsemanship ability only. A paladin knight could also work, but the cost is quite high, though you would have all of the knight abilities.

[Kayolan]

But, my thinking about the paladin - he gets the divine mount at 4th lvl. And guess what, it's DIVINE - so perhaps the horse is divinely skilled and so the paladin can do many, if not all the horsemanship mounted actions. Heck, mebbe he/she can do them better than a 1st and 2nd lvl knight - because he/she has been riding horses for (several levels)!!!

Yeah, I like that!

Makes sense, especially when the PHB states that the mount is "unusually intelligent". I would take that to mean it doesn't need to be guided at all, and its divine nature and connection to the paladin means that they fight as a team almost symbiotically.

[Treebore]

You get the penaltiies for fighting from horse back because you are not TRAINED as the Knight is, to get rid of those abilities. So having a Divine Mount doesn't suddenly give you that training. Plus the damage multiplier is from doing a charge, with the lance. So the Charging rules should be used as well, IE minimum movement distanced, must be in a straight line for at least the last portion of the Charging attack, etc...

Like I said, I give the Pladin the Horsemanship skill, but highly modified since they didn't compelte the training. IE no higher damage multiplier, still gets the -2 to attacks from horse back, and only the Paladin attacks, or hsi mount does. So the only things the Paladin actually gets is:

HORSEMANSHIP (DEXTERITY): Paladins are trained on and are familiar with all types of horses, from mounts used for riding to heavy war horses. Without the need for an attribute check, Paladins can saddle, mount, ride and dismount; perform simple leaps and obstacle maneuvers (no more than 3 feet in height and move around small items such as barrels); control the mount in combat; guide a mount with the knees; and stay in the saddle when a mount rears or bolts. When viewing a horse or a group of mounts, Paladins can determine the strengths and weaknesses of each horse, and can generally pick out the strongest, fastest or all-around best horse.

With a successful check, and by foregoing any attack or other action, Paladins may direct their mounts to perform the following actions while mounted: cover, deflect, fall softly, leap and charge.
Deflect: This entails the mount being moved between the opponent and the or positioned to offer maximum cover for the Paladin, while at the same time allowing the mount to avoid blows. This maneuver gives a +4 bonus to the Paladin’s armor class and a +2 bonus to the mount’s armor class.
Cover: A Paladin can drop and hang alongside a mount, using it as three-fourth’s cover.
This grants a +6 bonus to the Paladin’s armor class from those on the opposite side of the horse. The Paladin cannot attack or be holding anything while using this ability.
Fall Softly: A Paladin can attempt to take no damage after falling from a mount, by rolling to the side or leaping off, including when the mount itself falls. A character takes 1d6 points of falling damage on any failed attribute check.
Leap: The Paladin may direct a mount to leap obstacles as part of its movement. The obstacles jumped can be no taller than 2/3rds. the height of the horse.

So while I allow a Paladin to use their Mount defensively, they never stayed in the Knight training long enough to learn to get rid of the penalties for fighting from Horseback, or to fight while their Mount attacks too, or how to get the x3 multiplier while charging. I think that is enough of a difference to keep the Knight shining head and shoulders above the Paladin in Mounted Combat.

[Go0gleplex]

My two-silver pieces worth:

Paladins and Knights are nowhere near the same thing. ANYONE can become a Paladin. All they need is a pure soul and patronage of their deity. Paladin is merely a champion of virtue or of a cause. Not necessarily a Knight.

Knights are those of the nobility or those that have proven their worth and been elevated to the peerage by a feudal type lord.

So while a Paladin may have the riding skill they are nowhere near as trained as a knight is in regards to their mount. Also the mount is almost like a familiar to the Paladin with a bond there that helps with the riding skills.

Knights have to be one with their mount since "the Charge" is their primary weapon in battle and if unhorsed they are at a disadvantage against a more agile opponent. As such they tend to begin training in horsemanship before they are teenagers.

A Paladin-Cavalier (Knight) merely combines the two skill sets as a Knight is not unable to become a Paladin should they meet the related criteria. A Paladin becoming a Knight is more of a title award situation due to elevation, which I think would seldom occur due to the fact that the Paladin's allegiance will always be with their deity first, the feudal lord second. A political situation that most feudal lords would not be exactly comfortable with due should they become at odds with the church for some reason...and having a vassal that someone else can control over your own orders is no vassal at all.

[Treebore]

My two-silver pieces worth:

Paladins and Knights are nowhere near the same thing. ANYONE can become a Paladin. All they need is a pure soul and patronage of their deity. Paladin is merely a champion of virtue or of a cause. Not necessarily a Knight.

Knights are those of the nobility or those that have proven their worth and been elevated to the peerage by a feudal type lord.

So while a Paladin may have the riding skill they are nowhere near as trained as a knight is in regards to their mount. Also the mount is almost like a familiar to the Paladin with a bond there that helps with the riding skills.

Knights have to be one with their mount since "the Charge" is their primary weapon in battle and if unhorsed they are at a disadvantage against a more agile opponent. As such they tend to begin training in horsemanship before they are teenagers.

A Paladin-Cavalier (Knight) merely combines the two skill sets as a Knight is not unable to become a Paladin should they meet the related criteria. A Paladin becoming a Knight is more of a title award situation due to elevation, which I think would seldom occur due to the fact that the Paladin's allegiance will always be with their deity first, the feudal lord second. A political situation that most feudal lords would not be exactly comfortable with due should they become at odds with the church for some reason...and having a vassal that someone else can control over your own orders is no vassal at all.

A Knight in a D&D game is not the same as someone being Knighted. Do we see Sir Patrick Stewart riding around in heavy armor on a war horse ever since he was Knighted? Not that I recall.
Being Knighted is being elevated above the "common folk" in your social standing. We call men on war horses wearing heavy armors Knights because of how closely associated these warriors were with the Noble class, since typically only nobles could even afford to equip a Knight, let alone a number of Knights. So over the decades calling such heavily armed and armored warriors Knights became an accepted practice, since 99% of the time these men were not going to be commoners. Also, I am defaulting to the English meaning of Knight, since such men were called other things in other languages. I believe the French word is Chevalier.

In D&D Knights are a character class, a profession, not a social class. The class description does not include descriptions of having a noble status and all the benefits there of.

Still, its pretty clear to me that we all differ on what we think because of our perceptions of what a Knight is, and how they become a Knight, same goes for the Paladin. Since I look at both as being a chosen profession, it was easy for me to see them as coming from very similar backgrounds until one was chosen, or called, to the higher calling of being a Paladin. Others obviously see them as differences in social class as well, or a status to be earned. So very understandable differences in views.

[Giant2005]

Treebore, I think you are being a bit too generous with your version of Paladin Horsemanship. I'd limit it to this:

HORSEMANSHIP (DEXTERITY): Paladins are trained on and are familiar with all types of horses, from mounts used for riding to heavy war horses. Without the need for an attribute check, Paladins can saddle, mount, ride and dismount; control the mount in combat; and guide a mount with the knees.

With a successful check, and by foregoing any attack or other action, Paladins may direct their mounts to perform the following actions while mounted:
Maintain Control: The Paladin may stay in the saddle when a mount rears or bolts.
Simple Leap: The Paladin may perform simple leaps and obstacle maneuvers (no more than 3 feet in height and move around small items such as barrels).

[Rigon]

Ok, I've given this some thought tonight. Here is how I think I want to add it to my house rules.

Paladins gain the Horsemanship ability of the Knight without the Charge attack, but only when mounted on their Divine Mount.

R-

[Giant2005]

Ok, I've given this some thought tonight. Here is how I think I want to add it to my house rules.

Paladins gain the Horsemanship ability of the Knight without the Charge attack, but only when mounted on their Divine Mount.

R-

At the very least, you should probably get rid of the ability to both have the mount and the Paladin attack at the same time too. That usually adds more damage than the triple damage lance anyway.

[Rigon]

Ok, I've given this some thought tonight. Here is how I think I want to add it to my house rules.

Paladins gain the Horsemanship ability of the Knight without the Charge attack, but only when mounted on their Divine Mount.

R-

At the very least, you should probably get rid of the ability to both have the mount and the Paladin attack at the same time too. That usually adds more damage than the triple damage lance anyway.

That's already in the write up for the Knight's Horsemanship ability. Direct from the PHB 6th printing: "With a successful check, and by foregoing any attack or other action, knights may direct their mounts to perform the following actions while mounted: cover, deflect, fall softly, leap and charge.

R-