Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Einer 06-29-07, 04:48 PM	I'm trying to convince my DM to allow me to use a magebred heavy warhorse as the basis for my paladin special mount. Any thoughts from other DMs on the subject?
Loki5654 06-29-07, 07:49 PM	Paladin mounts are extraplanar creatures. I'm not sure there are any Vadalis breeding programs set up on the planes. Just a thought.
garner_adam 06-29-07, 11:35 PM	I'm with Loki5654 on this one. Celestial creatures aren't normally bred. I mean think about it. When you dismiss this thing it goes back to it's home plane.
Edymnion 06-30-07, 12:00 AM	Yeah, that was the reaction I was going to give as well. I'd allow it if you were using the 3.0 Paladin though.
Syltorian 06-30-07, 07:51 AM	I agree with the above. A paladin calls his mount from the celestial planes. They are not normal animals, as Loki and Garner say quite correctly. I might allow it with Devoted Tracker, though. I might houserule that by saying that you either gain your holy mount permanently, or call the spirit of the celestial being into it briefly. Of course, it's not clear whether you can have magebred animal companions, either. So the emphasis is quite clearly on might here. Finally, if you take the Vadalis Beastkeeper PrC (Dragonmarked), you can get a magebred paladin mount. That's the only official way to do this. I'd allow it if you were using the 3.0 Paladin though. I can't remember the 3.0 Paladin. What was different about that class? Didn't she have to call her mount from somewhere else? Was she not limited to certain hrs/day?
The White Sorcerer 06-30-07, 10:08 AM	I can't remember the 3.0 Paladin. What was different about that class? Didn't she have to call her mount from somewhere else? Was she not limited to certain hrs/day? 3.0 special mounts were treated more like familiars and (3.5) animal companions. They weren't the Pokémounts of today.
Shady314 06-30-07, 01:32 PM	Of course, it's not clear whether you can have magebred animal companions, either. So the emphasis is quite clearly on might here. Page 37 of the ECS. Very first sentence says and I quote "A druid or ranger can NEVER acquire a magebred animal as a companion." That's pretty clear. Finally, if you take the Vadalis Beastkeeper PrC (Dragonmarked), you can get a magebred paladin mount. That's the only official way to do this. Which would be a pretty kewl Vadalis Paladin.
Syltorian 07-01-07, 07:08 AM	3.0 special mounts were treated more like familiars and (3.5) animal companions. They weren't the Pokémounts of today. Sounds much nicer. I wonder if there is a 3.0 SRD still around. I may consider houseruling that back. Page 37 of the ECS. Very first sentence says and I quote "A druid or ranger can NEVER acquire a magebred animal as a companion." That's pretty clear. I know what the ECS says, but there has been some more confusion created since. Let me quote too: "A druid from Breland [...] or a ranger from Breland [...] may select a magebred brown bear as her animal companion instead of a polar bear." "A druid from Breland [...] or a ranger from Breland [...] may select a magebred ghost tiger as her animal companion instead of a dire lion." (Both quotes Five Nations, p. 75). Makes the matter much less clear, as you'll have to discount or at least modify one of the printed canon sources.
Shady314 07-01-07, 07:54 AM	I know what the ECS says, but there has been some more confusion created since. Let me quote too: "A druid from Breland [...] or a ranger from Breland [...] may select a magebred brown bear as her animal companion instead of a polar bear." "A druid from Breland [...] or a ranger from Breland [...] may select a magebred ghost tiger as her animal companion instead of a dire lion." I'm aware of those. It doesn't make it less clear just because some Eberron authors don't bother to read the ECS. 1. The ECS trumps the 5N book 2. The only "confusion" really comes in if you're a Ranger or Druid from Breland. If you're not it is still crystal clear. And if you really think just being from a specific region should change the way your animal companions work because that region bought a lot of magebred animals well... :rolleyes: Sourcebooks contradict each other sadly. It doesn't make things "confusing" (unless you let it) they're just mistakes and would get errata'd if WOTC cared about quality. In most instances I'm giving the green light to the ECS over another book unless the book's contradiction is it's specific focus. For example if Dragonmarked contradicted the ECS about something involving the Dragonmark Houses I'd lean towards the DM book. But mostly the ECS should be taken as the gold standard being the source material and all. you'll have to discount or at least modify one of the printed canon sources. Which is hardly unheard of. :) What am I supposed to suffer a nervous breakdown because two sourcebooks written by different people don't synergize perfectly? No I'm just going to fall back on the original source material (the ECS) and KB.
Edymnion 07-01-07, 12:32 PM	Sounds much nicer. I wonder if there is a 3.0 SRD still around. I may consider houseruling that back. Its in my sig. And yes, the 3.0 paladin mount was an actual freaking animal that you kept with you, like a familiar. It wasn't a "Celestial Warhorse, I choose you! Use Bite attack!" that it is now. But oh, the poor little paladins couldn't make full use of it if they were in a pure dungeon crawl with stairs, so instead we got pokemon horses for 'em where they can just summon them when its handy, and ignore them when they might possibly be a burden.
Soltares 07-01-07, 01:59 PM	I'm trying to convince my DM to allow me to use a magebred heavy warhorse as the basis for my paladin special mount. Any thoughts from other DMs on the subject? Five Nations, p 141, has a Paladin with a Magebred special mount. As mentioned above, there is specific text in the ECS about Druids and Rangers not having Magebred Companions, but none at all forbidding them to *Paladins.* I'd personally rule that it requires special rituals, and a big favor from House Vadalis, that it doesn't just happen. The Paladin mount is a special beast, and any special work House Vadalis can do to enhance the mount would require time, money and / or some serious house favor (as in the feat, or having done some *serious* work advancing House interests, say, bringing them back some nifty new animals to play with from Xendrik, or something). It would be possible, but not easy and not something that you can check off your character sheet at 4th level.
Shady314 07-01-07, 04:31 PM	Five Nations, p 141, has a Paladin with a Magebred special mount. Which is just another mistake. As mentioned above, there is specific text in the ECS about Druids and Rangers not having Magebred Companions, but none at all forbidding them to *Paladins.* The rules really should say you CAN do something. How often does a "You didn't say NOT to do it" argument fly? All that is mentioned for paladin special mounts is that Talenta Halflings can call a clawfoot dinosaur instead. If paladins were a special exception to magebred companions I think they'd be mentioned. The reason druids and rangers get a specific mention is because their companions are said to be typical animals for their kind. Magebred can thus be applied to them if it wasn't prohibited. Paladin mounts are not typical animals of their kind. I'd personally rule that it requires special rituals, and a big favor from House Vadalis, that it doesn't just happen. The Paladin mount is a special beast, and any special work House Vadalis can do to enhance the mount would require time, money and / or some serious house favor (as in the feat, or having done some *serious* work advancing House interests, say, bringing them back some nifty new animals to play with from Xendrik, or something). The thing about the magebred template is it requires breeding. It's not a magical ritual Vadalis uses on their animals. It's magically enhanced breeding that produces an animal well suited to it's specific task. Meanwhile the Paladin's mount is called from the Celestial Realms. So Vadalis has bred some magebred heavy warhorses and then released them into the Syrania for Paladins to call?.... that's kind of metagamey. And how could they charge for that? Here's this quote from the SRD. "A paladin’s mount is treated as a magical beast, not an animal, for the purpose of all effects that depend on its type (like.... templates) though it retains an animal’s HD, base attack bonus, saves, skill points, and feats." Magebred can't be applied to magical beasts. Only living animals. It would be possible, but not easy and not something that you can check off your character sheet at 4th level. It would be possible if the mount were an animal you purchased like a regular mount. I don't even think such a houserule would be a bad idea. If a PC wanted to give up the ability to conjure their mount out of thin air, the instant healing, and the useful ability to keep some gear in another plane that'd be more than fair. PS. Paladins get their mounts at 5th level so it's definitely not something to check off at level 4. ;)
Soltares 07-01-07, 08:55 PM	Which is just another mistake. Given a choice between the stuff printed in the books, and the demands of some person on a message board, I'll use my own judgement, since I too am 'some person on a message board' which means that my thoughts on how to reconcile the earlier ECS statements (which in no way prevented Paladins from having a Magebred steed) and the Five Nations information (which had one example of such, but did not provide any text saying whether or not this was a special case) are as valid as yours. Since the OP asked how to work such into the game, I offered him some advice on the matter. It's called 'being helpful,' and once in a blue moon, I like to take a break from snark and actually be helpful. Invariably, I then am compelled to respond snarkily to some unhelpful yob who flips out because I actually responded on-topic, which obliterates any good karma I may have accrued from my momentary flash of helpfulness.
Shady314 07-02-07, 04:06 AM	Given a choice between the stuff printed in the books, and the demands of some person on a message board, MY demands? I merely pointed out paladin mounts do not qualify for the magebred template by the RAW... How is this a personal demand? Just because I also pointed out the fluff of paladin mounts and the magebred template also clash? Having one is clearly a mistake by the RAW and that would be errata'd if WOTC actually cared. Most likely the author was more familiar with 3.0 paladin mounts than 3.5 or wasn't 100% clear on the magebred template. Either way it's not a difficult mistake to catch. Would we all be "confused" by the artisan feats if there was no errata? Goodness I hope not. I'll use my own judgement, since I too am 'some person on a message board' which means that my thoughts on how to reconcile the earlier ECS statements (which in no way prevented Paladins from having a Magebred steed) Uh again. Look at the magebred template in the ECS. It can't be applied to magical beasts. A paladin mount is a magical beast. That prevents paladins from having one as a mount. So there's not "no way." and the Five Nations information (which had one example of such, but did not provide any text saying whether or not this was a special case) are as valid as yours. Uh yeah these aren't my opinions. I'm just pointing out the RAW. You can houserule as much as you'd like. I've got no problem with it. Since the OP asked how to work such into the game, I offered him some advice on the matter. Uh again NO. That's NOT what the OP asked. He said he was trying to convince his DM. Then he just asked for thoughts from DM's. Never clarified one way or the other. It's not hard to remember. It's only two sentences. You couldn't bother re-reading two sentences before attacking me for not doing as the OP asked? :rolleyes: It's called 'being helpful,' and once in a blue moon, I like to take a break from snark and actually be helpful. I was helpful also. I made sure the RAW was clear before I stated I thought it would make a lot of sense and be a perfectly fair trade to purchase a mount and form a special attachment to it and in return give up the special mount you can conjure from thin air. I offered some helpful houserule advice too. Just tried to actually show my reasoning behind it. Heaven forfend. :rolleyes: Invariably, I then am compelled to respond snarkily to some unhelpful yob who flips out because I actually responded on-topic, which obliterates any good karma I may have accrued from my momentary flash of helpfulness. This is snarky to you? :D Keep practicing. So you immediately respond by name calling and say I am the one "flipping out" because my post rationally and reasonably disagreed with yours in a calm manner withOUT resorting to name calling? It's not surprising you use up all your good karma. :) Try not to take disagreement so personally. I can assure you nothing about my post was meant as a personal attack.
Edymnion 07-02-07, 08:32 AM	Since the OP asked how to work such into the game, I offered him some advice on the matter. It's called 'being helpful,' and once in a blue moon, I like to take a break from snark and actually be helpful.But the flip side of that is "Would you be helpful for someone that asked how to put dual P-90 weilding Jaffa Half-Dragon Drizzt clone (not copy, but literal biological clone) into Eberron"? Eberron is very much a fluff setting. The answer to "Can I do it?" is almost always "Yes". "Should I do it" is another question entirely. Discussing reasons why something should not be done are just as valid as discussing why they should.
Soltares 07-02-07, 09:06 AM	But the flip side of that is "Would you be helpful for someone that asked how to put dual P-90 weilding Jaffa Half-Dragon Drizzt clone (not copy, but literal biological clone) into Eberron"? Five Nations (and the other Eberron books I have) doesn't seem to have anything on that, so I wouldn't be able to offer any useful canonical references or page numbers. So no. Plus I'm not sure what a P-90 (sounds like a gun) or a Jaffa (those Stargate aliens?) is, so I'd be even less able to help. Seems kinda straw-mannish to compare some random collection of non-Eberron stuff to an Eberron-specific thing like the Magebred template... Eberron is very much a fluff setting. The answer to "Can I do it?" is almost always "Yes". "Should I do it" is another question entirely. Obviously I agree, given that I went on to mention that I would only allow it in a special circumstance, and that it would require some sort of special procedure / rituals / etc., since it wasn't something that Vadalis typically did. Does it violate the 'fluff' of Eberron for Vadalis to be able to use some sort of exotic procedure (perhaps even requiring a Limited Wish spell) to extend the Magebred template to an animal that is already alive? Alternately, might the Vadalis breeders be able to produce a Magebred mount or companion from a living creature through some form of mystical parthenogenesis? Who knows. I haven't read enough about House Vadalis to know what spells are involved, or how long it takes (although it *has* been done in a single generation, in the case of Boranel's Magebred Ghost Tigers, although this example also comes from Five Nations, so perhaps it's not 'canon' either). The point being, I don't know that it isn't possible, and there are certainly ways in which it *could* be done. The effect does not seem abusive or unbalancing, particularly if it requires some work / expense on the part of the Paladin for House Vadalis to earn the chance to get this special favor. Is there a spell written up canonically that could apply the Magebred template to a Paladin's Mount? Nope. Nor have I seen any spells written up that apply the Magebred or Horrid template normal or Dire animals, or allowing one to create a Warforged, or to make an Elemental Airship or a Lightning Rail. These are NPC things, probably not able to be accomplished with a single spell by a single caster. These things do exist in the setting, however, and seem to be thematically appropriate to the setting. In fact, the setting is *crawling* with things that the PCs normally can't create. Kinda the point of adventure, really, to discover new things, as gnomes of Zilargo and the scions of House Cannith once did. Fortunately, their DMs were amenable to letting them discover something that didn't already exist in the core rules. If the OP had asked about adding a template designed for the Forgotten Realms setting, I'd be at a loss. I don't think the 'Chosen of Bane' template really fits the themes of Eberron, and I'm not sure the mechanics of that template suit any of the Dark Six. It would require some work, and really, given the distance of the gods of Eberron, the whole 'Chosen' notion really doesn't feel right anyway. But Eberron has an entire House devoted towards upgrading creatures with the Magebred template, and can even *apply it to themselves* (and hey, members of House Vadalis aren't of the Animal type! Yet another instance of a specific circumstance proving to be an exception to a general rule.) as the capstone of a PrC (which, sigh, again comes from a dubious secondary source, in this case, Dragonmarked, IIRC, so probably doesn't count). It doesn't seem to violate the integrity of the Eberron setting to attempt to apply something specific to the setting, which has an entire faction devoted to applying it to creatures in the setting, to a creature in the setting! If anything, it seems like a logical outgrowth of House Vadalis research. They would *want* to be able to make their enhanced animals available to Paladins, Rangers and Druids, so as to expand their salesbase, and have some powerful PC-classed individuals coming to them and perhaps owing them favors! One could argue that many Druids and Rangers wouldn't accept such 'modified' animals (certainly not Ashbound Druids!), but other Druids seem perfectly fine with modifying animals through Awakening, or even applying the Horrid template to turn them into acid-dripping mutated freakshows! Depends on the Druid, I guess. Some are more concerned with the survival and well-being of the species than whether or not it remains pretty. Discussing reasons why something should not be done are just as valid as discussing why they should. Sure, but his DM is the one that is going to make the decision. He doesn't need me to tell him what he can and cannot do. It might be useful to have a list somewhere of Eberron books that 'don't count' like Five Nations, so that newcomers to the game don't get caught up thinking that they are official. That wasn't meant snarkily. I'm actually kind of annoyed that I bought the darn thing.
AntiSean 07-02-07, 10:33 AM	But Eberron has an entire House devoted towards upgrading creatures with the Magebred template, and can even *apply it to themselves* (and hey, members of House Vadalis aren't of the Animal type! Yet another instance of a specific circumstance proving to be an exception to a general rule.) as the capstone of a PrC (which, sigh, again comes from a dubious secondary source, in this case, Dragonmarked, IIRC, so probably doesn't count). It doesn't seem to violate the integrity of the Eberron setting to attempt to apply something specific to the setting, which has an entire faction devoted to applying it to creatures in the setting, to a creature in the setting! 1) Among other things, Vadalis is devoted to upgrading *animals* with the Magebred template, not *creatures*. While it stands to reason that certain members within the house are attempting to generate Magebred magical beasts, so far they have not met with any success (the Vadalis Beastkeeper PrC notwithstanding). 2) IDHTBIFOM, but IIRC, the Vadalis Beastkeeper PrC explicitly stated that the application of the Magebred template to animal companions/mounts, and the character itself was an exception to the standard rules governing the template. The Five Nations entries in question have no such explicit statements.
Soltares 07-02-07, 11:44 AM	1) Among other things, Vadalis is devoted to upgrading *animals* with the Magebred template, not *creatures*. While it stands to reason that certain members within the house are attempting to generate Magebred magical beasts, so far they have not met with any success (the Vadalis Beastkeeper PrC notwithstanding). By 'devoted to' I meant 'devoted to.' They do indeed seem to be devoted to applying this template to other creatures, summoned beasties, special mounts / companions, and indeed their humanoid selves via the PrC you've mentioned. If they *didn't* want to do this, why have a PrC with two different class abilities to do this very thing? This is not the same as saying that they have established and always-successful procedures in place to accomplish all of these goals, just as House Cannith is 'devoted to' all sorts of stuff that they can't get away with (yet, or legally)... They seem to be primarily successful with animals, despite exceptions in at least two books of humanoids or magical beasts with the Magebred template. They are good at applying Magebred to animals, and can do so reliably, despite no actual rules existing to describe the process (which PCs shouldn't have any need for anyway), but House Vadalis has been established in more than one source as being capable of applying the template to other sorts of creature. It seems unlikely that any of the Dragonmarked Houses are just going to give up innovating at this point, and it would be logical for House Vadalis to have created 'Magebreed potions' or something fifty years hence that a person can feel to a normal Animal and give it the benefits of the Magebred template for an hour or so. On the other hand, research into finding a way to grant their own Scions the Magebreed template advantages, without having to complete a 10 level PrC, might end up having dire consequences... Whatever works for the story, and an amoral Vadalin researcher who has taken to capturing people to experiment upon, trying to find a 'shortcut' to giving himself Magebred qualities, and whose 'failures' have taken on animalistic traits, or even become feral in personality, could make for an interesting adventure. 2) IDHTBIFOM, but IIRC, the Vadalis Beastkeeper PrC explicitly stated that the application of the Magebred template to animal companions/mounts, and the character itself was an exception to the standard rules governing the template. The Five Nations entries in question have no such explicit statements. I also am not near my books, but I don't really see the issue here. It's a general to specific thing. *Generally,* House Vadalis only applies the template to animals, and generally, Druids and Rangers can't take a Magebred animals as a Companion. *Specifically,* certain very specific Druids have two Magebred animals as Companion choices. *Specifically,* members of the Beastkeeper PrC can apply the Magebred template temporarily to animals they summon, or to themselves, longer-term. *Specifically,* some Paladin who is the personal guard of one of the most politically powerful people in the Five Nations, has managed to aquire a Magebred mount. Sounds pretty unusual, but not at all out of character for the setting, which already has several general-to-specific exceptions in place, and has the Houses constant quest to further their own power and influence as a central theme, just as House Cannith, despite *technically* no longer being able to create Warforged, still not only doing so, but designing new *types* of Warforged not mentioned in the ECS in new books (such as the Warforged Scout, or the flying one mentioned in Forge of War). New information that *adds* to the setting isn't necessarily something that needs to be shunned. If it *subtracts* from the setting, limits character / roleplay choices (which is not the same to say 'limits powerplay options,' 'cause that isn't always a bad thing!) or damages the theme, such as the whole 'Silver Flame are all eeeevil Torquemada-wannabes' notion, then yes, the newer information might not be suitable for every game. But that's a DMs choice, to decide which information he wants to use. It isn't something that needs to be enforced by a bunch of message-board posters who happen to dislike the Five Nations and Dragonmarked books.
Euangelion 07-02-07, 04:04 PM	The references to magebred animal companions in Five Nations is a mistake. There was originally a feat allowing a druid/ranger to select a magebred animal as an animal companion but it was dropped. References to the magebred companions were inadvertently left in. (This is something Hellcow mentioned a long while back.) IMHO, it's just one more example of how Five Nations is a train wreck (due to a misguided strategy of assigning too many authors to Eberron sourcebooks who were unfamiliar with the setting.) It'd be nice to see an official errata for it, but they don't seem to be doing errata anymore. The reference to a paladin magebred mount is probably along the same lines - a mistake. Of course, another issue for Eberron is this: where do paladin mounts actually come from? Syrania? Lamannia? Irian? I'd say Lamannia, simply because that's one place where celestial animals can be found, but paladin mounts aren't specifically celestial. Thus the 3.5 paladin mount system doesn't make sense particularly for Eberron. I'd go with the 3.0 version. Of course, the 3.5 way is a fun and easy way to annihilate anything. Put object, person, whatever in a bag of holding. Put bag on paladin mount. Dismiss paladin mount. Kill paladin. Case closed. (I'm mostly joking.)
Shady314 07-02-07, 04:20 PM	I also am not near my books, but I don't really see the issue here. The issue is whether or not an obvious mistake in a sourcebook should be taken as gospel because WOTC can't bother to errata their books. It's a general to specific thing. *Generally,* House Vadalis only applies the template to animals, and generally, Druids and Rangers can't take a Magebred animals as a Companion. *Specifically,* certain very specific Druids have two Magebred animals as Companion choices. *Specifically,* members of the Beastkeeper PrC can apply the Magebred template temporarily to animals they summon, or to themselves, longer-term. *Specifically,* some Paladin who is the personal guard of one of the most politically powerful people in the Five Nations, has managed to aquire a Magebred mount. There's nothing general about pg. 37 of the ECS. "Ever" is pretty clear. That's not to say I'm opposed to exceptions. Sounds pretty unusual, but not at all out of character for the setting, which already has several general-to-specific exceptions in place, and has the Houses constant quest to further their own power and influence as a central theme, just as House Cannith, despite *technically* no longer being able to create Warforged, still not only doing so, but designing new *types* of Warforged not mentioned in the ECS in new books (such as the Warforged Scout, or the flying one mentioned in Forge of War). New information that *adds* to the setting isn't necessarily something that needs to be shunned. No one is against the Vadalis Beastkeeper that I've seen. Because it did something very important the 5N author didn't. He acknowledged this was a deviation from the standard rules. If 5N was meant to be taken as a sign that suddenly magebred could apply to animal companions or paladin special mounts why should this PRC bother to acknowledge that it broke a setting rule? Instead the author of DM said here's a 10 level PRC that you may or may not choose to use that at the 5th and 10th level let you use the magebred template in new and unique ways that could be very kewl. Even if you let the PRC exist the PC may be the first to ever take it. Or the first to take it to 5th level and beyond or the first to actually have a paladin mount to use it on. That's unique and special. In 5N a simple mistake is made twice. If the author never once acknowledges that this is an exceptional circumstance the only logical course of action is to assume the author made a mistake. Otherwise it's certain the author would have made some passing reference to say "yeah this is weird I know." So yeah if you want to be a member of House Vadalis and pursue a specialized PRC you could be the first person ever to have a magebred paladin mount! That's pretty awesome. An NPC paladin of Thrane just having one with no explanation? Stupid mistake. If it *subtracts* from the setting, limits character / roleplay choices (which is not the same to say 'limits powerplay options,' 'cause that isn't always a bad thing!) or damages the theme, such as the whole 'Silver Flame are all eeeevil Torquemada-wannabes' notion, then yes, the newer information might not be suitable for every game. But that's a DMs choice, to decide which information he wants to use. It isn't something that needs to be enforced by a bunch of message-board posters who happen to dislike the Five Nations and Dragonmarked books. I think it does detract from the Eberron setting to apply the magebred template to anything you want even if it doesn't qualify just because it adds "character options."
Shady314 07-02-07, 04:21 PM	The references to magebred animal companions in Five Nations is a mistake. There was originally a feat allowing a druid/ranger to select a magebred animal as an animal companion but it was dropped. References to the magebred companions were inadvertently left in. (This is something Hellcow mentioned a long while back.) Thanks that adds a lot of clarity. IMHO, it's just one more example of how Five Nations is a train wreck (due to a misguided strategy of assigning too many authors to Eberron sourcebooks who were unfamiliar with the setting.) It'd be nice to see an official errata for it, but they don't seem to be doing errata anymore. The reference to a paladin magebred mount is probably along the same lines - a mistake. I agree with you.
mightyix 07-03-07, 03:07 AM	Vadalis Beastkeeper prestige class from "Dragonmarked" specifically allows an animal companion or special mount to gain the Magebred template at 5th level, or 10th character level. It also provides three bonus feats over 10 levels related to mounted combat and grants a +2 increase to a physical stat at class lv. 10 with limited spellcasting ability throughout. A paladin isn't going to get all of the class benefits, but it's a legit way to get good mounted fighter feats and a magebred animal companion. My current character build takes advantage of Druid animal companions instead of Paladin... I've got an animal companion equal to my character level -1, and a BAB of the same. Human Druid 1, F4, Beastmaster 1, Vadalis Beastkeeper 4 H: Least Dragonmark: Vadalis 1: Skill Focus: Handle Animal F1: Weapon Focus: Lance F2: Mounted Combat 3: Feral Mark F4: Weapon Specialization: Lance 6: Lesser Dragonmark: Vadalis V1: Ride By Attack 9: Greater Dragonmark Eventual Progression is - finishing out Vadalis Beastkeeper (prolly going druid for the final 4 levels unless I decide to do something for fluff reasons) V4: Powerful Charge 12: Dragonmark Visionary (or whatever one gives additional greater dmark ability) V7: Another Beastkeeper Bonus Feat 15: No freakin' clue. Any assistance with the final build would be appreciated.
The White Sorcerer 07-03-07, 03:18 AM	On the subject of Brelish druids getting magebred companions... Little good does the option do them, since neither dire lions nor polar bears are valid options for Brelish druids. Thus, they can't be replaced by magebred ghost tigers or magebred brown bears.
Syltorian 07-03-07, 06:19 AM	The references to magebred animal companions in Five Nations is a mistake. There was originally a feat allowing a druid/ranger to select a magebred animal as an animal companion but it was dropped. References to the magebred companions were inadvertently left in. (This is something Hellcow mentioned a long while back.) That does help a lot to explain this. Thanks!
Euangelion 07-03-07, 11:03 AM	On the subject of Brelish druids getting magebred companions... Little good does the option do them, since neither dire lions nor polar bears are valid options for Brelish druids. Thus, they can't be replaced by magebred ghost tigers or magebred brown bears. Again, this illustrates that work on Five Nations began before the ECS was even published. The area-specific choices for animal companions was probably a later addition to the ECS, and thus the author of that section in 5N(assuming it wasn't Bill) probably didn't have the right information at hand. If it was Bill, then there's not much excuse since he worked on both! :D However, what's done is done. We just need to remember that in terms of the "canon within the canon" that the ECS is the highest authority on the setting. Sourcebooks may differ on details, but unless a sourcebook covers something that the ECS doesn't or specifically addresses a change from the ECS, the ECS trumps the others. Then again, nothing trumps the DM, so a DM is free to allow magebred animal companions if he/she so desires. I'm not going to stop them. ;)
Captain_Kobold 07-05-07, 09:27 AM	It might be possible that the Brelish magebred animal companions are allowed because magebred brown bears and Ghost tigers have escaped into the wild, and are now living and breeding as wild animals. Given that they are options to be taken as 10th level animal companions (non-magebred brown bears are available at 7th) I would assume that it is fairly balanced.