I got this idea directly from DnD, third edition. It's a spell called 'heal mount'. It fully heals your mount. It can only be cast on mounts, and fully heals them. Keeps you united with your mount unless you neglect to cast it. Probably could be 5th-6th circle without being overpowered.
------------------
-Yayaril
Idea for anti/paladins
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
Could just make them immune to all area effects since they are allready immune to direct damage spells and melee. full heal will not give the help it should because in a serious fight with a dragon or more than one area casting mob your horse is dying.
Sounds more like a band-aid fix than what is needed. But this horse has been beat many times before (ha-ha) and hopefully something will change when new mounts come in!
-The dismounted rider.
------------------
Sounds more like a band-aid fix than what is needed. But this horse has been beat many times before (ha-ha) and hopefully something will change when new mounts come in!
-The dismounted rider.
------------------
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
I think antis and paladins should be able to get saddles for mounts. Make fly saddles, levi saddles, prot saddles etc. So maybe you could bring them to places like smoke, or any zone where you need to fly, etc, Give them a chance to actually ride the horse instead of being screwed all the time without it.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
I still think that horses should take area damage - it's supposed to be hazardous to take them into Brass, or to fight a dragon.
What I *don't* agree with is the fact that all pets have to have their own prot eq, and often they can't wear most slots, so you have to find very specific items.
I think an influx of pet wearable (but NOT PC wearable) prot/save eq could fix most mortality problems...
------------------
Kiaransalee responds to your petition with 'look on the bright side, I just saved you some corpses. We all know you would have gotten spanked'
What I *don't* agree with is the fact that all pets have to have their own prot eq, and often they can't wear most slots, so you have to find very specific items.
I think an influx of pet wearable (but NOT PC wearable) prot/save eq could fix most mortality problems...
------------------
Kiaransalee responds to your petition with 'look on the bright side, I just saved you some corpses. We all know you would have gotten spanked'
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by moritheil:
<B>I still think that horses should take area damage - it's supposed to be hazardous to take them into Brass, or to fight a dragon.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the realism point of view. Of course, going by this point of view there is no reason why horses can't tank for or assist you. If realism doesn't apply in some places, there's no need for it to apply in all places.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<B>I still think that horses should take area damage - it's supposed to be hazardous to take them into Brass, or to fight a dragon.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the realism point of view. Of course, going by this point of view there is no reason why horses can't tank for or assist you. If realism doesn't apply in some places, there's no need for it to apply in all places.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xisiqomelir:
<B> This is the realism point of view. Of course, going by this point of view there is no reason why horses can't tank for or assist you. If realism doesn't apply in some places, there's no need for it to apply in all places.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horses, as non-sentient beings, would not assist you in a fight. If you ever lived/worked near horses you would realize that if you are fighting they will either stay and watch, or run away. As for tanking, anyone who is trying to kill the horse while the rider stabs them repeatedly deserves to die. However, if you are standing next to a horse and a grenade goes off, the horse will most certainly be hit by said grenade, possibly breaking a leg, and then being put down, chopped up, and served to you in hamburger form at your local fast food restaurant.
Oh btw, spake isn't even a word.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
<B> This is the realism point of view. Of course, going by this point of view there is no reason why horses can't tank for or assist you. If realism doesn't apply in some places, there's no need for it to apply in all places.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Horses, as non-sentient beings, would not assist you in a fight. If you ever lived/worked near horses you would realize that if you are fighting they will either stay and watch, or run away. As for tanking, anyone who is trying to kill the horse while the rider stabs them repeatedly deserves to die. However, if you are standing next to a horse and a grenade goes off, the horse will most certainly be hit by said grenade, possibly breaking a leg, and then being put down, chopped up, and served to you in hamburger form at your local fast food restaurant.
Oh btw, spake isn't even a word.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
-
kiryan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
id like to see mounts be harder to kill. They've come a long long ways, but they are very cumbersome. not only keeping them alive (which is way way easier now), but gimp things like running out of moves, and fire prot. at least they can swim.
wouldn't it be cool if mounts were equivalent to vigs over a 500 room jaunt without having to leave them behind and resummon new ones? be cool if mounts only lost 1 move per room under any terrain.
------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
wouldn't it be cool if mounts were equivalent to vigs over a 500 room jaunt without having to leave them behind and resummon new ones? be cool if mounts only lost 1 move per room under any terrain.
------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> Horses, as non-sentient beings, would not assist you in a fight. If you ever lived/worked near horses you would realize that if you are fighting they will either stay and watch, or run away. As for tanking, anyone who is trying to kill the horse while the rider stabs them repeatedly deserves to die. However, if you are standing next to a horse and a grenade goes off, the horse will most certainly be hit by said grenade, possibly breaking a leg, and then being put down, chopped up, and served to you in hamburger form at your local fast food restaurant.
Oh btw, spake isn't even a word.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanuk knows, because he is a horse in RL.
------------------
-Yayaril
<B> Horses, as non-sentient beings, would not assist you in a fight. If you ever lived/worked near horses you would realize that if you are fighting they will either stay and watch, or run away. As for tanking, anyone who is trying to kill the horse while the rider stabs them repeatedly deserves to die. However, if you are standing next to a horse and a grenade goes off, the horse will most certainly be hit by said grenade, possibly breaking a leg, and then being put down, chopped up, and served to you in hamburger form at your local fast food restaurant.
Oh btw, spake isn't even a word.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanuk knows, because he is a horse in RL.
------------------
-Yayaril
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by thanuk:
<B> Horses, as non-sentient beings, would not assist you in a fight.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but paladin/antipaladin mounts are meant to be much improved from a base example of their species. Higher intelligence, hitpoints and so on. As people constantly point out, however, this is not tabletop D&D.
"Spake" is an archaic spelling of spoke, regarding your other point
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<B> Horses, as non-sentient beings, would not assist you in a fight.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but paladin/antipaladin mounts are meant to be much improved from a base example of their species. Higher intelligence, hitpoints and so on. As people constantly point out, however, this is not tabletop D&D.
"Spake" is an archaic spelling of spoke, regarding your other point
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
I think a skill or innate that allowed any healing magic cast on a paladin or anti to have a copy cast on their mount would be a good solution too.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
------------------
You fire a black-shafted elven arrow to the east at Gormal's pet goat with masterful shooting that does lethal damage!
You receive your share of experience.
horses are smarter than some of the people who mud here.. you can train horses to fight.. and lil tricks... to come to you...
i just think its funny.. i can wear fly and run farther than my horse....
not to mention dragon fight, horse dies new horse horse dies, new horse.. horse dies.. dragons dead. ok guess i sit around for a while now...
------------------
MoM-D
i just think its funny.. i can wear fly and run farther than my horse....
not to mention dragon fight, horse dies new horse horse dies, new horse.. horse dies.. dragons dead. ok guess i sit around for a while now...
------------------
MoM-D
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>Horses are still sentient beings. It's not as though they're catatonic or something just because they don't fight.
Zalk</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only humans are sentient, although it is believed that dolphins may be as well. The difference between being alive and being sentient is awareness and the ability to reason. Horses have been studied, along with many other animals, and although they can be conditioned to jump and the like, that by no means makes them sentient. On a side note, there is a chicken in atlantic city that you can play against in tic tac toe for 10,000 dollars, and it hardly ever loses. I guess that means moritheil could be sentient after all.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
<B>Horses are still sentient beings. It's not as though they're catatonic or something just because they don't fight.
Zalk</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only humans are sentient, although it is believed that dolphins may be as well. The difference between being alive and being sentient is awareness and the ability to reason. Horses have been studied, along with many other animals, and although they can be conditioned to jump and the like, that by no means makes them sentient. On a side note, there is a chicken in atlantic city that you can play against in tic tac toe for 10,000 dollars, and it hardly ever loses. I guess that means moritheil could be sentient after all.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
Merriam-Webster defines sentient as:
1. Capable of feeling
2. Having the power of sense perception
Please don't try to tell me that animals (whatever their intelligence level) don't feel, and don't have senses.
I've worked with animals all my life, they can be angry, frightened, happy, sad... All traits of sentient beings. I'm sorry but that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Mori, however... I cannot vouch for.
Zalkenai
1. Capable of feeling
2. Having the power of sense perception
Please don't try to tell me that animals (whatever their intelligence level) don't feel, and don't have senses.
I've worked with animals all my life, they can be angry, frightened, happy, sad... All traits of sentient beings. I'm sorry but that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Mori, however... I cannot vouch for.
Zalkenai
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
<B>Merriam-Webster defines sentient as:
1. Capable of feeling
2. Having the power of sense perception
Please don't try to tell me that animals (whatever their intelligence level) don't feel, and don't have senses.
I've worked with animals all my life, they can be angry, frightened, happy, sad... All traits of sentient beings. I'm sorry but that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Mori, however... I cannot vouch for.
Zalkenai
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Animals have shown to have low level feelings and or senses. Yes the can hear see taste etc etc, yes they feel pain, and they feel the equivalent of happiness, but again only on the most basic levels. The emotions you claim to see in animals are just you putting them there in your mind, im sorry to break it to you.
Angry, frightened, happy, sad. These are the most basic emotions, and they are all reflexive in animals in accordance with instinct, having nothing to do with sentience. Angry because animals are territorial, they will become angry if you invade their space or remove their means to eat/drink and reproduce, or otherwise threaten them. Frightened, again a reflexive "emotion" if they feel they are in danger. "Happy" is just contentment if they have reached one of their basic needs, if you give a horse an apple it will be "happy" because it just got fed. Sadness as you put it, is simply a by-product of fear. If you scold a pet, it will seem "sad" to you, but in fact it is simply reacting to the fear you had instilled in it earlier when you disciplined the animal. All of these are present in humans as emotions, yes, but all are of a subconscious nature, which is why they are not attributes of sentience. Sentient emotions such as empathy, shame, disgust, etc etc can not be found in animals. The dog doesn't care that it shit on the floor; it cares that you yelled at it for shitting on the floor. It will refrane from doing so in the future because it wishes to avoid the punishment, not because it comes to realize that the floor is not the proper place for it to shit. It will also forget 15 minutes later that it even shit on the floor, so if you do not discipline the animal right away it will be for naught. Because animals function primarily on instinct, and lack the ability to reason, they are non-sentient beings. Because their instinctual behavior somewhat resembles the sentient emotions that humans experience, people often confuse the two and label the animal to have complex emotional characteristics; although science has repeatedly proven they do not possess these emotions. Your beliefs about animals and their sentience are very common, but unfortunately they are a by-product of your own mind. Animals are not sentient, do not function based on any logic or reason, but rather act they way they do because of instinct, and in the case of contained animals, conditioning. Any complexity within their behavior that you may see can easily be explained on a much simpler level, if you care to look at it impartially.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
<B>Merriam-Webster defines sentient as:
1. Capable of feeling
2. Having the power of sense perception
Please don't try to tell me that animals (whatever their intelligence level) don't feel, and don't have senses.
I've worked with animals all my life, they can be angry, frightened, happy, sad... All traits of sentient beings. I'm sorry but that was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Mori, however... I cannot vouch for.
Zalkenai
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Animals have shown to have low level feelings and or senses. Yes the can hear see taste etc etc, yes they feel pain, and they feel the equivalent of happiness, but again only on the most basic levels. The emotions you claim to see in animals are just you putting them there in your mind, im sorry to break it to you.
Angry, frightened, happy, sad. These are the most basic emotions, and they are all reflexive in animals in accordance with instinct, having nothing to do with sentience. Angry because animals are territorial, they will become angry if you invade their space or remove their means to eat/drink and reproduce, or otherwise threaten them. Frightened, again a reflexive "emotion" if they feel they are in danger. "Happy" is just contentment if they have reached one of their basic needs, if you give a horse an apple it will be "happy" because it just got fed. Sadness as you put it, is simply a by-product of fear. If you scold a pet, it will seem "sad" to you, but in fact it is simply reacting to the fear you had instilled in it earlier when you disciplined the animal. All of these are present in humans as emotions, yes, but all are of a subconscious nature, which is why they are not attributes of sentience. Sentient emotions such as empathy, shame, disgust, etc etc can not be found in animals. The dog doesn't care that it shit on the floor; it cares that you yelled at it for shitting on the floor. It will refrane from doing so in the future because it wishes to avoid the punishment, not because it comes to realize that the floor is not the proper place for it to shit. It will also forget 15 minutes later that it even shit on the floor, so if you do not discipline the animal right away it will be for naught. Because animals function primarily on instinct, and lack the ability to reason, they are non-sentient beings. Because their instinctual behavior somewhat resembles the sentient emotions that humans experience, people often confuse the two and label the animal to have complex emotional characteristics; although science has repeatedly proven they do not possess these emotions. Your beliefs about animals and their sentience are very common, but unfortunately they are a by-product of your own mind. Animals are not sentient, do not function based on any logic or reason, but rather act they way they do because of instinct, and in the case of contained animals, conditioning. Any complexity within their behavior that you may see can easily be explained on a much simpler level, if you care to look at it impartially.
------------------
Thanuk Pantherclaw
A very good argument... Please keep in mind however that there are many scientific studies on animals. Science on a whole hasn't proven anything. There are some studies that back your statements, and some that back mine. Colorado State University has some excellent papers, I think you might enjoy them, as you seem to have done quite a bit of research on the matter. (that wasn't sarcasm, I really think you would!)
Perhaps leave this to a matter of opinion?
Zalkenai
Perhaps leave this to a matter of opinion?
Zalkenai
what the hell, first it started to sound like people arguing about mounts and now everyone is a veterinarian(sp for all you spelling nazi's).
Personally I don't mind my mounts going up in smoke, it kindof bugs, but if they were that much better i think the warrior class would suffer. The detriments of having mounts get killed in areas, unable to go into certain buildings, having to mount/dismount in every room/etc.. is one of the things that makes a warrior more appealing.
While I think the spell list between antis and pallys could use a change, (the only spells used are 1st 2nd 9th and 10th circle), Im not really sure full heal mount would be necessary. I dont see using it in combat versus rescuing casters (though it'd be funny in a log to full heal a horse instead of rescuing a chanter).
I just want a different kind of horse
------------------
Ensis Inferni
Bish Enterprises Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1999 Fydollaho Productions.
Personally I don't mind my mounts going up in smoke, it kindof bugs, but if they were that much better i think the warrior class would suffer. The detriments of having mounts get killed in areas, unable to go into certain buildings, having to mount/dismount in every room/etc.. is one of the things that makes a warrior more appealing.
While I think the spell list between antis and pallys could use a change, (the only spells used are 1st 2nd 9th and 10th circle), Im not really sure full heal mount would be necessary. I dont see using it in combat versus rescuing casters (though it'd be funny in a log to full heal a horse instead of rescuing a chanter).
I just want a different kind of horse
------------------
Ensis Inferni
Bish Enterprises Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1999 Fydollaho Productions.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zalkenai:
Science on a whole hasn't proven anything. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Kiaransalee responds to your petition with 'look on the bright side, I just saved you some corpses. We all know you would have gotten spanked'
Science on a whole hasn't proven anything. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Kiaransalee responds to your petition with 'look on the bright side, I just saved you some corpses. We all know you would have gotten spanked'
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests