Find Steed

[MadGrady]

Does my summoned mount obtained through the Find Steed spell get to attack? There is no specific text (as in find familiar) that prevents it.

[Eslin]

Does my summoned mount obtained through the Find Steed spell get to attack? There is no specific text (as in find familiar) that prevents it.

It does, yes. If you find the attacks need to scale, get your hands on produce flame and it'll let the mount throw fire.

[MadGrady]

It does, yes. If you find the attacks need to scale, get your hands on produce flame and it'll let the mount throw fire.

Nice! Something to discuss with my DM.....

[JoeJ]

How would Produce Flame work for a steed that doesn't have hands? Where does the flame appear?

[Shadow]

Nice! Something to discuss with my DM.....

That is not how duplicating spells works or was intended to work.

[Strill]

That is not how duplicating spells works or was intended to work.

Why? It looks fine to me.

[Safety Sword]

It does, yes. If you find the attacks need to scale, get your hands on produce flame and it'll let the mount throw fire.

Here we go AGAIN.

[Eslin]

How would Produce Flame work for a steed that doesn't have hands? Where does the flame appear?

Presumably the same place it would for a naga, boar or dragon. Hands are a fluff description.

[Shadow]

Be very careful about who you listen to regarding what characters/feats/spells are capable of.
Your DM may be lactose intolerant.

[Eslin]

Be very careful about who you listen to regarding what characters/feats/spells are capable of.
Your DM may be lactose intolerant.

No-one's arguing for doubling up of self(cone/cube/line) blasting spells. But there's no reason you can't, say, cast produce flame before battle and do something fun with your first round while your horse chucks the fire at someone. There are plenty of interesting self targeted spells in the game to combo find steed with without getting into abusive readings of the rules.

Speaking of which, true polymorph's wording means it probably uses the mount's CR, but shapechange is sharable and definitely lets the mount use your level as the determining factor. Double your fun!

[JoeJ]

Presumably the same place it would for a naga, boar or dragon. Hands are a fluff description.

A naga or a dragon would presumably have a variant of the spell that works for them. Boars don't cast spells, so it's not even an issue. In the case we're talking about, however, the caster does have hands but the mount doesn't. So I just want to know what this looks like in world: where is the flame appearing, and how does the mount throw it?

[Shadow]

So I just want to know what this looks like in world: where is the flame appearing, and how does the mount throw it?

Simple.
It isn't and he doesn't.

[Eslin]

A naga or a dragon would presumably have a variant of the spell that works for them. Boars don't cast spells, so it's not even an issue.
Druids say hi.


In the case we're talking about, however, the caster does have hands but the mount doesn't. So I just want to know what this looks like in world: where is the flame appearing, and how does the mount throw it?
The exact same place and way it would for a level 18+ druid who turns into a mount.

If you met a dragon that cast burning hands on you would you call shenanigans just because the spell involves the word hands? This is pedantry of the highest order.

[JoeJ]

The exact same place and way it would for a level 18+ druid who turns into a mount.

Which is???

If something is going to happen in the game, then either the DM or the player needs to be able to describe what the other characters see. I can describe, for example, using Shapechange to turn myself and my steed into a pit fiend riding an ancient brass dragon, but what does it look like when an un-shapechanged horse casts Produce Flame?

[silveralen]

Which is???

It's mouth, it spits the fire at you.

It's not even close to most absurd thing in DnD.

[Eslin]

Which is???

If something is going to happen in the game, then either the DM or the player needs to be able to describe what the other characters see. I can describe, for example, using Shapechange to turn myself and my steed into a pit fiend riding an ancient brass dragon, but what does it look like when an un-shapechanged horse casts Produce Flame?

Which is the same place the found steed casts it, since we know the druid example is legal and can happen in the exact same shape as the steed has.

If you need a description, I'd probably have it spitting fire from its mouth. That's how the druid described doing it in her human form most of the time in any case, which I allowed rather than her hands because the idea that it literally had to sit in her hand despite where it was coming from not changing anything at all never occurred to me. As a side note, where the flame sits is seperate from the somatic components required to cast it.

When the bard picked up the spell, in keeping with the high dexterity and fighting as if dancing he usually had it fly out from his hands or feet. Because why not?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I believe one of the horses of the apocolypse is said to breathe fire from its nostrils... Sounds like produce flame to me.

[Shadow]

I believe one of the horses of the apocolypse is said to breathe fire from its nostrils... Sounds like produce flame to me.

And when one of the horses of the apocalypse stops being a magical creature and becomes a normal beast allowed to be summoned by the Find Steed spell you'll have a decent precedent for it. Until then, not so much.

[silveralen]

And when one of the horses of the apocalypse stops being a magical creature and becomes a normal beast allowed to be summoned by the Find Steed spell you'll have a decent precedent for it. Until then, not so much.

No precedent needed it is literally what the rules say you can do. It isn't even a strict no no RAI, because of how creature economy action works produce flame would be no better via horse than it would via caster.

At least, if it works like I recall, I actually may be thinking of a spell from a different edition. Does it require a separate action to throw?

[JoeJ]

It's mouth, it spits the fire at you.

It's not even close to most absurd thing in DnD.

Okay, I can see the mouth making sense. My dog uses her mouth to do a lot of things that I do with my hands, and I guess a horse probably would too.

I still prefer the idea of using Find Steed + Shapechange to turn into a pit fiend riding an ancient dragon, though. ;-)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Okay, I can see the mouth making sense. My dog uses her mouth to do a lot of things that I do with my hands, and I guess a horse probably would too.

I still prefer the idea of using Find Steed + Shapechange to turn into a pit fiend riding an ancient dragon, though. ;-)

But oh no! There is no rules for creatures using their mouths to do anything other than whats in their stat block... All those others will call your crazy plan abuse of RAI!!!! Your dog wouldn't be able to do anything that the rules don't specifically call out because it is a mouth and not a hand!!!

[silveralen]

Okay, I can see the mouth making sense. My dog uses her mouth to do a lot of things that I do with my hands, and I guess a horse probably would too.

I still prefer the idea of using Find Steed + Shapechange to turn into a pit fiend riding an ancient dragon, though. ;-)

I mean, if you wanna wait till level 20. Even then you get stuck with the lamest ones. I'll take a firebreathing horse over a brass dragon.

[JoeJ]

But oh no! There is no rules for creatures using their mouths to do anything other than whats in their stat block... All those others will call your crazy plan abuse of RAI!!!! Your dog wouldn't be able to do anything that the rules don't specifically call out because it is a mouth and not a hand!!!

If there's no rules about using mouths, then there's no rule against it either. And in any case, I'm pretty sure my dog doesn't care about the rules of some magic elf game. ;-p

[Shadow]

People, your summoned steed has the Share spells ability from earlier editions.
That's what the sentence about sharing your spells means. It doesn't mean that you cast produce flame and your horse also throws fire right beside you. It means it has the share spells ability from earlier editions while you're mounted.

[JoeJ]

And when one of the horses of the apocalypse stops being a magical creature and becomes a normal beast allowed to be summoned by the Find Steed spell you'll have a decent precedent for it. Until then, not so much.

Find Steed can't summon a normal beast. It summons a celestial, fey, or fiendish spirit.

[MaxWilson]

Okay, I can see the mouth making sense. My dog uses her mouth to do a lot of things that I do with my hands, and I guess a horse probably would too.

I still prefer the idea of using Find Steed + Shapechange to turn into a pit fiend riding an ancient dragon, though. ;-)

That... is actually pretty awesome. I wonder if it would actually work.

[Shadow]

Find Steed can't summon a normal beast. It summons a celestial, fey, or fiendish spirit.

Technically it's the spirit of one of those creatures in the body of a horse, or whatever. They just did that so effects which target beasts can't target your summoned steed. It makes your steed something which takes a little more power to affect.
It has no spellcasting ability.

[silveralen]

Technically it's the spirit of one of those creatures in the body of a horse, or whatever. They just did that so effects which target beasts can't target your summoned steed. It makes your steed something which takes a little more power to affect.
It has no spellcasting ability.

Right. It isn't casting a spell, you are. You automatically twin the spell via the steed.

If this wasn't intended, someone should be fired, I don't know what other possible effect you could expect from that feature.

They didn't give it the shared spells ability from earlier editions. They could have certainly, it wouldn't have been hard to simple use the same language, but they chose not to. That's either gross incompetence, or intentional.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If there's no rules about using mouths, then there's no rule against it either. And in any case, I'm pretty sure my dog doesn't care about the rules of some magic elf game. ;-p

That was my point, I was being sarcastic.

[Shadow]

They didn't give it the shared spells ability from earlier editions. They could have certainly, it wouldn't have been hard to simple use the same language, but they chose not to. That's either gross incompetence, or intentional.

Spells which only target you are buff spells. That's why you're casting it on yourself. When you do so, if you are mounted on your steed, it gains the benefit as well.
That's shared spells.
Spells which you cast on yourself that only target you aren't harmful. Allowing your steed to throw your magical fire at a target other than you means that the spell no longer targets only you.

[MaxWilson]

Spells which only target you are buff spells. That's why you're casting it on yourself. When you do so, if you are mounted on your steed, it gains the benefit as well.
That's shared spells.
Spells which you cast on yourself that only target you aren't harmful. Allowing your steed to throw your magical fire at a target other than you means that the spell no longer targets only you.

Yes for Produce Flame. But Shapechange is a self-buff. I think that combo might actually work.

[JoeJ]

If I use True Polymorph to turn a convenient lizard into the Eye of Vecna, can I implant it into my steed?

[Shadow]

Yes for Produce Flame. But Shapechange is a self-buff. I think that combo might actually work.

Shapechange works fine, yes. Although I would rule that your steed changes into the same form that you do. And if concentration breaks yours, it breaks his as well.

[MaxWilson]

Shapechange works fine, yes. Although I would rule that your steed changes into the same form that you do. And if concentration breaks yours, it breaks his as well.

That's not exactly how I would rule it (I wouldn't require the steed to mirror your form) but it's a ruling that I would find acceptable from a DM.

[Safety Sword]

Yes for Produce Flame. But Shapechange is a self-buff. I think that combo might actually work.

I can't imagine a mount would have the smarts to turn itself into another creature. It doesn't really have any magical training like the caster would have. It wouldn't know what to do with a Shapechange spell...

[silveralen]

Spells which only target you are buff spells. That's why you're casting it on yourself. When you do so, if you are mounted on your steed, it gains the benefit as well.
That's shared spells.
Spells which you cast on yourself that only target you aren't harmful. Allowing your steed to throw your magical fire at a target other than you means that the spell no longer targets only you.

Did I miss something? Many spells beyond buffs have a target of self. Misty step isn't a buff for example. On the other hand, a spell like vampiric touch could be interpreted as a type of buff spell without stretching things.

[Safety Sword]

Did I miss something? Many spells beyond buffs have a target of self. Misty step isn't a buff for example. On the other hand, a spell like vampiric touch could be interpreted as a type of buff spell without stretching things.

If you're riding a horse and you cast Misty Step I think it's intended that the horse has the spell so you can remain mounted. It makes logical sense to me.

Buffs are a clear example of things that should be shared.

[MaxWilson]

I can't imagine a mount would have the smarts to turn itself into another creature. It doesn't really have any magical training like the caster would have. It wouldn't know what to do with a Shapechange spell...

This is an interesting line of argument. I'm not sure that I buy it (you can cast Shapechange with an Int of 3, and steeds from Find Steed some more intelligent than that to me) but it is interesting. In that case it wouldn't know what to do with a Fly spell either.

I would rule that Vampiric Touch is not shared--it targets others, just like Eyebite does.

[Shadow]

I can't imagine a mount would have the smarts to turn itself into another creature. It doesn't really have any magical training like the caster would have. It wouldn't know what to do with a Shapechange spell...

It's almost irrelevant.
It would require 17 druid/sorc/wiz and a 2nd level paladin spell. Impossible.
The only class that can pull off the combo would be a bard using magical secrets, and even then it doesn't come online until 18th level.

[Safety Sword]

This is an interesting line of argument. I'm not sure that I buy it (you can cast Shapechange with an Int of 3, and steeds from Find Steed some more intelligent than that to me) but it is interesting. In that case it wouldn't know what to do with a Fly spell either.

I would rule that Vampiric Touch is not shared--it targets others, just like Eyebite does.

Bear riding bears that turn into horses I guess...

[JoeJ]

This is an interesting line of argument. I'm not sure that I buy it (you can cast Shapechange with an Int of 3, and steeds from Find Steed some more intelligent than that to me) but it is interesting. In that case it wouldn't know what to do with a Fly spell either.

Okay so you're a 20th level bard. You Shapechange yourself and the steed into CR20 pit fiends, with each of you retaining your own Int., Wis., and Cha. scores. Then you use True Polymorph to turn the CR20 pit fiend steed into a CR20 ancient brass dragon, which gives it the dragon's mental ability scores. Concentrate on the spell for 1 hour and you have a permanent ancient dragon steed.

This requires two 9th level spells, so one of them would obviously have to be cast from a scroll (or by a friend).

[MaxWilson]

It's almost irrelevant.
It would require 17 druid/sorc/wiz and a 2nd level paladin spell. Impossible.
The only class that can pull off the combo would be a bard using magical secrets, and even then it doesn't come online until 18th level.

Wish can duplicate Find Steed...

[Shadow]

Wish can duplicate Find Steed...

Which then means you can't cast Shapechange....

[JoeJ]

Which then means you can't cast Shapechange....

Sure you can. You just cast them on different days.

[Shadow]

Sure you can. You just cast them on different days.

As long as your steed doesn't die, and by the time you can cast Wish a horse isn't very hardy.
But even then, if you decide to keep it stabled or something, it still isn't even an option until 17th level, and when your hour of Shapechange is up it's likely to be killed almost immediately, requiring another day for Wish and another day for Shapechange.
So basically, if you give up your 9th level spell slot every single day, you can have one Shapechanged steed for one hour every second day.
Have fun with that.

[JoeJ]

As long as your steed doesn't die, and by the time you can cast Wish a horse isn't very hardy.
But even then, if you decide to keep it stabled or something, it still isn't even an option until 17th level, and when your hour of Shapechange is up it's likely to be killed almost immediately, requiring another day for Wish and another day for Shapechange.
So basically, if you give up your 9th level spell slot every single day, you can have one Shapechanged steed for one hour every second day.
Have fun with that.

Why would it die? There's nothing in the description of Find Steed that says it arrives sick, and it certainly isn't less hardy just because the caster is a higher level. Any enemies I might have will be after me. They aren't likely to waste their time trying to assassinate my horse.

Of course, it only has to last one day. Then I'll cast Shapechange from a scroll followed by True Polymorph which I've prepared, and turn the horse permanently into an ancient dragon.

[Shadow]

Of course, it only has to last one day. Then I'll cast Shapechange from a scroll followed by True Polymorph which I've prepared, and turn the horse permanently into an ancient dragon.

.... an ancient dragon with an intelligence of 2. Say goodbye to all the nearby villages.
Like I said, have fun with that.
And just where do you expect to get a scroll of a 9th level spell on demand like that before we've seen the DMG?

[JoeJ]

.... an ancient dragon with an intelligence of 2. Say goodbye to all the nearby villages.
Like I said, have fun with that.
And just where do you expect to get a scroll of a 9th level spell on demand like that before we've seen the DMG?

Intelligence 16. True Polymorph gives the target the mental ability scores of the form it's turned into.

Scrolls and potions are sold, according to the PHB. Plus, the DMG table of contents indicates that it has rules for creating magic items. Scrolls will undoubtedly be included.

[MaxWilson]

Intelligence 16. True Polymorph gives the target the mental ability scores of the form it's turned into.

Scrolls and potions are sold, according to the PHB. Plus, the DMG table of contents indicates that it has rules for creating magic items. Scrolls will undoubtedly be included.

So... once you do that, does the steed still keep its Share Spells ability? It's not a game statistic per se.

Before we go down the "selling scrolls" route, just remember that you can get your Simulacrum to cast the True Polymorph on your behalf. Or just have another caster do it, if you don't mind asking for help.

[JoeJ]

So... once you do that, does the steed still keep its Share Spells ability? It's not a game statistic per se.

Before we go down the "selling scrolls" route, just remember that you can get your Simulacrum to cast the True Polymorph on your behalf. Or just have another caster do it, if you don't mind asking for help.

I should think it would keep it's share spells. That's not part of it's statistics, but a spell effect. Even if it doesn't, I still have a very cool ancient dragon steed. :)

Simulacrum is a good idea. I don't mind swapping favors with another caster, either, but I don't want to assume the cooperation of another character if I don't have to.

[Shadow]

Yeah, I forgot about the difference between regular and True.


So... once you do that, does the steed still keep its Share Spells ability? It's not a game statistic per se.

No, because it's no longer your steed, now it's a dragon with the personality of a horse.
And now that I think about it, why bother with Find Steed or Shapechange at all if you're going to True Polymorph it?

Bottom line: you can have it for an hour every day or two, or you no longer have a steed. And it's all pretty irrelevant anyway as most campaigns never get that high, and when they do you'll usually have a better use for that singular 9th level slot than to spend it on your steed.

[Juntao112]

A naga or a dragon would presumably have a variant of the spell that works for them. Boars don't cast spells, so it's not even an issue. In the case we're talking about, however, the caster does have hands but the mount doesn't. So I just want to know what this looks like in world: where is the flame appearing, and how does the mount throw it?

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/043/7/9/rainbow_dash_kamehameha_by_akaelus-d4phqpm.png

[JoeJ]

No, because it's no longer your steed, now it's a dragon with the personality of a horse.
And now that I think about it, why bother with Find Steed or Shapechange at all if you're going to True Polymorph it?

Bottom line: you can have it for an hour every day or two, or you no longer have a steed. And it's all pretty irrelevant anyway as most campaigns never get that high, and when they do you'll usually have a better use for that singular 9th level slot than to spend it on your steed.

Where in the spell description does it say Find Steed ends if the steed is polymorphed? RAW the only way to end the spell is if I choose to dismiss my steed. Even if it gets killed I can summon the same steed again with another casting.

There may be some better use of my spells than to create an exceptionally loyal dragon mount that I have an instinctive bond with, that I can communicate with telepathically, and with whom I can share spells. At the moment I can't think of what that better use would be, though.

[Shadow]

It doesn't have to specifically state it.
Do you know what True Polymorph does?
It takes one thing and turns it into something else, something new, something unrelated.
In this case, it takes your steed and makes it a dragon. It is no longer your steed. It is now a dragon. Because that's what Polymorph does. It changes one thing into something fundamentally different.
It ceases to be your steed.
It becomes a dragon.

[JoeJ]

It doesn't have to specifically state it.
Do you know what True Polymorph does?
It takes one thing and turns it into something else, something new, something unrelated.
In this case, it takes your steed and makes it a dragon. It is no longer your steed. It is now a dragon. Because that's what Polymorph does. It changes one thing into something fundamentally different.

Maybe in your house rules, but not according to anything in the PHB.

[Shadow]

Maybe in your house rules, but not according to anything in the PHB.

LOL, it's not a house rule, it's what the spell does.
It ceases to be your steed.
It becomes a dragon.

If you want it to still be your steed, then that's what Shapeshift offers.

[JoeJ]

LOL, it's not a house rule, it's what the spell does.
It ceases to be your steed.
It becomes a dragon.

If you want it to still be your steed, then that's what Shapeshift offers.

[citation needed]

[Shadow]

[citation needed]

Citation:

Shapechange: You retain the benfit of any features fro your class, race, or other source, and can use them, provided that your new form is physically capable of doing so.

True Polymorph: no such text exists

[JoeJ]

Citation:

Shapechange: You retain the benfit of any features fro your class, race, or other source, and can use them, provided that your new form is physically capable of doing so.

True Polymorph: no such text exists

Which doesn't actually relate to your argument that True Polymorph somehow ends the Find Steed spell.

[Shadow]

Which doesn't actually relate to your argument that True Polymorph somehow ends the Find Steed spell.

Yes, it does.
Features from other sources. Like, say, the Find Steed spell.
It is no longer what it was. It becomes, wholly and completely, what you True Polymorphed it into.
Because it's a TRUE polymorph.

[JoeJ]

Yes, it does.
Features from other sources. Like, say, the Find Steed spell.
It is no longer what it was. It becomes, wholly and completely, what you True Polymorphed it into.
Because it's a TRUE polymorph.

Only the steed is the subject of True Polymorph. The features in question - sharing spells and telepathic bond - are not features of the steed; they are features that Find Steed gives to the caster. The text is crystal clear on that.

But it's nice to know that I can end hostile spell effects on myself by using True Polymorph.

[Shadow]

Only the steed is the subject of True Polymorph. The features in question - sharing spells and telepathic bond - are not features of the steed; they are features that Find Steed gives to the caster. The text is crystal clear on that.

But it's nice to know that I can end hostile spell effects on myself by using True Polymorph.

Yes, you have those abilities. You have those abilities with the celestial, fey, or fiend inhabiting the form of something akin to an horse.
You do not have those abilities with a dragon.
And your steed is no longer celestial, fey, or fiend inhabiting the form of something akin to an horse. It is now a dragon.

[Eslin]

Regarding produce flame: the spell targets you, it gives you a flame that you can choose to throw as an action later on. The steed shares spells with you, the steed can throw it as an action - that doesn't make the spell target others any more than enlarge self or flame blade do.

LOL, it's not a house rule, it's what the spell does.
It ceases to be your steed.
It becomes a dragon.

If you want it to still be your steed, then that's what Shapeshift offers.

It becomes a dragon and keeps its alignment and personality.

What is the steed's alignment and personality like?

'loyal' 'serves you as a steed both in combat and out' 'instinctive bond with you that allows you to fight as a seamless unit'
It's pretty clear that it summons a mount whose personality fits yours. True polymorph will change its shape and even its mind, but it explicitly leaves personality intact - and the steed's personality is clearly based around working with you. It's not being forced to serve you, the spell summons a spirit in perfect alignment with you.

[JoeJ]

Yes, you have those abilities. You have those abilities with the celestial, fey, or fiend inhabiting the form of something akin to an horse.
You do not have those abilities with a dragon.
And your steed is no longer your steed, it is now a dragon.

That is definitely not what the PHB says. You're just making up your own house rules now. (Not that there's anything wrong with that for your game, but it is just for your game.)

[Abithrios]

Yay, another argument...

I think the real interesting question is how to turn a found steed into something that can cast find steed. Then, hopefully, it can summon itself and have free will in a corporeal form.

[Shadow]

That is definitely not what the PHB says. You're just making up your own house rules now. (Not that there's anything wrong with that for your game, but it is just for your game.)

It's not about what the PHB says or doesn't say. Stop trying to find a page number and just think.
Just stop for a moment and think about True Polymorph, what it is, what it does.
It's not a house rule. It's common sense as far as I'm concerned. True Polymorph fundamentally changes one thing (in this case the spirit of a celestial/fey/fiend) into something else (in this case a dragon).
It quite literally ceases to be what it was and becomes a dragon, in every single respect other than personality.

[silveralen]

I think I'm adding true polymorph to the list of "more trouble than it is worth" spells for my table, the sheer number of times it gets brought up as soe sort of issue is absurd,


Yay, another argument...

I think the real interesting question is how to turn a found steed into something that can cast find steed. Then, hopefully, it can summon itself and have free will in a corporeal form.

I was thinking have an army of horses to trample down all who oppose me. But your idea is cool to.

[Shadow]

I think the real interesting question is how to turn a found steed into something that can cast find steed. Then, hopefully, it can summon itself and have free will in a corporeal form.

I just picture a wizard sitting on top of the lion.

http://www.funlyest.com/files/articles/552/0a2f01bb3df1f8977e2f8a213010262e.jpg

[JoeJ]

Yay, another argument...

I think the real interesting question is how to turn a found steed into something that can cast find steed. Then, hopefully, it can summon itself and have free will in a corporeal form.

If you use True Polymorph to turn it into something with spellcasting ability, it could conceivably be able to cast Find Steed.

What is the effect of having a steed that is itself riding another steed? If I do this repeatedly, how high can I pile these steeds and still have something that it's possible to ride?

[Eslin]

It's not about what the PHB says or doesn't say. Stop trying to find a page number and just think.
Just stop for a moment and think about True Polymorph, what it is, what it does.
It's not a house rule. It's common sense as far as I'm concerned. True Polymorph fundamentally changes one thing (in this case the spirit of a celestial/fey/fiend) into something else (in this case a dragon).
It quite literally ceases to be what it was and becomes a dragon, in every single respect other than personality.

Yes. The personality literally crafted to suit you of the spirit summoned to be loyal and in complete harmony with you. The best part about this is if it does cease to be a found steed, there's nothing to stop you summoning another and true polymorphing it, repeat to create an army of completely loyal creatures.

[JoeJ]

Yes. The personality literally crafted to suit you of the spirit summoned to be loyal and in complete harmony with you. The best part about this is if it does cease to be a found steed, there's nothing to stop you summoning another and true polymorphing it, repeat to create an army of completely loyal creatures.

That's a good point. If it's not my steed anymore, then it also doesn't vanish if I summon another one.

[Abithrios]

(Not that there's anything wrong with that for your game)

This quoted section cuts to the heart of why I think that RAW vs. house rules debates are typically pointless. At the end of the day, ALL forms of rules interpretation are equally valid, from the straight forward to the high op to the absurd. ALL that matters is fun.

Also, they quickly devolve into trying to prove the enemy side wrong while not listening to their side (nor listening to reason, for that matter).


I think I'm adding true polymorph to the list of "more trouble than it is worth" spells for my table, the sheer number of times it gets brought up as soe sort of issue is absurd,



I was thinking have an army of horses to trample down all who oppose me. But your idea is cool to.

I think each steed would need to have the "change creature to spellcasting form" spell in order to chain it.

[Gwendol]

Only the steed is the subject of True Polymorph. The features in question - sharing spells and telepathic bond - are not features of the steed; they are features that Find Steed gives to the caster. The text is crystal clear on that.

But it's nice to know that I can end hostile spell effects on myself by using True Polymorph.

What's the CR of the steed? Because:
Creature into Creature. If you turn a creature into
another kind o f creature, the new form can be any kind
you choose whose challenge rating is equal to or less
than the target’s (or its level, if the target doesn’t have a
challenge rating).

Nothing in Find Steed indicates the creature advances HD or level in any way, which makes it a less suitable target for TP.

[Eslin]

What's the CR of the steed? Because:

Nothing in Find Steed indicates the creature advances HD or level in any way, which makes it a less suitable target for TP.

Turn it into an object, then into a creature. Limited to 9, but a permanent CR9 companion's pretty nice right?

[Gwendol]

Turn it into an object, then into a creature. Limited to 9, but a permanent CR9 companion's pretty nice right?

I doubt that works either, since:
Creature into Object. If you turn a creature into an
object, it transforms along with whatever it is wearing
and carrying into that form. The creature’s statistics
become those o f the object, and the creature has no
memory o f time spent in this form, after the spell ends
and it returns to its normal form.

And:


Object into Creature.
If the spell becomes permanent, you no longer control
the creature. It might remain friendly to you, depending
on how you have treated it.

So, you turn the steed into an object, then turn the object into a CR9 creature. However, the object is no longer your steed and thus the CR9 creature is no longer under your control.

[MukkTB]

The wording of find steed is stupid and clearly allows spells that aren't strictly buffs. This is partially due to the attempt to simplify the way magic works, which has resulted in some very odd rules within the book about what actually constitutes a target. Anyone who argues against this isn't arguing the RAW. They're arguing what the RAI should be.

On the other hand, while RAW methods of abusing this exists, many people get carried away and come up with plans that are not RAW, which in my mind makes them particularly cheesy.

[JoeJ]

What's the CR of the steed? Because:

Nothing in Find Steed indicates the creature advances HD or level in any way, which makes it a less suitable target for TP.

That's why you use Shapechange on yourself + the steed first. Because you're sharing that spell, you can both turn into CR20 monsters (assuming that you're a 20th level caster). Pit fiends, for example. Then you True Polymorph the steed into a CR20 dragon and concentrate until it becomes permanent.

[Gwendol]

That seems to be a better course of action. And yes, if you share shapechange the steed will take the same form as the caster.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's not about what the PHB says or doesn't say. Stop trying to find a page number and just think.
Just stop for a moment and think about True Polymorph, what it is, what it does.
It's not a house rule. It's common sense as far as I'm concerned. True Polymorph fundamentally changes one thing (in this case the spirit of a celestial/fey/fiend) into something else (in this case a dragon).
It quite literally ceases to be what it was and becomes a dragon, in every single respect other than personality.

Ok a couple things.

First, saying "stop trying to find a page number" really doesn't help your case. By going outside of what the book says actually does make whatever you propose a house rule.

Secondly, using common sense usually the first step to making a houserule. Though you aren't using common sense but your own oersonal RAI.

Third, in a game where you can summon a steed, polymorph into a dragon, and whatever else you really think common sense is a good way to go for making decisions? Most of the rules for D&D are counter common sense that by using what you call common sense is actually counter to what the game needs to be itself.

[Maxilian]

If you use True Polymorph to turn it into something with spellcasting ability, it could conceivably be able to cast Find Steed.

What is the effect of having a steed that is itself riding another steed? If I do this repeatedly, how high can I pile these steeds and still have something that it's possible to ride?

Well that would actually be impossible, i mean... if your steed have a steed, your steed would need a certain form to be able to ride its own mount, but that would mean, you won't be able to ride your steed because it won't have the apropriate form to be riden, at least you could have your mount riding a mount but you will end up without a ride :P

[Giant2005]

That's why you use Shapechange on yourself + the steed first. Because you're sharing that spell, you can both turn into CR20 monsters (assuming that you're a 20th level caster). Pit fiends, for example. Then you True Polymorph the steed into a CR20 dragon and concentrate until it becomes permanent.

Thsat doesn't work on two accounts (Not without help at least).
Firstly as a Pit Fiend (or whatever CR 20 creature you pick), you lose your spellcasting ability which means no True Polymorph spell.
Secondly, both spells require concentration so even if you could cast True Polymorph while Shapechanged, you would cancel the Shapechange by casting True Polymorph and end up Polymorphing a standard horse (or whatever your steed is).

[Justin Sane]

Polymorph shenanigans aside, what about Find Steed + Aura of Vitality? Does the steed also gets an aura? Can it use it's own bonus actions to trigger the heal?

(Before anyone asks, I ran it over with my DM and we both came to the same conclusion: "Hold on a bit guys, let me get on my horse so I can heal you more!" is silly and doesn't belong in our game.)

[JoeJ]

Thsat doesn't work on two accounts (Not without help at least).
Firstly as a Pit Fiend (or whatever CR 20 creature you pick), you lose your spellcasting ability which means no True Polymorph spell.
Secondly, both spells require concentration so even if you could cast True Polymorph while Shapechanged, you would cancel the Shapechange by casting True Polymorph and end up Polymorphing a standard horse (or whatever your steed is).

For your first point, when you Shapechange you retain your class features and can use them if the form is physically capable of doing so. Pit fiends are innate spellcasters, so you would obviously be physically capable of casting spells in that form.

For the second point, you wouldn't be able to personally cast both Shapechange and True Polymorph in any event, because they're both 9th level spells. What you do is cast Shapechange, and then have your simulacrum cast True Polymorph. (That means, of course, that you have to take a long rest after casting Simulacrum so you can change out True Polymorph for Shapechange, because the simulacrum can't regain spells.)

You could also do it by swapping favors with another 20th level caster, but I'd prefer not to assume that any more people are cooperating than are absolutely necessary.

[MaxWilson]

Well that would actually be impossible, i mean... if your steed have a steed, your steed would need a certain form to be able to ride its own mount, but that would mean, you won't be able to ride your steed because it won't have the apropriate form to be riden, at least you could have your mount riding a mount but you will end up without a ride :P

There's a flea on a frog on a bump on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea!


For your first point, when you Shapechange you retain your class features and can use them if the form is physically capable of doing so. Pit fiends are innate spellcasters, so you would obviously be physically capable of casting spells in that form.

For the second point, you wouldn't be able to personally cast both Shapechange and True Polymorph in any event, because they're both 9th level spells. What you do is cast Shapechange, and then have your simulacrum cast True Polymorph. (That means, of course, that you have to take a long rest after casting Simulacrum so you can change out True Polymorph for Shapechange, because the simulacrum can't regain spells.)

You could also do it by swapping favors with another 20th level caster, but I'd prefer not to assume that any more people are cooperating than are absolutely necessary.

Bolded text is 2nd/3rd edition thinking. In 5E you can have them both prepared, you just use your spell slots differently than your simulacrum will.

[JoeJ]

Bolded text is 2nd/3rd edition thinking. In 5E you can have them both prepared, you just use your spell slots differently than your simulacrum will.

Ah! Good point.

[JoeJ]

Well that would actually be impossible, i mean... if your steed have a steed, your steed would need a certain form to be able to ride its own mount, but that would mean, you won't be able to ride your steed because it won't have the apropriate form to be riden, at least you could have your mount riding a mount but you will end up without a ride :P

There's got to be some combination of spells that lets me ride a panther, that's riding a lion, that's riding a bear, that's riding a mammoth, that's riding a dragon, that's riding the tarasque.

[Vogonjeltz]

It does, yes. If you find the attacks need to scale, get your hands on produce flame and it'll let the mount throw fire.

No, it can't. While mounted on your steed, any spell you cast that targets only you can also target your steed. (emphasis added)

What does it mean to target?

PHB 204, Targeting Yourself: If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the area of effect of a spell you cast, you can target yourself.

Produce Flame doesn't fulfill any of these criteria. (Range =/= Targeting).

By way of comparison: Protection from Energy does target 'a willing creature', so it could also be conveyed on the steed.


Speaking of which, true polymorph's wording means it probably uses the mount's CR, but shapechange is sharable and definitely lets the mount use your level as the determining factor. Double your fun!

Polymorph (targets a creature) is possible (though it would fail if the CR you transformed into exceeded the mounts CR/level), Shapechange (again, not a targeted spell) would not.


Thsat doesn't work on two accounts (Not without help at least).
Firstly as a Pit Fiend (or whatever CR 20 creature you pick), you lose your spellcasting ability which means no True Polymorph spell.
Secondly, both spells require concentration so even if you could cast True Polymorph while Shapechanged, you would cancel the Shapechange by casting True Polymorph and end up Polymorphing a standard horse (or whatever your steed is).

A third, textual, reason is the rule on combining magical effects: "The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap."
So, when one duration ends, the combination ends too.

[Eslin]

Thsat doesn't work on two accounts (Not without help at least).
Firstly as a Pit Fiend (or whatever CR 20 creature you pick), you lose your spellcasting ability which means no True Polymorph spell.
Secondly, both spells require concentration so even if you could cast True Polymorph while Shapechanged, you would cancel the Shapechange by casting True Polymorph and end up Polymorphing a standard horse (or whatever your steed is).

Yep, needs two people. You shapechange yourself and your steed, other person true polymorphs your steed into something else.

[Maxilian]

There's got to be some combination of spells that lets me ride a panther, that's riding a lion, that's riding a bear, that's riding a mammoth, that's riding a dragon, that's riding the tarasque.

Well yeah... just give the Tarrasque a giant backpack and put the dragon and everything else in there :smallbiggrin:

Per se... or... maybe... you can! (not with the Tarrasque)

Petrify all of them and make their skins attach one to the other while they are in stone and then put them back to normal... and TADA! YOU HAVE AN ABOMINATION! (With 6 different minds that will be in pain and will try to escape, but thanks to the fact that they are all stick together they won't be able to do anything and just sit and watch them die and them have one of the Gods of nature kills you because of what you did)


There's a flea on a frog on a bump on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea!


Well but the only mount there would be the frog....

Now i have to create a campaing where all the players are little bugs and the "dragons" are insects and amphibians (i mean... for a flea, the frog is like the Tarrasque :smalltongue: )

[Vogonjeltz]

Yep, needs two people. You shapechange yourself and your steed, other person true polymorphs your steed into something else.

Again, shapechange does not fulfill the targeting criteria to be shared. This does not work at all.

[Gwendol]

Again, shapechange does not fulfill the targeting criteria to be shared. This does not work at all.

Nice catch Vogon! Looking at the preamble to the spells in the PHB one finds this:

T a r g e t in g Y o u r s e l f
If a spell targets a creature o f your choice, you can
choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or
specifically a creature other than you. If you are in the
area o f effect o f a spell you cast, you can target yourself.

It is different than a range of self.

[Shadow]

Nice catch Vogon! Looking at the preamble to the spells in the PHB one finds this:

It is different than a range of self.

Yes, it is different from a range of self, but that doesn't mean it's disqualified.
Q: What's changing shape?
A: You are, ergo, you are the target of the spell.

[Gwendol]

No, there is no targeting involved in shapechange, or any other spell with range of self. Now, one can argue that with "targeting only you" really means "affect only you" or some other meaning that would include those spells, but as it is currently written, that is a reasonable interpretation.

[Shadow]

No, there is no targeting involved in shapechange, or any other spell with range of self. Now, one can argue that with "targeting only you" really means "affect only you" or some other meaning that would include those spells, but as it is currently written, that is a reasonable interpretation.

You're reading it like a lawyer. Read it like a person.
You're casting the spell on yourself. Therefore you are the target.
By your interpretation, you literally can't share a single spell unless that spell has the possibility of targeting someone other than you. That is quite clearly not what this ability was designed for.
In fact, it's the exact opposite of what this ability was designed for. Self-only spells are this ability's bread and butter, and your interpretation removes every single one of them.
Does that make any sense?

[Gwendol]

Please don't suggest I can't read right.

What you claim simply isn't true: there are a lot of spells that target one or more creatures within range. Targeting yourself with such a spell allows you to share the effect with your steed.

[Shadow]

Please don't suggest I can't read right.

What you claim simply isn't true: there are a lot of spells that target one or more creatures within range. Targeting yourself with such a spell allows you to share the effect with your steed.

And spells which only ever affect you, without the option to target anyone else? Those spells are specifically what this ability was designed to share, first and foremost, but that interpretation removes them as possibilities.
That makes absolutely zero sense.

[Gwendol]

Range of self are an ill-defined group of spells since they include both shapechange and cone of cold.

This is the definition of share spells in 3.5:
Share Spells

At the paladin’s option, she may have any spell (but not any spell-like ability) she casts on herself also affect her mount.

One would assume that had they meant that to be true they would have described the ability that way.

[Shadow]

Range of self are an ill-defined group of spells since they include both shapechange and cone of cold.

Again, we're not talking about spells with a range of self. We're talking about spells which only target you.
The ability is for spells for which you can choose any one target when you choose that target to be yourself, and spells which only affect you no matter the circumstances.
Those are spells which target only you, and those are the spells which this ability shares with your mount.

Like I said, this is share spells from earlier editions. But this time, AoE group spells no longer apply. That's it. That's the difference.

[Giant2005]

And spells which only ever affect you, without the option to target anyone else? Those spells are specifically what this ability was designed to share, first and foremost, but that interpretation removes them as possibilities.
That makes absolutely zero sense.

I don't agree with your interpretation. It was designed so self-buffs would extend to your mount but self-buffs are quite capable of effecting other people by proxy - Fire Shield is one such spell which by all means should be allowable but under your interpretation, couldn't be.

[Shadow]

I don't agree with your interpretation. It was designed so self-buffs would extend to your mount but self-buffs are quite capable of effecting other people by proxy - Fire Shield is one such spell which by all means should be allowable but under your interpretation, couldn't be.

You misinterpret what I was saying.
I wasn't saying that those were the only spells allowed. I was saying those were the primary spells that this was created for.
His interpretation (and V's) removes the primary function of the ability. That makes no sense.
I absolutely agree that Fire Shield would be, should be, and is completely able to be shared.

[Gwendol]

I don't agree with your interpretation. It was designed so self-buffs would extend to your mount but self-buffs are quite capable of effecting other people by proxy - Fire Shield is one such spell which by all means should be allowable but under your interpretation, couldn't be.

I fail to see how Fire Shield is intended to be shared with the mount what with it not being on the paladin spell list, nor on the oath spell lists. Multiclassing is optional, and so we can safely assume that share spell is foremost intended for paladin spells.

[Dalebert]

The ability is for spells for which you can choose any one target when you choose that target to be yourself...

I don't agree with that broader interpretation. If you can target someone else with the spell, e.g. invisibility, it is not a spell that only targets you, so it would not be sharable. You would need to cast it twice--once on you and then on your mount. That's why I don't think Produce Flame would work. Regardless of the summary saying "self", in the description it's made clear that it can target others.

Flame Shield also only targets the caster. It doesn't matter that other people can take damage from it by attacking you. The spell isn't capable of targeting anyone but the caster. It's eligible for sharing.

[Shadow]

I don't agree with that broader interpretation. If you can target someone else with the spell, e.g. invisibility, it is not a spell that only targets you, so it would not be sharable. You would need to cast it twice--once on you and then on your mount. That's why I don't think Produce Flame would work. Regardless of the summary saying "self", in the description it's made clear that it can target others.

Flame Shield also only targets the caster. It doesn't matter that other people can take damage from it by attacking you. The spell isn't capable of targeting anyone but the caster. It's eligible for sharing.

So from under your reading, spells from group A are allowed but not from group B.
Under Gwen & Von's Reading spells from group B are allowed but not from group A.
Under my (and many others') reading spells from both group A and B are allowed.

[Dalebert]

The spell sharing verbiage seems to be carried over nearly verbatim from previous editions and that's how I've always understood it to be interpreted.

Here's another way to look at it. It's not based purely on your choice of target. If it were, you wouldn't be choosing to target only yourself because you're also choosing to target your familiar. It's based on the spell normally only being able to target you (the caster). That's what makes it an eligible spell for this benefit.

[silveralen]

So from under your reading, spells from group A are allowed but not from group B.
Under Gwen & Von's Reading spells from group B are allowed but not from group A.
Under my (and many others') reading spells from both group A and B are allowed.

True, but the ability was deliberately altered from 3rd to have a different effect. Specifying target's you, not effects you, with target being a defined game term.

One of the benefits of not allowing self spells is that self spells assume the caster is the target in the mechanics, which is why shapechange increases your mounts CR to 20 and true polymorph wouldn't. Thus we see why they might not allow spells with a range of self, only spells which target someone, as the assumptions of a range of self may not make sense for a spell you share with your mount.

[Dalebert]

The spell sharing verbiage seems to be carried over nearly verbatim from previous editions and that's how I've always understood it to be interpreted.

I'm going to have to retract that. I just reread the old spell sharing from 3.5 and there is not a restriction about it only working on spells that only target the caster. I got that confused with another feature of spell sharing to cast those types of spells on your familiar instead of you but that's in addition to the other sharing ability.

The verbiage is different now, less wordy to be sure. I'd be inclined to interpret it more broadly and say you could cast something like invisibility so it affects you both. I'm still not inclined to see Produce Flame as only targeting the caster though. Clearly, it can target enemies.

[Shadow]

Target was a defined game term in 3e. Target is not a defined game term in 5e.
In this case, target and affect are synonymous.

[silveralen]

Target was a defined game term in 3e. Target is not a defined game term in 5e.
In this case, target and affect are synonymous.

I love when you state these things like fact.

So, if target isn't a defined term, does produce flame work? Sure, the fire can effect or target someone else, but that's a byproduct of the spell, the spell itself isn't directly effecting them. If your mount changes into a dragon and claws someone they were effected by a byproduct of the spell just the same.

That's as legitimate an interpretation as yours is.

[Gwendol]

Target was a defined game term in 3e. Target is not a defined game term in 5e.
In this case, target and affect are synonymous.

That's not even remotely true. PHB p 204 defines targets in the context of spellcasting, under the heading "Targets".

EDIT: Effect (I suppose you mean that) what the spell does once the casting is completed.

2nd Edit: Ah, affect in the sense "whom is affected by the spell". Got it. In that sense they could be, but that doesn't address the needed condition for share spell. Target is a defined term and spells with a range of self have no target, since as I've noted earlier it leads to a bunch of strange effects and questions that the designers would likely want to avoid. Looking at the list of spells provided by Vogonjeltz below strengthens our position.

[Vogonjeltz]

Nice catch Vogon! Looking at the preamble to the spells in the PHB one finds this:

Thanks Gwendol, I was actually surprised to learn this, but it's solid.


And spells which only ever affect you, without the option to target anyone else?

Although I appreciate your position, the exact conditional phrase in Find Steed is "While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed."

That gives us three conditions that must be fulfilled:
1) You are mounted on your Find Steed steed.
2) You cast the spell.
3) The spell can target you and does target only you.

Being affected by a spell is simply not the same as being targeted by it. A spell will specifically say if it targets. Shapechange does not target.

Here is a list of the Paladin spells that do target, and can target, only you in the PHB:

1st level - Bless, Command, Compelled Duel, Cure Wounds, Heroism, Protection from Evil and Good, Shield of Faith
2nd level - Aid, Lesser Restoration, Protection from Poison
3rd level - Dispel Magic, Remove Curse,
4th level - Banishment, Death Ward,
5th level - Geas

Paladin Spells that don't fit that criteria:
1st level - Detect Evil and Good, Detect Magic, Detect Poison and Disease, Divine Favor, Purify Food and Drink, Searing Smite, Thunderous Smite, Wrathful Smite
2nd level - Branding Smite, Find Steed, Locate Object, Magic Weapon, Zone of Truth
3rd level - Aura of Vitality, Blinding Smite, Create Food and Water, Crusader's Mantle, Daylight, Elemental Weapon, Magic Circle, Revivify (would not work, you'd have to be dead, as would your steed)
4th level - Aura of Life, Aura of Purity, Locate Creature, Staggering Smite
5th level - Banishing Smite, Circle of Power, Destructive Smite (Destructive Wave), Dispel Evil and Good, Raise Dead (would require you and steed to be dead)


Again, we're not talking about spells with a range of self. We're talking about spells which only target you.
The ability is for spells for which you can choose any one target when you choose that target to be yourself, and spells which only affect you no matter the circumstances.
Those are spells which target only you, and those are the spells which this ability shares with your mount.

Like I said, this is share spells from earlier editions. But this time, AoE group spells no longer apply. That's it. That's the difference.

No, that's actually not the case. Page 202, "Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self." Bolding added for emphasis. Self spells don't target you, they only affect only you. That might feel like a matter of semantics, but it carries a meaningful distinction in that saying the Steed can benefit from any spell that affects only you would have broader connotations than saying the steed can benefit from any spell that targets only you.

The authors chose the more restrictive terminology.


Flame Shield also only targets the caster. It doesn't matter that other people can take damage from it by attacking you. The spell isn't capable of targeting anyone but the caster. It's eligible for sharing.

In the strict sense of the words, Flame Shield has no target at all. It just affects the caster only. (In the same manner, Detect Magic targets nothing, but it affects the caster only, as does Find Traps, and Find the Path, and so on and so forth).

[Gwendol]

Good work listing the spells. With that in hand it looks like most of the protection spells can be shared as well as some buffs. Aura's and smite's are not shareable however.

[Shadow]

No, that's actually not the case. Page 202, "Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self." Bolding added for emphasis. Self spells don't target you, they only affect only you. That might feel like a matter of semantics, but it carries a meaningful distinction in that saying the Steed can benefit from any spell that affects only you would have broader connotations than saying the steed can benefit from any spell that targets only you.

The authors chose the more restrictive terminology.

No, the authors didn't expect meticulous rules-lawyer players to break down the syntax to create a situation where the Shield spell is the type of spell which can't be shared with your mount.
Shield is EXACTLY the type of spell which this ability was created for, and yet your rules-lawyering disallows it.
Target and affect are synonymous in this case.

[Daishain]

No, the authors didn't expect meticulous rules-lawyer players
If this statement is accurate, then they acted like idiots.

This game BREEDs rules-lawyers.

[Shadow]

If this statement is accurate, then they acted like idiots.

This game BREEDs rules-lawyers.

Read the complete sentence.
They didn't think that players would read it in such a manner as to make the shield spell, and others like it, unable to be shared.
It's blatantly obvious that these types of spells were intended to be shared.
The simple explanation isn't that they wrote and chose exact wording for a reason.
The simple explanation is that two different people wrote that find steed spell and the target entry in the beginning of the chapter, and that a read through of the spell didn't show a direct conflict with anything so it never got caught as an issue.
Target and affect are synonymous in this case.
If you rule otherwise, then you can't see the forest for the trees. That statement has become my new motto around here.

[Gwendol]

No, the authors didn't expect meticulous rules-lawyer players to break down the syntax to create a situation where the Shield spell is the type of spell which can't be shared with your mount.
Shield is EXACTLY the type of spell which this ability was created for, and yet your rules-lawyering disallows it.
Target and affect are synonymous in this case.

Shield isn't a paladin spell. Shield of Faith is, and it's shared with the mount. I'm not rules lawyering, just pointing out how the ability is worded.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

No, the authors didn't expect meticulous rules-lawyer players to break down the syntax to create a situation where the Shield spell is the type of spell which can't be shared with your mount.

Actually because vagueness was a design goal, one could argue that they did expect meticulous rules lawyer players to do just that.

[Gwendol]

In this case the confusion seems to stem more from the outrageous claims/abuse thrown around earlier in this thread about applying high level druid/wizard spells to the steed than from the description of the spell. The wording of the spell is not vague, and so far I don't see any real proof of ambiguity.

[Eslin]

In this case the confusion seems to stem more from the outrageous claims/abuse thrown around earlier in this thread about applying high level druid/wizard spells to the steed than from the description of the spell. The wording of the spell is not vague, and so far I don't see any real proof of ambiguity.

Well, you can. If you cast foresight on yourself, your steed gets it too - just because it's high level doesn't mean you can't share with your steed.

[Gwendol]

Well, you can. If you cast foresight on yourself, your steed gets it too - just because it's high level doesn't mean you can't share with your steed.

Correct, and that wasn't the spell I had in mind but rather the shapechange shenanigans.

[Eslin]

Correct, and that wasn't the spell I had in mind but rather the shapechange shenanigans.

Shapechange works too, it's self targeted and specifically refers to your level when checking what the allowable targets are.

[Vogonjeltz]

Shapechange works too, it's self targeted and specifically refers to your level when checking what the allowable targets are.

Eslin, I went to great lengths citing the rules on targeting which definitively show that Shapehange is not a targeted spell. It has no target at all, by the rules.

[Gwendol]

Shapechange works too, it's self targeted and specifically refers to your level when checking what the allowable targets are.

No it's not, and there are a quite a few pointers given why in this thread already. Ýou are now simply repeating a point that isn't true.

[Eslin]

Eslin, I went to great lengths citing the rules on targeting which definitively show that Shapehange is not a targeted spell. It has no target at all, by the rules.

Then it's self targeted. A spell has to affect something, and this spell does - you. In the absence of an actual target line (why did they get rid of that?) that's the best metric we've got.

[Gwendol]

And so you choose to disregard the section on targeting spells on page 204 of the PHB? That's very convenient. A targeted spell and a spell with range of self are not the same.

[Eslin]

And so you choose to disregard the section on targeting spells on page 204 of the PHB? That's very convenient. A targeted spell and a spell with range of self are not the same.

You mean the page that says the spells description tells you whether the spell 'targets creatures, objects or a point of origin for an area of effect'? And how shapechange doesn't target a point of origin for an aoe or an object, and therefore targets a creature? That creature, obviously, being you, meaning you can share it with your steed.

[Dalebert]

And so you choose to disregard the section on targeting spells on page 204 of the PHB? That's very convenient. A targeted spell and a spell with range of self are not the same.

I just read that section three times slowly and I'm not seeing how it makes that clear at all. It's perfectly reasonable to see a spell that only affects the caster as "the target must be the caster". There's obviously some ambiguity about whether shapechange or produce flame could be cast with share spell. I think it's going to ultimately be up to the DM. I personally would just say "no" to both based on my notion of RAI.

[Shadow]

I just read that section three times slowly and I'm not seeing how it makes that clear at all. It's perfectly reasonable to see a spell that only affects the caster as "the target must be the caster".

Exactly. The spell must be cast ON something. It can't have no target.
Their argument makes no sense.

[Cazero]

Exactly. The spell must be cast ON something. It can't have no target.
Their argument makes no sense.

Funny. In MtG, a spell can perfectly affect everything without targetting anything. A creature explicitly described as being impossible to target is obviously expected to be spell immune by RaI, and yet spells affecting everything or requiring untargetted sacrifices affect it just fine by RaW, and nobody complains about RaI because spell immunity would be OP.

The 'target only you' and 'range of self' wording might have been carefully chosen to prevent shapechanging your mount by RaW and other abuses, or might be a confusing choice in vocabulary. Both are valid interpretation. It's up to the DM to choose how he wants to rule it.

[Gwendol]

I've reiterated a few times that spells with a range of self also include cone of cold, for example. To me this shows quite clearly that their choice of words in describing share spell takes this into account.
Cone of cold also has a range of self and "targets you" just as much as shapechange.

[Shadow]

Funny. In MtG, a spell can

I stopped reading, because we aren't talking about MtG.


I've reiterated a few times that spells with a range of self also include cone of cold, for example. To me this shows quite clearly that their choice of words in describing share spell takes this into account.
Cone of cold also has a range of self "targets you" just as much as shapechange.

A cone's range is self because the cone originates from you, it can't start 30' away from you. That's why the range is self. You are targeting a point in space for an AoE, and that point must be in right next to you.
It has a target.

Spells which only affect you also have a target. That target is obviously you.
Every spell must have a target. You cannot cast a spell which has not target.

[Gwendol]

That's not how the rules describe the various distinctions. What you describe the rules of the game defines as a spell with the range of self, no target defined, since for example, produce flame, has no defined target at the time of casting.

[Shadow]

That's not how the rules describe the various distinctions. What you describe the rules of the game defines as a spell with the range of self, no target defined, since for example, produce flame, has no defined target at the time of casting.

And so you choose to disregard the section on targeting spells on page 204 of the PHB? That's very convenient.
Every spell has a target. That target is either a creature, an object, or a point of origin for an AoE.

Produce Flame has a target of you, as you are producing the flame in your hand. If you target anyone else with the flame, at any time, then the spell immediately ends.
It has a target. You. But if you throw it then you are changing the target, so it is not targeting *only* any longer, and is therefore not able to be shared except to light up a small area.

[Cazero]

Every spell has a target.
Why would they? And is that even true?
When I cast Wish to create a bazillion tons of gold from nothing, what am I targetting?

[Shadow]

Why would they? And is that even true?
When I cast Wish to create a bazillion tons of gold from nothing, what am I targetting?

Wish is the lone, sole exception. Wish is the reason that the PHB uses the word typical instead of the word every.
You can't honestly expect to use the friggin Wish spell as a fair example of anything, under any circumstances, so why should this be any.
Never ever use the Wish spell as an example of how things work, because the spell was designed to break all rules.
Find me one other example. Just one.

[JoeJ]

Cone of cold also has a range of self and "targets you" just as much as shapechange.

So you and your steed both take 8d8 damage, or half that on a successful Con save? Although that should probably be allowed, I'm not clear on why you'd want to do that.

[MaxWilson]

Why would they? And is that even true?
When I cast Wish to create a bazillion tons of gold from nothing, what am I targetting?

The gold which you are creating.

[Gwendol]

And so you choose to disregard the section on targeting spells on page 204 of the PHB? That's very convenient.
Every spell has a target. That target is either a creature, an object, or a point of origin for an AoE.

Produce Flame has a target of you, as you are producing the flame in your hand. If you target anyone else with the flame, at any time, then the spell immediately ends.
It has a target. You. But if you throw it then you are changing the target, so it is not targeting *only* any longer, and is therefore not able to be shared except to light up a small area.

Let's see what the PHB says then:

Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some
spells can target only a creature (including you) that you
touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only
you. These spells have a range o f self.
Spells that create cones or lines o f effect that originate
from you also have a range o f self, indicating that the
origin point o f the spell’s effect must be you (see “Areas
o f Effect” later in the this chapter).

Affect, not target.

And no, not all spells have a target. How do I know this? Because it says so right in the first sentence of the section of targets, page 204, which I haven't ignored but instead read.
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic.

Spells with the range of self do not have a target, since you can't choose one, or "target" (as in the verb) it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Then it's self targeted. A spell has to affect something, and this spell does - you. In the absence of an actual target line (why did they get rid of that?) that's the best metric we've got.

A spell does have to have some effect. That does not necessitate a target.

The two things are in fact differentiated within the rules. Self spells affect the player, but they do not target the player. As I said before, potentially a matter of semantics, but these semantics also create an important distinction of effect.

[Shadow]

The level of fail in this thread at this moment is even larger than usual, and that's saying something around here.
I don't know how many times I need to say it, but apparently once more is in order.
When the PHB states -- Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self. -- the words affect and target are synonymous.

I'm bowing out of this idiotic discussion. Have fun guys. Happy belated Thanksgiving.

[Vogonjeltz]

The level of fail in this thread at this moment is even larger than usual, and that's saying something around here.
I don't know how many times I need to say it, but apparently once more is in order.
When the PHB states -- Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self. -- the words affect and target are synonymous.

I'm bowing out of this idiotic discussion. Have fun guys. Happy belated Thanksgiving.

I think you'll find that is not in the section on targeting, nor does the word affect ever get used as a synonym for targeting or vice versa.

[Gwendol]

"The level of fail"?
Bitter much? Sheesh, it's just a game.

[Shadow]

I think you'll find that is not in the section on targeting, nor does the word affect ever get used as a synonym for targeting or vice versa.

And I think you'll find that the argument which claims that any spell which affects you, and only you, does not target you, is illogical and ridiculous, regardless of what rules-lawyering suggests.
If you cast a spell on yourself, then you are the target of the spell, even if the word *target* was not included in the spell description (because it's implicit by the nature of the spell).

[silveralen]

And I think you'll find that the argument which claims that any spell which affects you, and only you, does not target you, is illogical and ridiculous, regardless of what rules-lawyering suggests.
If you cast a spell on yourself, then you are the target of the spell, even if the word *target* was not included in the spell description (because it's implicit by the nature of the spell).

How do we know that isn't important? The difference from being forced to use true polymorph on you and your mount and shapechange is considerable. Not being able to use shield or might make find steed more balanced (if only for making the mounted combat feat useful). For all we know the choice of phrase was important and not accidental.

[Gwendol]

Well, shield of faith (a paladin spell) is shareable. Shield isn't a paladin spell so it's considerably less relevant to the discussion.

[Shadow]

You're doing to my post earlier regarding Shield exactly what you do to the rulebook.
You're focusing on one singular aspect instead of taking things in context.
I never said "Shield should be sharable." Although I did in fact mean exactly that, it's not what I said.
I said it was the TYPE of spell that this was intended for.
Stop focusing on the damn Shield spell and just take a moment to realize that your rules-lawerying prohibits the very type of spells that were intended to be the primary use.
Context. Use it.

You want a specific example using a paladin spell?
Misty step, OotA.
According to your reading, this was apparently intended to dismount you.
Don't you think it makes more sense that your mount should come with? Your reading forbids it.

Seriously, I'm done with this thread now. Have fun.

[Gwendol]

And I'm pointing out that the paladin has number of such spell he/she can share with the mount.

[silveralen]

You're doing to my post earlier regarding Shield exactly what you do to the rulebook.
You're focusing on one singular aspect instead of taking things in context.
I never said "Shield should be sharable." Although I did in fact mean exactly that, it's not what I said.
I said it was the TYPE of spell that this was intended for.
Stop focusing on the damn Shield spell and just take a moment to realize that your rules-lawerying prohibits the very type of spells that were intended to be the primary use.
Context. Use it.

Seriously, I'm done with this thread now. Have fun.

How do we know that's the type of spell meant to be used? Shield is a reaction that can only be used when you are attacked. It seems weird to use shield when attacked, get a bonus, then have that bonus apply later in the round when your steed is attacked, when you can't use shield if they had only attacked your mount.

The same with shapechange, using it to turn a a CR<1 into a CR 20 seems to be somewhat unintentional, it's only based on the the spellcaster's CR because its assumed it will only be used on the caster, which is why true polymorph doesn't scale based on on the caster's level.

Spells which can be used on people besides the caster as well as the caster himself make more sense with find steed's effect then spells which are based on only effecting the caster. The latter opens up really weird options, ones that don't make much sense.

[GiantOctopodes]

So ignoring people's hilarious banter, I just wanted to weigh in that in this case the RAW is clear- it uses a defined game term, target, to specify the conditions for sharing spells. Spells do *not* need to target anything. As an example, AMF does not target anything. I didn't even get past the letter "A". It creates an effect within an area, but it does not target that area any more than it targets you. There is no target, in terms of the defined game term, merely an effect.

So as much as I think the way it works is stupid, and would obviously house rule it, the way that it works is quite clearly spelled out, people just want to ignore it because they want to argue RAI vs RAW. The thing is, RAI is great for houserules, but for discussion of what the actual rule is, we have no way of *actually* knowing what RAI is, we can argue our thoughts and opinions all day long, but you know what they say about opinions. So instead we would need to discuss RAW, which is *doubly* important when things are not already clear, to make sure that people who are having trouble understanding it can see what the clearly established baseline might be.

And just because they wrote the book poorly doesn't change RAW. "A spell typically requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic" is all we get for what it means for something to be targeted. So unless you make the *active choice* that you are the target of a spell, you're not, you're just affected by it, in the same way that those hit by cone of cold are not targets of the spell (in this case, an area of effect is), they're just subject to its effects. Barring the ability to consciously choose to affect yourself, or a creature (and then choosing to target yourself), you are not the target and cannot share the ability.

I know that may eliminate many self buffs. Just going to say this- maybe they should consider an errata. Just saying. As is though, I don't care what people might think the spell *should* do or is *intended* to do. I can only judge and weigh in on what it *does* do, per the rules as laid out, and in this case those are clear, people aren't even arguing they're unclear, just that they don't like the result.

[Vogonjeltz]

And I think you'll find that the argument which claims that any spell which affects you, and only you, does not target you, is illogical and ridiculous, regardless of what rules-lawyering suggests.
If you cast a spell on yourself, then you are the target of the spell, even if the word *target* was not included in the spell description (because it's implicit by the nature of the spell).

Respectfully, that's not true in terms of meaning. A target is "a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack." Whereas to affect is "have an effect on; make a difference to.
"the dampness began to affect my health"
synonyms: have an effect on, influence, act on, work on, have an impact on, impact; More"

One can be affected without being a target, which is exactly how spells like shapechange operate. The caster targets nothing and no one, the magic simply affects them. Conversely, aid requires a target. Find steed specifically requires targeted spells.

[Dalebert]

And so you choose to disregard the section on targeting spells on page 204 of the PHB? That's very convenient.

They're not ignoring it. They're just not reading into it to the extent that you are in this case.


Every spell has a target. That target is either a creature, an object, or a point of origin for an AoE.

Hardly.


A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic.

So typically but not always, as they stated very clearly, and to say they only said that due to wish as the one exception is purely speculative and not backed up by lots of other circumstances.

Some spells just have effects, such as spells that conjure something into being out of nothing. You can't claim that the thing being conjured is a target of the spell because it wasn't there when the spell was cast.


Find me one other example. Just one.

Conjure Animals. There is clearly no "creature, object, or point of origin for an AoE", and frankly not even a target by the general sense of the word even beyond what they carefully specified "target" to mean.

[Shadow]

Conjure Animals. There is clearly no "creature, object, or point of origin for an AoE", and frankly not even a target by the general sense of the word even beyond what they carefully specified "target" to mean.

Nope. What are you conjuring? Animals. So animals are the target of your conjuration.
Or conversely, where are you conjuring them? Right there, so that point is the target of your conjuration.

[Dalebert]

Nope. What are you conjuring? Animals. So animals are the target of your conjuration.

You can't target something that doesn't exist. Clearly, animals are the effect of the spell and not the target. They are created by the spell.


Or conversely, where are you conjuring them? Right there, so that point is the target of your conjuration.

Multiple locations are specified for where they appear. It's not an AoE and does not fit any three of the kinds of targets specified in that section you're referencing for your points, i.e. creature, object, or point of origin for an AoE.

[Eslin]

You can't target something that doesn't exist. Clearly, animals are the effect of the spell and not the target. They are created by the spell.

Multiple locations are specified for where they appear. It's not an AoE and does not fit any three of the kinds of targets specified in that section you're referencing for your points, i.e. creature, object, or point of origin for an AoE.

Gonna have to disagree, since they have to be within 60 feet of you I'd say you're clearly the point of origin (though not the only target, in the same way that cone of cold having a range of self doesn't let you double it)

Though... thinking about it, I'd honestly say that they didn't think about all permutations of spellcasting. For spells like that, the target would most logically be points of origin - they have an annoying habit of making incomplete rules and this seems to be one of them.

[Dalebert]

Though... thinking about it, I'd honestly say that they didn't think about all permutations of spellcasting. For spells like that, the target would most logically be points of origin - they have an annoying habit of making incomplete rules and this seems to be one of them.

And that's my point. Shadow is insisting that they said specific things that they simply didn't to support that his POV is also RAW and I'm just saying the RAW are ambiguous. RAI is even a bit ambiguous. The DM has to rule on it.

Shadow, for the sake of your own peace of mind and your nerves, I would encourage you to be less emotionally invested in how other people interpret such things for their games. FWIW, I seem to be mostly in agreement with you on how I would rule on them. I just don't see evidence to insist it's the RAW.

[Shadow]

Shadow, for the sake of your own peace of mind and your nerves, I would encourage you to be less emotionally invested in how other people interpret such things for their games.

I'll get exactly as emotionally invested as I want to get, thank you very much.

[Vogonjeltz]

Gonna have to disagree, since they have to be within 60 feet of you I'd say you're clearly the point of origin (though not the only target, in the same way that cone of cold having a range of self doesn't let you double it)

Though... thinking about it, I'd honestly say that they didn't think about all permutations of spellcasting. For spells like that, the target would most logically be points of origin - they have an annoying habit of making incomplete rules and this seems to be one of them.

Conversely, there is clearly no target and the rules are, in fact, complete. I'd be happy to adjust my position should you find some information supporting yours. (Perhaps in the DMG? I haven't looked there yet).

[Shadow]

Conversely, there is clearly no target

That is obviously not as clear as you claim, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It may be clear to you, but to some of us the opposite is clear.
It will be the DM's call.