Find Steed

[Pex]

How is this spell supposed to work?

For my paladin the DM ruled the mount doesn't get his own actions during combat. It doesn't Attack. It can't use the Help action to give advantage, etc. In exchange the mount doesn't get targeted by enemy attacks, just my paladin. Therefore I don't have to keep casting the spell due to the low AC low hit point mount constantly being killed off and dissipated. I ride the mount in combat for the 60 ft movement which the DM has no problem with and has been very helpful for me to move about the battlefield as necessary, even more so because my character is a dwarf. The DM ruled this way because he doesn't think it fair for my paladin to get a class feature (i.e ranger) just from a spell.

I'm not personally bothered by this ruling. The combat speed alone really has been a big help. However, I'm curious how the mount from Find Steed is supposed to work officially.

[MaxWilson]

How is this spell supposed to work?

For my paladin the DM ruled the mount doesn't get his own actions during combat. It doesn't Attack. It can't use the Help action to give advantage, etc. In exchange the mount doesn't get targeted by enemy attacks, just my paladin. Therefore I don't have to keep casting the spell due to the low AC low hit point mount constantly being killed off and dissipated. I ride the mount in combat for the 60 ft movement which the DM has no problem with and has been very helpful for me to move about the battlefield as necessary, even more so because my character is a dwarf. The DM ruled this way because he doesn't think it fair for my paladin to get a class feature (i.e ranger) just from a spell.

I'm not personally bothered by this ruling. The combat speed alone really has been a big help. However, I'm curious how the mount from Find Steed is supposed to work officially.

Well, at minimum, your DM is using the Mount rules wrong--the mount is supposed to get its own action to Dash or Disengage on your turn, which lets it move up to 120', not just 60'.

Also, if you get off your horse, it's supposed to get its own actions.

Other than that, it's dependent on DM judgment as to whether or not the mount is sufficiently intelligent to act as an "intelligent mount" during combat. Your DM is within his rights to judge that it can't Attack while it's being ridden.

[mgshamster]

Jeremy Crawford has confirmed (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/find-steed-steed-can-attack-on-your-turn/) that the mount is not acting as an independent, intelligent being while mounted, so it cannot attack while you are riding it.

The explanation is that even though it has higher Int, it has a magical connection that makes you control it, therefore it can't act independently while mounted. So you use the standard mount rules, which means it can't attack while mounted.

If you dismount, it can act as a normal creature. What a normal creature can and will do is up to the GM, but allowing you to command it where (and who) to attack without taking one of your actions makes it better than a beastmaster's companion.

It should be able to take other standard mount actions while mounted, and it's those that your GM has traded for it not to be attacked. You might ask him to reconsider.

[Ninja_Prawn]

That's lame. Just because the beastmaster is weak, doesn't mean you should be dragged down to their level. You should try to convince your DM to use the rules for mounted combat on page 198 of the PHB.

The mount can't help, but it can dodge. And if it get dissipated, well that's one attack you didn't have to wear.

[MaxWilson]

Jeremy Crawford has confirmed (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/16/find-steed-steed-can-attack-on-your-turn/) that the mount is not acting as an independent, intelligent being while mounted, so it cannot attack while you are riding it.

All Crawford does in that tweet is refer you to the "normal mounted combat rules", which are explicit that intelligent creatures act independently even while mounted.

Hence, it's still up to the DM to determine whether a steed with Int 6 is sufficiently intelligent for that to apply.

In other words, that tweet is useless.

[Slipperychicken]

I think he just doesn't want you to have a free pet taking up time and magnifying your power.


And yeah, you are supposed to be re-casting it every so often when it gets rekt. That's why the spell has no cost to it. Besides, having it take hits is good because it means party members aren't taking those hits.

[mgshamster]

All Crawford does in that tweet is refer you to the "normal mounted combat rules", which are explicit that intelligent creatures act independently even while mounted.

Hence, it's still up to the DM to determine whether a steed with Int 6 is sufficiently intelligent for that to apply.

In other words, that tweet is useless.

Oops. I grabbed the wrong link. Thanks!

controlled mount (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/18/does-a-paladins-mount-count-as-intelligent-creature-for-mounted-combat/)

Q: Does a paladin's mount count as intelligent for the purpose of mounted combat?

A: Find Steed summons a mount that is under the paladin's control, regardless of the mount's Intelligence.

Q: Does that mean it doesn't get to attack?

A: Correct. It follows the rules for a controlled mount.

[bid]

The problem with an intelligent mount is if your target disengages, you've got nothing to attack on your turn and you cannot move. If your mount initiative isn't just before yours, you become useless.

[MaxWilson]

Oops. I grabbed the wrong link. Thanks!

controlled mount (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/18/does-a-paladins-mount-count-as-intelligent-creature-for-mounted-combat/)

Q: Does a paladin's mount count as intelligent for the purpose of mounted combat?

A: Find Steed summons a mount that is under the paladin's control, regardless of the mount's Intelligence.

Q: Does that mean it doesn't get to attack?

A: Correct. It follows the rules for a controlled mount.

Wow. Thanks for the link--and yet another entry in my "reasons to ignore Sage Advice" book. He doesn't even TRY to give a basis for his ruling.

Wrong again, Crawford.

[mgshamster]

Wow. Thanks for the link--and yet another entry in my "reasons to ignore Sage Advice" book. He doesn't even TRY to give a basis for his ruling.

Wrong again, Crawford.

That's why I believe in "rulings, not rules." I don't really care what RAW says for my games, I care what the GM says.

[BiblioRook]

For my paladin the DM ruled the mount doesn't get his own actions during combat. It doesn't Attack. It can't use the Help action to give advantage, etc. In exchange the mount doesn't get targeted by enemy attacks, just my paladin. Therefore I don't have to keep casting the spell due to the low AC low hit point mount constantly being killed off and dissipated. I ride the mount in combat for the 60 ft movement which the DM has no problem with and has been very helpful for me to move about the battlefield as necessary, even more so because my character is a dwarf. The DM ruled this way because he doesn't think it fair for my paladin to get a class feature (i.e ranger) just from a spell.

I've faced similar issues using Find Familiar, only my DM wasn't so nice about leaving it alone (in fact he went out of his way to kill it whenever he got the chance, which was annoying because unlike Find Steed Find Familiar does have a material cost).

They way I see it though, you aren't so much gaining an additional class feature with the casting of a spell as much as gaining an additional class feature with the sacrifice of a spell slot. Giving up an entire spell slot isn't really a small thing!

[Tanarii]

Oops. I grabbed the wrong link. Thanks!

controlled mount (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/18/does-a-paladins-mount-count-as-intelligent-creature-for-mounted-combat/)

Q: Does a paladin's mount count as intelligent for the purpose of mounted combat?

A: Find Steed summons a mount that is under the paladin's control, regardless of the mount's Intelligence.

Q: Does that mean it doesn't get to attack?

A: Correct. It follows the rules for a controlled mount.
It'd be nice if they just fixed the Mount rule so that Intelligent Mounts acted independently ... but entirely under the DMs control, as an NPC.

[Rhaegar14]

It'd be nice if they just fixed the Mount rule so that Intelligent Mounts acted independently ... but entirely under the DMs control, as an NPC.

While that might not be a bad idea on the whole (in fact, that's pretty much how it's supposed to work by RAW), that doesn't make any sense for the mount from Find Steed. A Paladin is telepathically linked to their mount, and the spell description literally reads "...and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit." It does not really make much sense for the DM to control it with that context, and "seamless unit" implies that they should act on the same initiative, though I am in no way saying that's a clearly intended rule.

[Tanarii]

While that might not be a bad idea on the whole (in fact, that's pretty much how it's supposed to work by RAW), that doesn't make any sense for the mount from Find Steed.
It wouldn't help if you assume the mount is intelligent enough to operate as an independent mount, yes. I've never assumed that was the case.

Edit: to be clearer, that interpretation has always struck me as an attempt to game the rules. If the independent mounted creatures were completely and obviously NPCs under DM control, it would make the fact that it's an attempt to game the rules clearer. And less attractive.

[Rhaegar14]

It wouldn't help if you assume the mount is intelligent enough to operate as an independent mount, yes. I've never assumed that was the case.

Edit: to be clearer, that interpretation has always struck me as an attempt to game the rules. If the independent mounted creatures were completely and obviously NPCs under DM control, it would make the fact that it's an attempt to game the rules clearer. And less attractive.

I think the trouble comes in at where they set its Intelligence. Whether or not 6 Intelligence is high enough to make it sentient is debatable, because that's well below human average but well above animal intelligence. Personally, I think the telepathic communication with no further specification about the animal's limits implies sentience, but that can definitely be disputed.

[Coidzor]

Int 6 has always been sapient in D&D going back to the early days when prominent characters were anagrams of the players' names or otherwise uninventively derived from them as a rule, as far as I'm aware. Sentience has varied between Int 1 and 3, though, I think.

It's just, y'know, not going to be winning many spelling bees or grokking advanced mathematics.

I see no reason to change just because a new edition has rolled out.


That's why I believe in "rulings, not rules." I don't really care what RAW says for my games, I care what the GM says.

I care about both, because that way I have a basis for judging whether the GM is talking out of their ass or saying something completely stupid.

Also, means I have a greater awareness of when the rules are just bad or areas where GMs are likely to make rulings.

[Giant2005]

Wow. Thanks for the link--and yet another entry in my "reasons to ignore Sage Advice" book. He doesn't even TRY to give a basis for his ruling.

Wrong again, Crawford.

Whether his ruling is wrong or not, his ruling is certainly the most player friendly.
The spell would be near useless if the Mount was uncontrolled - you would be risking the rider's extra attack for the sake of a horse's crappy damage with an attack bonus low enough that the crappy damage isn't even likely to be inflicted. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.

[Kryx]

I find the ruling to be perfectly fine. I agree that a spell slot for a class feature would be too much. The problem players have is that companion rules are purposefully strict for game balance reasons. They don't like that. They, fairly, want those rules to not be designed better.

But without better design if players are allowed to simple show up with another creature on their side of the fight with more HP and damage at very little cost then you'd soon have a party leading a pack of goats/donkeys against enemies. It may sound fun once, but it becomes the best choice and should logically be repeated every encounter.

[Sir cryosin]

In the spell it says any spell that you cast on you your your Steed is also under its effect so does that mean if your a Vengeance Paladin and you have haste cast on you does that mean your Steed has haste as well and therefore gets a free attack?

[Daishain]

The explanation is that even though it has higher Int, it has a magical connection that makes you control it, therefore it can't act independently while mounted. So you use the standard mount rules, which means it can't attack while mounted.
Which is utter bull**** for anyone that has a clue about mounted combat

A trained warhorse is an incredibly deadly weapon, once that is in sync with its rider at all times and is most definitely capable of killing others with no help from its rider at all. Take that warhorse, give it more intelligence, and a mental link that improves the bond between mount and rider even further...

But nope, instead both warhorses and Pally mounts are either dragged down to the same level as your average untrained cart horse, or they're forced to act on their own turn, making combat extremely awkward unless they never move around.

[RickAllison]

In the spell it says any spell that you cast on you your your Steed is also under its effect so does that mean if your a Vengeance Paladin and you have haste cast on you does that mean your Steed has haste as well and therefore gets a free attack?

Yes, the horse has Haste on it. The restriction on actions to Dash, Disengage, or Dodge is still in play. Thus, the Haste action can only be used for Dash or Disengage.

That being said, it's a good plan for mobility. At that point, a horse could be running around at 360' per round (2X with two Dashes) or 240' while Disengaging. Covering half the distance of the longbow seems like a fantastic closing action. In melee, the Hasted horse can travel at 120' while Disengaging and Dodging!

[ClintACK]

(Re: Horse can't attack while mounted...)


Which is utter bull**** for anyone that has a clue about mounted combat

A trained warhorse is an incredibly deadly weapon, once that is in sync with its rider at all times and is most definitely capable of killing others with no help from its rider at all. Take that warhorse, give it more intelligence, and a mental link that improves the bond between mount and rider even further...


Yep.

Actually, the rules in Beast Master, where you sacrifice an attack by the Ranger to let the Beast attack -- which makes no sense for Ranger -- would make *perfect* sense for mounted combat.

You can lean down and charge your steed straight at the enemy, but you can't swing your sword while you're doing it, because you're holding the reins with both hands.

Or, you can get all your extra attacks in, but the horse is just moving and maneuvering with you, it can't trample or rear up while you're sword-fighting.

Alas, those rules don't apply for mounts, they apply for the combat-trained dog who is on the other side of the map attacking one of the hostiles. Because reasons.

[Sir cryosin]

Ok I'm going to try and push this. If I'm mounted on a mastiff I cast haste then dismount can I get 3 attacks the then mastiff get 2 hoping that he still effected by haste?

[RickAllison]

Ok I'm going to try and push this. If I'm mounted on a mastiff I cast haste then dismount can I get 3 attacks the then mastiff get 2 hoping that he still effected by haste?

Yes. Find Steed lets you target your steed as well, you are not sharing it with him.

[MaxWilson]

That's why I believe in "rulings, not rules." I don't really care what RAW says for my games, I care what the GM says.

It strikes me that this also illustrates why Twitter is a horrible, horrible platform for issuing rules clarifications. The 140 character limit surely explains at least some of Crawford's terseness, which may also explain part of his wrongness. I know that when it comes to forum posts and emails, sometimes if I lay out my reasons explaining a position, I realize while I am writing it that I'm wrong--and I change my mind before I ever hit Send.

Twitter doesn't give Crawford the chance to go through that process.

[MaxWilson]

Whether his ruling is wrong or not, his ruling is certainly the most player friendly.
The spell would be near useless if the Mount was uncontrolled - you would be risking the rider's extra attack for the sake of a horse's crappy damage with an attack bonus low enough that the crappy damage isn't even likely to be inflicted. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.

A warhorse has +6 to attack for about 10 points of damage, plus proning, plus another attack at +6 for 10 if it tramples. A 20th level fighter using GWM power attack has +6 to attack for +10 points of damage to the attack (probably 20 total).

If warhorse attacks are laughable then logically so must be GWM on a 20th level fighter. They're similar.

It's not "controlled mounts" that are player unfriendly. It is "cyclic initiative." You have the exact same problem whenever two PCs try to coordinate anything, including running next to each other. If you abandon cyclic initiative (the single worst thing about vanilla 5E) then you can simply say, "Okay, to coordinate your runs so you both hit the bad guy at the same time, your initiative is the lower of both your initiatives." Simple, no-fuss. An intelligent mount like a dragon, a Moon Druid, or a paladin's steed can work exactly the same way.

[Tanarii]

You have the exact same problem whenever two PCs try to coordinate anything, including running next to each other. If you abandon cyclic initiative (the single worst thing about vanilla 5E) then you can simply say, "Okay, to coordinate your runs so you both hit the bad guy at the same time, your initiative is the lower of both your initiatives."
From a simulationist perspective, there should be no way two creatures in combat should be able to coordinate their actions to that degree on the fly.

Looks like cyclical initiative is doing its job to me.

Edit: one of the best things 5e did was get rid of delay, so characters can't have all their actions simultaneously like some kind of military formation. Similarly, side initiative from old editions was flawed. It worked for war gaming, but not for small squad non-formation individual combat.

[mgshamster]

From a simulationist perspective, there should be no way two creatures in combat should be able to coordinate their actions to that degree on the fly.

Looks like cyclical initiative is doing its job to me.

Edit: one of the best things 5e did was get rid of delay, so characters can't have all their actions simultaneously like some kind of military formation. Similarly, side initiative from old editions was flawed. It worked for war gaming, but not for small squad non-formation individual combat.

At the same time, though, I believe that with training you should be able to set something up like that.

On the other hand, I'm fairly fluid with combats in my games. Usually we just go by cyclic initiative. But sometimes we change up how we do combat - make it more narrative than mechanical.

One combat we had one character just massively slaughtering attackers every round, while the rest of the party (in a different area) went through cyclic initiative against a single big bad.

Another combat I had half the party going through a narrative escape while the other half did a semi-narrative combat (no initiative, but still dice rolls for attack and damage).

Really, I use it to break up the monotony of standard combat. Through in a new mechanic or a narrative scene every now and then. And if two players want to have their characters running next to each other as they wade through combat trying to reach a specific point on the other side of the battlefield - why not let them every now and then? It makes for some great story and enhances the fun at the table.

[Daishain]

From a simulationist perspective, there should be no way two creatures in combat should be able to coordinate their actions to that degree on the fly.

You think that running together is too coordinated... If we were speaking of a squad of spooked townsfolk that barely know which end of the pitchfork to hold I might agree with you, and even then only because the odds of them running in the right direction if they run at all is luck of the dice. But one of the first and simplest things any serious combatant will ever learn is how to work with allied combatants, especially in regards to basic movement. Your average commoner class soldier is trained to coordinate movement on the fly, and a PC is far beyond commoner class.

Now, if we were talking about coordinated strikes, one person covering the other's blind spot as needed, kicking at the feet at the same time the other is bullrushing, etc. that probably requires specialized drill training that 5e material doesn't cover. But just running at the same time in the same direction?

[RickAllison]

You think that running together is too coordinated... If we were speaking of a squad of spooked townsfolk that barely know which end of the pitchfork to hold I might agree with you, and even then only because the odds of them running in the right direction if they run at all is luck of the dice. But one of the first and simplest things any serious combatant will ever learn is how to work with allied combatants, especially in regards to basic movement. Your average commoner class soldier is trained to coordinate movement on the fly, and a PC is far beyond commoner class.

Now, if we were talking about coordinated strikes, one person covering the other's blind spot as needed, kicking at the feet at the same time the other is bullrushing, etc. that probably requires specialized drill training that 5e material doesn't cover. But just running at the same time in the same direction?

Houserule incoming! Why not compromise by letting players move down in initiative (not up) if they give up their turn in a round to do so? It lets a party gain the teamwork they might want, but at a stiff mechanical penalty that means they would rarely want to do so.

[Pex]

Yes, I certainly see the DM nerfed the Steed, but the 60 ft movement is still helpful and I'm not having to recast the spell. In a sense it's a Fast Movement class feature that's better than barbarian and monk. I can live with that.

[Slipperychicken]

Yes, I certainly see the DM nerfed the Steed, but the 60 ft movement is still helpful and I'm not having to recast the spell. In a sense it's a Fast Movement class feature that's better than barbarian and monk. I can live with that.

Don't forget the encumbrance. That's 540 pounds more loot to take home. 2,700 if you hitch it to a cart.

[Coidzor]

(Re: Horse can't attack while mounted...)



Yep.

Actually, the rules in Beast Master, where you sacrifice an attack by the Ranger to let the Beast attack -- which makes no sense for Ranger -- would make *perfect* sense for mounted combat.

You can lean down and charge your steed straight at the enemy, but you can't swing your sword while you're doing it, because you're holding the reins with both hands.

Or, you can get all your extra attacks in, but the horse is just moving and maneuvering with you, it can't trample or rear up while you're sword-fighting.

Alas, those rules don't apply for mounts, they apply for the combat-trained dog who is on the other side of the map attacking one of the hostiles. Because reasons.

That is a really good point, now that you mention it.

And I think the whole companion creature balance point in 5e actualizes the hyperbole many people made about 4e's overemphasis on a balance point and area that cut out large swatches of fun out of the fabric of D&D.

[Gwendol]

Mounted combat is still not well implemented in D&D. A cavalry charge should be a terrible weapon of destruction. Not a minor inconvenience.

[Vogonjeltz]

Wow. Thanks for the link--and yet another entry in my "reasons to ignore Sage Advice" book. He doesn't even TRY to give a basis for his ruling.

Wrong again, Crawford.

The wording of the spell and the Mounted Combat rules taken in conjunction rule out the possibility that the mount can be independent.

From the spell: "fight as a seamless unit"

Two citations from Controlling a Mount:
1) "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it"
2) "An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes."

It can't both be acting in unison and doing its own schtick. The text only supports it as a controlled mount, and it only makes sense that way.


If the independent mounted creatures were completely and obviously NPCs under DM control,

A rider of an independent mount makes literally no decisions for it...so yeah, it's an NPC under DM control. Who ever said it wasn't, and on what basis?


A trained warhorse is an incredibly deadly weapon, once that is in sync with its rider at all times and is most definitely capable of killing others with no help from its rider at all. Take that warhorse, give it more intelligence, and a mental link that improves the bond between mount and rider even further...

There's no reason a character couldn't use Animal Handling to have their mount perform an atypical action.

i.e. I take the attack action, and I substitute one of my attacks to try and have my Warhorse perform it's hoof-attack special ability at the end of a charge. DM rules this requires a successful Animal Handling Check, and possibly a check to remain in the saddle.

[Saeviomage]

The wording of the spell and the Mounted Combat rules taken in conjunction rule out the possibility that the mount can be independent.

Nope, they don't.


From the spell: "fight as a seamless unit"

Two citations from Controlling a Mount:
1) "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it"
2) "An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes."

It can't both be acting in unison and doing its own schtick. The text only supports it as a controlled mount, and it only makes sense that way.

Rubbish. "as it wishes" does not preclude "as you wish". The 3rd sentence pretty much spells that out: it might act against your wishes. It might not.

In this case, it seems clear that the unusually intelligent and loyal mount who was sent by the powers that be for the explicit purpose of serving you in and out of combat, can understand your telepathic commands, can never die and has an instinctive bond with you should be acting more-or-less 'as you wish'.


A rider of an independent mount makes literally no decisions for it...so yeah, it's an NPC under DM control. Who ever said it wasn't, and on what basis?

The familiar has some language that covers exactly this: "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands.". "What? Preposterous! Impossible!", I hear you say! "Those things are mutually exclusive!!".


There's no reason a character couldn't use Animal Handling to have their mount perform an atypical action.

Since when is a warhorse attacking an atypical action?


i.e. I take the attack action, and I substitute one of my attacks to try and have my Warhorse perform it's hoof-attack special ability at the end of a charge. DM rules this requires a successful Animal Handling Check, and possibly a check to remain in the saddle.
That's an idiotic ruling, because it halves or quarters the chance of your attack doing anything, simply because you chose not to be boring.

Incidentally: what happens to my mount if I dismount it in the middle of combat?

[Gwendol]

There's no reason a character couldn't use Animal Handling to have their mount perform an atypical action.

i.e. I take the attack action, and I substitute one of my attacks to try and have my Warhorse perform it's hoof-attack special ability at the end of a charge. DM rules this requires a successful Animal Handling Check, and possibly a check to remain in the saddle.

There's no reason why the animal handling check should cost me my action. A cavalry charge will include the initial thrust with a lance or spear, then possibly, should the rider want to, trampling the enemy before turning around for a second pass (using a secondary weapon, unless the knight can equip spare lances). I'd rule it as a contest, giving the enemy a chance to escape the charging horse, unless we are talking formation fighting (both attacking and defending side) which should be handled differently altogether.

[RickAllison]

There's no reason why the animal handling check should cost me my action. A cavalry charge will include the initial thrust with a lance or spear, then possibly, should the rider want to, trampling the enemy before turning around for a second pass (using a secondary weapon, unless the knight can equip spare lances). I'd rule it as a contest, giving the enemy a chance to escape the charging horse, unless we are talking formation fighting (both attacking and defending side) which should be handled differently altogether.

Well the suggestion was as one of your attacks in the Attack action. If you are a rogue, then you only get the one. If you are a paladin or fighter (anything with Extra Attack), you would be able to mimic getting both a lance charge and the trample.

On the other hand, this does step on the toes of the Beastmaster.

[Vogonjeltz]

Rubbish. "as it wishes" does not preclude "as you wish". The 3rd sentence pretty much spells that out: it might act against your wishes. It might not.

In this case, it seems clear that the unusually intelligent and loyal mount who was sent by the powers that be for the explicit purpose of serving you in and out of combat, can understand your telepathic commands, can never die and has an instinctive bond with you should be acting more-or-less 'as you wish'.

Correction, as you wish might coincide with as it wishes, but it can not be contrary to, or else the Mount can not be acting as it wishes.

I agree with the second statement, and in the context of the two types of mounts, that leads me to believe it must be controlled.


The familiar has some language that covers exactly this: "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands.". "What? Preposterous! Impossible!", I hear you say! "Those things are mutually exclusive!!".

Well, no, that suggests it can be commanded, whereas the Independent mount has no such caveat. A request might be made, a command might even be made, but the mount is under no obligation to carry that out. The controlled mount, on the other hand, performs exactly as chosen by the player, and does nothing on its own.


Since when is a warhorse attacking an atypical action?

It's not about the Warhorse, it's about the nature as a Controlled mount. Controlled mounts don't get to use the attack action. I'm trying to reconcile the issue of a controlled mount not having the attack action as a possible option and Warhorses having a feature that functions off the attack action.

Under the current rules, it would suggest that the Warhorse must be allowed to be uncontrolled to use their attack feature, which, I agree, seems unlikely and silly.


That's an idiotic ruling, because it halves or quarters the chance of your attack doing anything, simply because you chose not to be boring.

Incidentally: what happens to my mount if I dismount it in the middle of combat?

It's attempting to do something outside the bounds of what is normally capable, it also enables a bonus attack by the warhorse, so it's a small risk to gain more attacks than are normally possible. (in effect, it grants a second bonus action). If anything, my ruling would be extremely lenient for the action economy gain.

Presumably it remains controlled, which is generally a superior outcome for a character as it prohibits the mount from simply running away in terror.


There's no reason why the animal handling check should cost me my action. A cavalry charge will include the initial thrust with a lance or spear, then possibly, should the rider want to, trampling the enemy before turning around for a second pass (using a secondary weapon, unless the knight can equip spare lances). I'd rule it as a contest, giving the enemy a chance to escape the charging horse, unless we are talking formation fighting (both attacking and defending side) which should be handled differently altogether.

I was having it as taking up a single melee attack which would also require an wisdom (animal handling) check by the player. The reason for this is that the Warhorse would be able to land a bonus action attack on top of the attack action; in effect granting the player two bonus actions for the price of nothing, if it didn't require the player to substitute even one of their attacks (forget their action).

If anything, I'm a little concerned this might still be overpowered...in comparison the Beastmaster would have these options:

Action-> Beast attacks (gets bonus action attack) and BM gets one attack from Extra attack.
vs
Ruling: Beastmaster gets Attack action, substituting one attack for possible attack action by Warhorse + bonus action attack + able to initiate their own bonus action attack.

Yeah, assuming the check is fairly easily made, it would allow greater action economy than the BM's class option benefits from. That alone should disallow the rider from substituting their partial action to allow the creature to attack I suppose, but instead require the action for the chance for the Beast to attack.

Otherwise it would be imbalanced as a ruling, effectively giving out a class feature to all comers for free.

[Gwendol]

I was having it as taking up a single melee attack which would also require an wisdom (animal handling) check by the player. The reason for this is that the Warhorse would be able to land a bonus action attack on top of the attack action; in effect granting the player two bonus actions for the price of nothing, if it didn't require the player to substitute even one of their attacks (forget their action).

If anything, I'm a little concerned this might still be overpowered...in comparison the Beastmaster would have these options:

Action-> Beast attacks (gets bonus action attack) and BM gets one attack from Extra attack.
vs
Ruling: Beastmaster gets Attack action, substituting one attack for possible attack action by Warhorse + bonus action attack + able to initiate their own bonus action attack.

Yeah, assuming the check is fairly easily made, it would allow greater action economy than the BM's class option benefits from. That alone should disallow the rider from substituting their partial action to allow the creature to attack I suppose, but instead require the action for the chance for the Beast to attack.

Otherwise it would be imbalanced as a ruling, effectively giving out a class feature to all comers for free.


I did misread your initial suggestion as having the skill check account for the PC's action, not a single attack. I agree that modelling the cavalry charge off other contests such as shoving, grappling, etc, is a good move. In other words, substitute one attack for a trample or kick (or bite or whatever depending on the mount). However, I still find the mounted combat rules lacking. Depending on the relative size of the mount and the defender there really should be an overrun or trample option that doesn't necessary do that much damage, but rather is used to break formations, render defenders prone, etc. The normal attacks of the mount do not normally translate well into the image of the mount simply running down the defender.

[Saeviomage]

Correction, as you wish might coincide with as it wishes, but it can not be contrary to, or else the Mount can not be acting as it wishes.

There's no correction here. This is orthogonal to what I said.


I agree with the second statement, and in the context of the two types of mounts, that leads me to believe it must be controlled.

Since 'controlled' is a very specific game term used to describe the behaviour of a mount, not to define a category, that's a silly thing to do.


Well, no, that suggests it can be commanded, whereas the Independent mount has no such caveat. A request might be made, a command might even be made, but the mount is under no obligation to carry that out. The controlled mount, on the other hand, performs exactly as chosen by the player, and does nothing on its own.

No, it suggests that the common language the game is written by doesn't regard "does everything you wishes" and "independant" as exclusive terms.


It's not about the Warhorse, it's about the nature as a Controlled mount. Controlled mounts don't get to use the attack action. I'm trying to reconcile the issue of a controlled mount not having the attack action as a possible option and Warhorses having a feature that functions off the attack action.

Under the current rules, it would suggest that the Warhorse must be allowed to be uncontrolled to use their attack feature, which, I agree, seems unlikely and silly.

Ah, right, I misunderstood.


It's attempting to do something outside the bounds of what is normally capable, it also enables a bonus attack by the warhorse, so it's a small risk to gain more attacks than are normally possible. (in effect, it grants a second bonus action). If anything, my ruling would be extremely lenient for the action economy gain.

Except that the paladin could also dismount and then get exactly the same benefit. Furthermore, there are plenty of other spells that allow you to violate the action economy.


Presumably it remains controlled, which is generally a superior outcome for a character as it prohibits the mount from simply running away in terror.

So... now it's a controlled mount even if it's not mounted? And the typical behaviour for a warhorse (well, a subservient spirit in the form of a warhorse) in combat is to run in terror?


I was having it as taking up a single melee attack which would also require an wisdom (animal handling) check by the player. The reason for this is that the Warhorse would be able to land a bonus action attack on top of the attack action; in effect granting the player two bonus actions for the price of nothing, if it didn't require the player to substitute even one of their attacks (forget their action).

Again - it's a spell being used in the limited context of mounted combat. Anyone who is mounted is already getting free dash actions, massive movement upgrades etc.


If anything, I'm a little concerned this might still be overpowered...in comparison the Beastmaster would have these options:

Action-> Beast attacks (gets bonus action attack) and BM gets one attack from Extra attack.
vs
Ruling: Beastmaster gets Attack action, substituting one attack for possible attack action by Warhorse + bonus action attack + able to initiate their own bonus action attack.

Yeah, assuming the check is fairly easily made, it would allow greater action economy than the BM's class option benefits from. That alone should disallow the rider from substituting their partial action to allow the creature to attack I suppose, but instead require the action for the chance for the Beast to attack.

Otherwise it would be imbalanced as a ruling, effectively giving out a class feature to all comers for free.

A poor class feature. The foolish beastmaster who rides his own beast will also need to spend actions in order to have his mount dash, dodge or disengage, when everyone else gets that for free.

A more sensible beastmaster would give his mount it's head, and spend his time commanding his beast (assuming he's level 5 or better).

[Tanarii]

Except that the paladin could also dismount and then get exactly the same benefit. Furthermore, there are plenty of other spells that allow you to violate the action economy.What benefit is the paladin gaining by dismounting? Are you suggesting an unmounted paladin warhorse attacks as the paladin wishes? Or does something other than fight it's way out to safety?

[Taejang]

Mounted combat is still not well implemented in D&D. A cavalry charge should be a terrible weapon of destruction. Not a minor inconvenience.
Indeed, though D&D isn't meant to model anything above squad level fighting. And the PCs are rarely numerous enough to even count as a squad. A single mounted warrior charging a half-dozen scattered enemies is not nearly as effective as a cavalry charge; if the guy on the ground has any sense, he'll just move out of the way. If he can't, trampling and/or lance attack ensues, but only against one guy.

Without formations to break apart, that's kind of it.

More on topic, I'd say the DM's ruling in question is just that: a DM ruling. The power of a mount in combat is not the small damage it can do, it is the tactical ability. Same with a familiar: even a beefed-up warlock familiar is still not a vehicle for damage, and taking the Help action in combat, while useful, is not the key feature, either. It is the scouting from above, the extra senses a bat gets, the invisibility of an imp, it is always the tactical options a familiar gives that makes Find Familiar a required spell to optimize any wizard build.

It sounds like the OP is using his mount for battlefield movement and other tactics. The DM basically made a pact: don't use the mount for attack, and I won't attack it. That's a super powerful deal right there, and it helps the player far more than it hurts.

[Slipperychicken]

What benefit is the paladin gaining by dismounting? Are you suggesting an unmounted paladin warhorse attacks as the paladin wishes? Or does something other than fight it's way out to safety?

The mount is intelligent, dedicated, has a telepathic link to the paladin and the two are supposed to fight as a seamless unit as per the spell. It seems pretty clear to me that a paladin mount would fight alongside its master.

[Tanarii]

The mount is intelligent, dedicated, has a telepathic link to the paladin and the two are supposed to fight as a seamless unit as per the spell. It seems pretty clear to me that a paladin mount would fight alongside its master.The language could just as easily mean they fight as a seamless unit while mounted. I don't see an implication that it'll stick around and fight alongside the master in a particularly helpful manner.

I'm not saying it'll always run off. But since it's effectively an NPC under control of the DM at that point, the PC counting on it behaving as he desires is a long shot.

[Slipperychicken]

The language could just as easily mean they fight as a seamless unit while mounted. I don't see an implication that it'll stick around and fight alongside the master in a particularly helpful manner.

I'm not saying it'll always run off. But since it's effectively an NPC under control of the DM at that point, the PC counting on it behaving as he desires is a long shot.

The seamless unit part is not contingent on being mounted. The steed is unusually loyal, much smarter than a normal mount, and can communicate with the paladin in his own language. If any NPC pet is going to do what the player wants, it's the find steed mount.

If you have a horrible DM who is actively trying to bend the rules to make your life miserable, then yeah, you can't even rely on NPCs to wipe themselves unless it ends up hurting the PCs. Of course, why you'd continue playing with such a DM is beyond me, however.

[Tanarii]

If you have a horrible DM who is actively trying to bend the rules to make your life miserableInteresting. I see trying to have the mount fighting at your side when you're unmounted as a horrible player trying to bend the rules to make your life miserable. But each unto their own insulting view of the other's position, I suppose. :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

Interesting. I see trying to have the mount fighting at your side when you're unmounted as a horrible player trying to bend the rules to make your life miserable. But each unto their own insulting view of the other's position, I suppose. :smalltongue:

It's okay. Just because you don't have an actual counterargument doesn't mean you can't fling insults right back. That works too.

[Tanarii]

It's okay. Just because you don't have an actual counterargument doesn't mean you can't fling insults right back. That works too.haha the irony of this post just made the forums explode a little. Again. :smallbiggrin:

[RickAllison]

haha the irony of this post just made the forums explode a little. Again. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, there is no irony. The lamp shading occurred because there was no argument in the prior post to have a counter argument. Thus, his snide remark cannot be redirected because their was no argument to react to.

"Ha, you don't have any counterbalance for this beam, it'll crash to the ground!"

"No, because there is no weight to balance. The exact amount to balance 0 pounds of weight is 0 pounds, or nothing."

[Vogonjeltz]

The seamless unit part is not contingent on being mounted. The steed is unusually loyal, much smarter than a normal mount, and can communicate with the paladin in his own language. If any NPC pet is going to do what the player wants, it's the find steed mount.

If you have a horrible DM who is actively trying to bend the rules to make your life miserable, then yeah, you can't even rely on NPCs to wipe themselves unless it ends up hurting the PCs. Of course, why you'd continue playing with such a DM is beyond me, however.

I don't have a problem with having the steed being loyal and friendly, as the spell text indicates.

But that spell doesn't have text suggesting that the steed is anything but an NPC under the control of the DM in terms of determining what it does and how it acts when not mounted. Compare and contrast with Animate Objects and Conjure Woodland Beings. In the former, the caster has total control over the objects movement and action. In the latter case the spirits merely act on verbal commands but just how they follow those commands is still up to them (i.e. the DM).

Find Steed grants no control at all to the player, merely allowing that the spirit is friendly and that the player can communicate with it. That's really not much at all. Which is not to say the mount probably wouldn't attempt whatever the PC communicated to it, but the PC can't guarantee how that works out.

Being intelligent it would normally be uncontrolled when mounted (i.e. a DM run NPC), but fortunately for the player, it's a controlled mount in that situation.

Controlled mounts don't normally get to attack themselves, so we'd have to carve out some kind of DM ruling if the Paladin wanted to do that.

[bid]

Thus, his snide remark cannot be redirected because their was no argument to react to.
Do you mean whining about "horrible DM" is not an argument?

[MaxWilson]

Interesting. I see trying to have the mount fighting at your side when you're unmounted as a horrible player trying to bend the rules to make your life miserable. But each unto their own insulting view of the other's position, I suppose. :smalltongue:

You know, if you have to snip someone's comment right in the middle of a sentence in order to make it look like they're insulting you, it's just possible you might be misrepresenting what they said.

[Zalabim]

I'm glad this is such a civil thread where everyone can share and understand each other's viewpoints.

If a player insists that Crawford is wrong about the rules, as written, then simply ask your munchkin to explain how their steed that they (the player) control would not be controlled by them (the character) and in what way a horse is 'like a dragon.' Then have the paladin eaten by an uncontrollable, greedy, fire-breathing horse. That's really the best advice I can give anyone.

[Tanarii]

You know, if you have to snip someone's comment right in the middle of a sentence in order to make it look like they're insulting you, it's just possible you might be misrepresenting what they said.I'm sorry, but that was an insult. A passive aggressive one, not directed specifically at me, but an insult. No ifs, ands or buts. I just turned it right back around on him.

[MaxWilson]

If a player insists that Crawford is wrong about the rules, as written, then simply ask your munchkin to explain how their steed that they (the player) control would not be controlled by them (the character) and in what way a horse is 'like a dragon.'

An intelligent spirit in the shape of a horse is "like a dragon" in the sense that both are intelligent.

A player can control things (e.g. henchmen) when the DM asks him to, without the PC necessarily exerting any explicit control. Sometimes it's simpler that way. Obviously the DM retains the right to resume control when he needs to, or to veto NPC actions that are out of character--but ceding NPC control to a player is a valid thing for a DM to do. Of course.

[Knaight]

While that might not be a bad idea on the whole (in fact, that's pretty much how it's supposed to work by RAW), that doesn't make any sense for the mount from Find Steed. A Paladin is telepathically linked to their mount, and the spell description literally reads "...and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit." It does not really make much sense for the DM to control it with that context, and "seamless unit" implies that they should act on the same initiative, though I am in no way saying that's a clearly intended rule.


It's not "controlled mounts" that are player unfriendly. It is "cyclic initiative." You have the exact same problem whenever two PCs try to coordinate anything, including running next to each other. If you abandon cyclic initiative (the single worst thing about vanilla 5E) then you can simply say, "Okay, to coordinate your runs so you both hit the bad guy at the same time, your initiative is the lower of both your initiatives." Simple, no-fuss. An intelligent mount like a dragon, a Moon Druid, or a paladin's steed can work exactly the same way.

Moving together is entirely reasonable, but the attacks necessarily falling at the exact same time isn't, there's no reason the target wouldn't act in between the two. Either way, you get some weirdness, it's impossible to avoid with turn based combat in general.

[Saeviomage]

Being intelligent it would normally be uncontrolled when mounted (i.e. a DM run NPC), but fortunately for the player, it's a controlled mount in that situation.

Given the choice between "a loyal NPC that can attack" and "a loyal npc that can only take the dash, dodge or disengage action, but does so on my initiative", guess which one I'll pick?


Controlled mounts don't normally get to attack themselves, so we'd have to carve out some kind of DM ruling if the Paladin wanted to do that.
No. You just have to not twist the 'controlled mount' rules to cover a creature that is not mounted.

[ClintACK]

Moving together is entirely reasonable, but the attacks necessarily falling at the exact same time isn't, there's no reason the target wouldn't act in between the two. Either way, you get some weirdness, it's impossible to avoid with turn based combat in general.

In older editions, when you held your action to act on someone else's turn in the initiative order, your position in the initiative order dropped as well. So if the faster of Paladin and Steed just delayed on the first round of combat, they'd get to act "together" for the rest of the encounter.

Is that no longer a thing?

[mgshamster]

In older editions, when you held your action to act on someone else's turn in the initiative order, your position in the initiative order dropped as well. So if the faster of Paladin and Steed just delayed on the first round of combat, they'd get to act "together" for the rest of the encounter.

Is that no longer a thing?

It is no longer a thing. There is no delay action. If you "delay," then all you do is nothing until your next turn comes around.

[Saeviomage]

It is no longer a thing. There is no delay action. If you "delay," then all you do is nothing until your next turn comes around.
...which causes all kinds of weirdness.