Find Steed...and the mounted combat rules... [Archive]

Feuerphoenix

2016-07-19, 10:21 PM

RickAllison

2016-07-19, 10:31 PM

I think this has been clarified in Sage Advice, but Find Steed has a specific exception to the general rules on mounted combat. Namely, the steed's nature of "an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit" makes it so while mounted, you can only treat it as controlled. While you are off the steed, you can treat it as an intelligent and independent creature, but its instincts override any attempts to remain independent while mounted.

Giant2005

2016-07-19, 10:37 PM

According to Crawford (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/06/find-steed-spell-intelligence/), Steeds summoned via Find Steed aren't independent at all.

Saeviomage

2016-07-20, 06:49 AM

Jeremy apparently thinks that special class feature text should make something worse than simply going out and buying an animal. Which probably means he wrote the beastmaster hunter.
Or his answers have the same amount of thought behind them as the average tweet.

Waazraath

2016-07-20, 07:11 AM

There have been several threads on this topic. And yes, the rules quoted above are correct, and yes that is a bit dissapointing. Then again: if the find steed rules would have made mounted combat a lot better for a paladin, and gave the steed actions of its own, and let the pally take actions, it would become quickly unbalanced. Pally already is one of the stronger classes, to give it more extra attacks at lvl 5 when mounted would just be too much imo.

Feuerphoenix

2016-07-20, 10:25 AM

This is pretty disappointing...especially When You consider, that trampling down your enemies is a common tactics with cavaliers...

In this case we were hunted by skeleton Horses mounted by skeletons on it. And the DM ruled, that dismounted horses so Act independently. So may I use the Same Argument, to dismount and order my horse to attack what I want?

tieren

2016-07-20, 10:38 AM

This is pretty disappointing...especially When You consider, that trampling down your enemies is a common tactics with cavaliers...

But nothing is stopping you from trampling as a tactic if you think that is appropriate, you just can't trample and cast a smite spell and hit a few things with your hammer, while speaking in a foreign language and pulling a potion from your saddlebag. Its just an action economy limitation.

MaxWilson

2016-07-20, 10:40 AM

Giant2005

2016-07-20, 10:46 AM

In this case er were hunted by seleton Hörers mounted by skeletons on it. And the DM ruled, that dismounted horses so Act independently. So may I use the Same Argument, to dismount and order my horse to attack what I want?

According to Crawford, the telepathic connection between the Steed and Paladin means that the Steed is never independent; so the cheap combat summon is off the table.
As for normal animals, you don't really want to give them the chance to be independent, because they will just run away and leave you without a mount.

RickAllison

2016-07-20, 11:25 AM

According to Crawford, the telepathic connection between the Steed and Paladin means that the Steed is never independent; so the cheap combat summon is off the table.
As for normal animals, you don't really want to give them the chance to be independent, because they will just run away and leave you without a mount.

When you think about it, Buying a properly-trained mount should be better. You have invested significant funds (Find Steed is free, IIRC) in a creature that can be killed (Found Steeds are functionally immortal), that can't share spells, and that needs to be controlled. Oh, and can be lost if you can't take it into somewhere. In exchange for being so much better at everything, you can't treat it as an independent mount because it instinctively is controlled by you.

MaxWilson

2016-07-20, 12:23 PM

According to Crawford, the telepathic connection between the Steed and Paladin means that the Steed is never independent; so the cheap combat summon is off the table.
As for normal animals, you don't really want to give them the chance to be independent, because they will just run away and leave you without a mount.

This is why Twitter is a terrible format--because Crawford never actually gives the reasoning you state, so a DM has no basis on which to evaluate Crawford's judgment. You can either ignore Crawford completely and go by the PHB, or declare that the PHB and Crawford are aligned with each other (which makes Crawford redundant), or blindly accept Crawford's tweets as trumping the PHB without explanation.

In a longer format, Crawford would at least be able to explain his reasoning so it can be evaluated. As is, Crawford's tweets are about 50% useless and redundant, 25% wrong, and 25% useful.

Twitter is a horrible format for rules Q&A.

Tanarii

2016-07-20, 01:00 PM

RickAllison

2016-07-20, 01:56 PM

This is why Twitter is a terrible format--because Crawford never actually gives the reasoning you state, so a DM has no basis on which to evaluate Crawford's judgment. You can either ignore Crawford completely and go by the PHB, or declare that the PHB and Crawford are aligned with each other (which makes Crawford redundant), or blindly accept Crawford's tweets as trumping the PHB without explanation.

In a longer format, Crawford would at least be able to explain his reasoning so it can be evaluated. As is, Crawford's tweets are about 50% useless and redundant, 25% wrong, and 25% useful.

Twitter is a horrible format for rules Q&A.

It is, but I think you horribly twist the percentages. Really, it is more like 80% are minor clarifications that just ensured there was no confusion on the rule, 15% are useful and clarify valid rules questions, and 5% that were initially treated wrong and then are corrected at a later point.

The concern over Twitter as a format is valid. Twitter is used because it allows them to access a wide variety of rules questions and respond in rapid fashion, which is very useful. The questions that go beyond quick answers can then be further addressed in the monthly column.

The Twitter format is used not because it is conducive to answering the questions, but because it is conducive to maximizing the outreach.

MaxWilson

2016-07-20, 02:11 PM

Why would you want to have the mount be independent? That'd put it firmly under DM control as an NPC per the Mounted Combat rules, doing what he decided it wanted to do. That'd be a pretty huge tactical disadvantage.

More attacks including a knockdown and possible bonus action trample.

It's not a disadvantage; just a tradeoff.

It is, but I think you horribly twist the percentages. Really, it is more like 80% are minor clarifications that just ensured there was no confusion on the rule, 15% are useful and clarify valid rules questions, and 5% that were initially treated wrong and then are corrected at a later point.

The concern over Twitter as a format is valid. Twitter is used because it allows them to access a wide variety of rules questions and respond in rapid fashion, which is very useful. The questions that go beyond quick answers can then be further addressed in the monthly column.

The Twitter format is used not because it is conducive to answering the questions, but because it is conducive to maximizing the outreach.

Unintentionally, but perhaps so.

But I think you're missing a category. There are wrong calls that Crawford makes, which contradict RAW and good sense, and yet also never get corrected. I won't try to estimate a percentage for that but it's high enough for Crawford to have low credibility in my eyes when it comes to the other 15%/5%/whatever, especially in a format where he's giving one-sentence answers (Twitter) with no context or explanation. Frequently he only even answers half the question--just look at the Minor Illusion thing this month. The real question is clearly not specific to clouds/etc., it's about whether it's possible to use Minor Illusion to give yourself advantage through heavy obscurement. In a different format you might have gotten a better answer.

I've seen maybe five Sage Advice answers in the past year that were actually useful, and came with design commentary/insight. I've seen about that number of blatantly incorrect tweets that contradict RAW. C'est la vie.

Feuerphoenix

2016-07-20, 04:48 PM

When you think about it, Buying a properly-trained mount should be better. You have invested significant funds (Find Steed is free, IIRC) in a creature that can be killed (Found Steeds are functionally immortal), that can't share spells, and that needs to be controlled. Oh, and can be lost if you can't take it into somewhere. In exchange for being so much better at everything, you can't treat it as an independent mount because it instinctively is controlled by you.

This is a pure monetary standing point. But in former times (DnD 3.5 and earlier) the paladin had a steed that was above normal warhorses. And as the spell explains, you don't just get a spirit who assumes a form. This spirit BECOMES this form. You have a exact copy of a warhorse in front of you, except that this horse is more intelligent und bound on your will!

And I assume, that when I summon a warhorse, I do also summon not only the form of a horse, but also an animal, that was trained to fight all the time. You have to assume this, because in no other case the stats would make sense, compared to a normal horse.

The main question you have to ask yourself is, whether your horse has a tendency of being an individual person. If yes, then of course you should be able to treat it as a potentially independent creature, which is just following you. Obeying commands does not restrict your claim on being an individual person ( in any other case a soldier is no person any more).

So the final question is: when I order to tramp down the enemy in front of me, or to attack this soldier with hooves, should it follow my command, shouldn't it? I only see a break in action economy, but to be honest, horsemen were ****ing terrifying on the battle field, and this would give them this feeling of doing so in DnD. Right now, you have almost no advantage besides a higher mobility, except you take a feat.

Tanarii

2016-07-20, 05:12 PM

But I think you're missing a category. There are wrong calls that Crawford makes, which contradict RAW and good sense, and yet also never get corrected. I won't try to estimate a percentage for that but it's high enough for Crawford to have low credibility in my eyes when it comes to the other 15%/5%/whatever, especially in a format where he's giving one-sentence answers (Twitter) with no context or explanation. Frequently he only even answers half the question--just look at the Minor Illusion thing this month. The real question is clearly not specific to clouds/etc., it's about whether it's possible to use Minor Illusion to give yourself advantage through heavy obscurement. In a different format you might have gotten a better answer.Interesting. Having lived through Skip Williams, I find Crawford a breath of fresh air. Unlike Skip, he's clearly trying to stay within RAW / RAI as much as possible, and manage to avoid blatantly obvious disagreement with RAW almost all the time. As such, I'm perfectly willing to overlook the 15%/5%/whatever that he clearly has violated any reasonable interpretation of the RAW.

The Minor Illusion thing is frustrating because he was asked the wrong question. The question needed to be about if it's possible to use Silent Image to give yourself advantage through simulating heavy obscurement. With a follow-up about if illusions of things that allow objects to pass through them normally reveal the illusion.

OTOH JC answered the question perfectly. That's been a pretty heavily debated point, because it's fairly obvious to a lot of people that doesn't count as an "object" and not to others. Now that's been settled.

RickAllison

2016-07-20, 05:31 PM

Interesting. Having lived through Skip Williams, I find Crawford a breath of fresh air. Unlike Skip, he's clearly trying to stay within RAW / RAI as much as possible, and manage to avoid blatantly obvious disagreement with RAW almost all the time. As such, I'm perfectly willing to overlook the 15%/5%/whatever that he clearly has violated any reasonable interpretation of the RAW.

The Minor Illusion thing is frustrating because he was asked the wrong question. The question needed to be about if it's possible to use Silent Image to give yourself advantage through simulating heavy obscurement. With a follow-up about if illusions of things that allow objects to pass through them normally reveal the illusion.

OTOH JC answered the question perfectly. That's been a pretty heavily debated point, because it's fairly obvious to a lot of people that doesn't count as an "object" and not to others. Now that's been settled.

One of the things that irks and pleases me about JC is that he is willing to look back through and correct incorrect rulings. Like the case of Disintegrate. His initial ruling seemed to come from the reasoning that because the health rolled over, it still had not forced the body to reach zero HP. I disagreed, but it does make some sense. It doesn't reduce the body to 0 because it causes a rollover into the base form's hp. He later amended the ruling because the text of Wild Shape and Polymorph describe the changing and the rollover of damage as an effect of reaching zero. Because they must reach 0 HP to cause those effects to occur, it must also trigger Disintegrate's special effect.

Also, one thing that has always intrigued me about Disintegrate is that it works around the Evasion ability. Because it lacks the save-for-half feature of similar spells (normally a curse, since it means damage is not guaranteed), Evasion cannot reduce the damage by half on a failed save. Rogues and Monks who fail the save take just as much damage as anyone else, where other Dex saves would have them take half damage if they failed.

Vogonjeltz

2016-07-20, 08:37 PM

Hey guys,

I have reached LV 5 as a paladin, and the next fight we had started with me having a mounted combat with me on a special steed by my find steed spell.

Now I already had to fight with my DM, that I do not have to sacrifice my action in order to let the horse use an action like dash etc. But now I was wondering, whether I would be able to let my mount act independently and still remain control, due the fact, that this steed has 6 int, speaks my language, communicates via telepathy and "obeys my command". So if I obey, to attack a certain enemy, may I act it independently, and rely on my command, that my steed will follow it?

Our DM allows us to delay our turn behind other combatants in the fight, so either of us my steed or me, would delay on each others turn, so we can act as a seamless unit again.

Is that viable?

Thanks for your help :)

You can't deliberately change your initiative, it's a measure of reaction time.

And independent mounts are objectively worse than controlled mounts, the spell does the caster a favor by preventing the mount from being independent.

If you want to have the mount charge and trample something you could always use your action to make an Improvised Action to make a Wisdom(Animal Handling) check to do so.

Bear in mind, the Beastmaster must use their action to have their animal companion attack.

Saeviomage

2016-07-20, 10:38 PM

You can't deliberately change your initiative, it's a measure of reaction time.

And you can change your reaction time. Go to http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime. I guarantee that you can get yourself a score much worse than your actual reaction time unless you are a complete moron.

And independent mounts are objectively worse than controlled mounts, the spell does the caster a favor by preventing the mount from being independent.

Objectively if you just ignore the benefits. It would take a complete ******* DM to turn "loyal, war-trained undying intelligent NPC who knows exactly what I want" into "NPC who does the wrong thing in combat". There's a tradeoff in that you get your mount's attacks in exchange for some restrictions on your own actions that might not matter depending on initiative and foe placement and weapon of choice.

And saying your mount is still a controlled mount after you have dismounted it is pure stupidity.

If you want to have the mount charge and trample something you could always use your action to make an Improvised Action to make a Wisdom(Animal Handling) check to do so.

So... spend not only a single attack, but your entire action PLUS roll a check in order to have an attack with what is most likely a worse attack bonus than your own. Or are you allowing the bonus action as part of that too? That's starting to get real complex: your entire action plus a roll, plus a worse attack plus a failed save... and after that you're getting an extra attack with a worse attack score.

Bear in mind, the Beastmaster must use their action to have their animal companion attack.
Beastmasters are poorly written though. A beastmaster riding his companion has to spend his actions to make it move. A normal human being riding a horse he bought yesterday gets the movement for free.

shuangwucanada

2016-07-21, 06:38 AM

I believe the intention of this spell is to give you a mount, not a companion like beastmaster ranger gets, so in combat it should not be as useful or strong as a companion that is intended to help combat. It should not be able to use any action unless you give up yours.

Don't push it too far, or you will ruin a good spell. You are a paladin, so don't get too greedy. You already get huge benefit in terms of combat mobility without dash.

See I played an elf paladin of the ancients, and when I got level 5, I ask my DM if I could get a giant elk as steed (or a regular elk). I told him that I understand this is intended to be a mount, not a companion, so my DM had no problem giving me a giant elk. Don't break the game. Don't let your DM hate you.

Tanarii

2016-07-21, 06:54 AM

thats my view on the spell too. It's a thematic utility spell intended to save you 400 gp and a trip back to town, over and over again. Given the likelihood of horses taken into combat dying.

Saeviomage

2016-07-26, 08:36 PM

I believe the intention of this spell is to give you a mount, not a companion like beastmaster ranger gets, so in combat it should not be as useful or strong as a companion that is intended to help combat.

Which is supposed to be reflected in the boosts that a beastmaster gives his animal. A warhorse gained through this spell has warhorse stats. A beastmaster's companion gets bonus attack, damage, hitpoints and saving throws. Unfortunately it also gains constrained actions that make no sense at all, and would make a beastmaster's warhorse strictly worse as a mount than a regular one.

It should not be able to use any action unless you give up yours.

... except for the fact that a regular warhorse can already use it's action without you giving up yours. So by requiring this, you're making the one from the spell worse than a normal store-bought one.

shuangwucanada

2016-07-26, 09:19 PM

Which is supposed to be reflected in the boosts that a beastmaster gives his animal. A warhorse gained through this spell has warhorse stats. A beastmaster's companion gets bonus attack, damage, hitpoints and saving throws. Unfortunately it also gains constrained actions that make no sense at all, and would make a beastmaster's warhorse strictly worse as a mount than a regular one.

... except for the fact that a regular warhorse can already use it's action without you giving up yours. So by requiring this, you're making the one from the spell worse than a normal store-bought one.

Sorry, I meant it shouldn't be able to use any action except dash, disengage, or dodge (the ones in PHB mounted combat section) unless you give up yours.

Man, do I need to say these in such an explicit way... This is a forum, not a court...

nolas85

2016-07-26, 09:43 PM

I think that there are two things at play here that is subject to DM interpretation. First, by looking at the Find Steed spell, while it does indeed say that "...it allows you to fight as a seamless unit." I think that is more flavor text. In the same sentence it clearly states "Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out..." The DM interpretation here is that since your mount is intelligent (at least INT 6) and understands your language will it follow your instructions if acting independently?

Since it serves you as a mount that takes us to the mounted combat rules on PHB pg 198. "While you're mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently." You can control a mount and limit it's actions to Dash, Disengage, or Dodge but it never says that you need to take an action to control the mount, it simply says those are the available actions it can take. You can also ride it while it acts independently but you obviously loose control over what it does bringing about the DM's interpretation on if an intelligent (presumably good) creature that is friendly towards you will do what you ask of it. Remember that unless I'm trying to deliver a monologue then speaking is a free action in combat.

The way I see it a paladin is spending a 2nd level spell slot to not have to ever worry about a handle animal check, never pay for a mount, and get something a little better than normal.

Strill

2016-07-26, 10:01 PM

Sorry, I meant it shouldn't be able to use any action except dash, disengage, or dodge (the ones in PHB mounted combat section) unless you give up yours.

Man, do I need to say these in such an explicit way... This is a forum, not a court...

A regular warhorse can attack. You simply choose to not control the warhorse, and it may choose to attack a target.

Feuerphoenix

2016-07-27, 04:50 AM

A regular warhorse can attack. You simply choose to not control the warhorse, and it may choose to attack a target.

How likely is that? In theory, I tell my DM "I want to give up control over my mount, while I charge towards somebody", then I have to delay my action (like I said, it is house rule at our table) behind my warhorse. Now my DM has to decide, whether it actually charges towards the enemy, or does something completely different. But I say, when it obeys my will, why shouldn't it follow my orders?

Giant2005

2016-07-27, 06:09 AM

But I say, when it obeys my will, why shouldn't it follow my orders?

Obeying your orders is the very definition of controlled. Because it obeys your will, it can never be uncontrolled.

shuangwucanada

2016-07-27, 06:39 AM

How likely is that? In theory, I tell my DM "I want to give up control over my mount, while I charge towards somebody", then I have to delay my action (like I said, it is house rule at our table) behind my warhorse. Now my DM has to decide, whether it actually charges towards the enemy, or does something completely different. But I say, when it obeys my will, why shouldn't it follow my orders?

Agreed. If you let go control while mounted, your movement drops to 0, and if you want to do something after the steed's movement, you have to use ready action. Since you are not controlling the steed, the steed can move to anywhere and the ready action may not go off at all.

The steed also needs to have a good reason to attack, otherwise it's not acting independently. For example, if you have a direwolf as your mount, and an enemy is polymorphed into a rabbit, it may attack it and screw up your combat plan when acting independently.

When the steed takes any action other than dash/disengage/dodge, the rider should make a very difficult animal handling check. Warhorse attacks with hoofs. How possible is it to stay mounted?

I understand many players want to optimize their damage output, but it is pretty obvious that neither regular mount nor find steed mount is INTENDED to improve your damage output. And all the rules suggests that you follow RAI. So if your ruling of find steed will potentially give more intentional direct damage, your ruling is wrong, period.

nolas85

2016-07-27, 10:20 AM

Keep in mind that this is a 2nd level spell being cast. If it increases damage as well as provides an out of combat advantage I don't see that as much of an issue. Also remember that it has base warhorse statistics. It's HP never increases and the only way to keep an enemy from targeting it is by taking a feat. In this way to make the 2nd level spell last past presumably one round, if not one attack, you will need to spend a feat to make it better. In no way do I think that is overpowered.

Strill

2016-07-27, 11:15 PM

Obeying your orders is the very definition of controlled. Because it obeys your will, it can never be uncontrolled.

No it's not. A controlled mount is controlled via reigns, not orders.

Giant2005

2016-07-28, 01:02 AM

No it's not. A controlled mount is controlled via reigns, not orders.

I think you will need to cite a rule or at least a tweet to support that statement. To me, mind control is control.

Strill

2016-07-28, 01:39 AM

I think you will need to cite a rule or at least a tweet to support that statement. To me, mind control is control.
No one mentioned mind control. The Find Steed bond is a form of telepathy, not mind control. If communicating with someone is control, then jumping on your Moon Druid party member and yelling "Over There!" would prevent the druid from attacking.

Vogonjeltz

2016-07-28, 06:37 PM

And you can change your reaction time. Go to http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime. I guarantee that you can get yourself a score much worse than your actual reaction time unless you are a complete moron.

Objectively if you just ignore the benefits. It would take a complete ******* DM to turn "loyal, war-trained undying intelligent NPC who knows exactly what I want" into "NPC who does the wrong thing in combat". There's a tradeoff in that you get your mount's attacks in exchange for some restrictions on your own actions that might not matter depending on initiative and foe placement and weapon of choice.

And saying your mount is still a controlled mount after you have dismounted it is pure stupidity.

So... spend not only a single attack, but your entire action PLUS roll a check in order to have an attack with what is most likely a worse attack bonus than your own. Or are you allowing the bonus action as part of that too? That's starting to get real complex: your entire action plus a roll, plus a worse attack plus a failed save... and after that you're getting an extra attack with a worse attack score.

Beastmasters are poorly written though. A beastmaster riding his companion has to spend his actions to make it move. A normal human being riding a horse he bought yesterday gets the movement for free.

You can't force yourself to react more slowly. You can wait for a specific circumstance to move in, but by that time you've already reacted and specifically chosen to do nothing. Your body is as fast as it is, and no faster.

Uncontrolled mounts do what they want, it's a DMPC, making it a liability. The Find Steed mount isn't a Non-Player Character (NPC) because the player controls it.

Well that's the writing in the spell.

Yes, that's the consequence of the rules for combat. Considering that a warhorse can get multiple attacks off such an action, it's actually a fairly good use for an action.

Actually no, they are very well balanced against the action economy of the game. An extreme violation of action economy would imbalance the game as a whole, so it's pretty important not to violate that. A beast master doesn't need to use their action to move the creature, that happens for free, same as the mount.

Karnack

2016-07-29, 04:55 AM

The paladin mount has a few advantages over a regular mount.

1. It's free.
2. Free summonable storage. DM dependant really but assuming when your mount dies it doesn't just suddenly leave any barding it had on any saddle bags go with it.
3. Shares spells, so shield of faith gives it another +2.
4. Being a seamless combat unit you can have both hands free to swing those great weapons if you got em. Again a bit DM defendant on how useful this is since more lenient DMs will let you do this anyway probably.
5. Send it to save your party members/important NPC's. Being the paladin you will be more prone to do more heroic things like holding off enemies while the rest flee. Put an unconscious party member on your mount and give it the command to get out of there.

But the big bonuses of all mounts is the ability to hit and run and just faster movement all in. It gets to use an action to Dash, Dodge or Disengage which can free up yours if you're just out of reach of smiting evil. Make it dodge if your staying in combat so enemies have a hard time killing it out from under you. Disengage is probably the most useful though. Since you are being moved and not moving yourself if your mount uses the Disengage action then moves out of melee then no opportunity attacks are provoke since it is moving you and not you moving. Same reasoning if Thunderwave knocks someone out of your reach you don't get an opportunity attack.

Tanarii

2016-07-29, 12:27 PM

2. Free summonable storage. DM dependant really but assuming when your mount dies it doesn't just suddenly leave any barding it had on any saddle bags go with it.Wait, what? Nothing in the spell says you summon the SAME steed when you cast it. It doesn't resurrect a steed. It gets you a new one.

Nor does the spell say it shows up with any tack or barding. You have to already own that stuff to put on it. If it disappeared with the dead animal, you'd spend an awful lot of money replacing it every time.

RickAllison

2016-07-29, 01:19 PM

Wait, what? Nothing in the spell says you summon the SAME steed when you cast it. It doesn't resurrect a steed. It gets you a new one.

Nor does the spell say it shows up with any tack or barding. You have to already own that stuff to put on it. If it disappeared with the dead animal, you'd spend an awful lot of money replacing it every time.

Actually, the spell explicitly states that he is the same steed:

"When the steed drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. You can also dismiss your steed at any time as an action, causing it to disappear. In either case, casting this spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum."

BiPolar

2016-07-29, 01:19 PM

Wait, what? Nothing in the spell says you summon the SAME steed when you cast it. It doesn't resurrect a steed. It gets you a new one.

Nor does the spell say it shows up with any tack or barding. You have to already own that stuff to put on it. If it disappeared with the dead animal, you'd spend an awful lot of money replacing it every time.

Yes and no. The steed disappears when it dies, but whatever barding/bags it had doesn't - they'll just drop to the ground. If you do have barding/armor/bags, etc. - you best hope you have a spell slot to resummon the steed or an alternate means of carrying all of it. You'll only need to replace it if you can't carry it with you until the next summon.

Tanarii

2016-07-29, 01:22 PM

Actually, the spell explicitly states that he is the same steed:

"When the steed drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. You can also dismiss your steed at any time as an action, causing it to disappear. In either case, casting this spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum."

Yes and no. The steed disappears when it dies, but whatever barding/bags it had doesn't - they'll just drop to the ground. If you do have barding/armor/bags, etc. - you best hope you have a spell slot to resummon the steed or an alternate means of carrying all of it. You'll only need to replace it if you can't carry it with you until the next summon.

Well now, that's what I get for not double-checking. I end up talking out my ass. :smallredface:

Giant2005

2016-07-29, 01:22 PM

BiPolar

2016-07-29, 01:30 PM

That is actually pretty interesting. It means that you must choose the animal's form upon the first time you cast the spell and then you are stuck with that same form forever.

Yes, yes it does.

RickAllison

2016-07-29, 01:32 PM

That is actually pretty interesting. It means that you must choose the animal's form upon the first time you cast the spell and then you are stuck with that same form forever.

Not quite! Another quote!

"You can’t have more than one steed bonded by this spell at a time. As an action, you can release the steed from its bond at any time, causing it to disappear."

So you can change forms, but you have to recast the spell after dismissing it.

Also, I would say that the disappearance or not of barding and saddlebags is a DM call. I would say it does (the idea of a paladin not having the tool he needs because his saddlebags are with his horse seems entertaining to me), but a DM could rule the opposite if s/he so desired.

raspin

2016-07-29, 02:31 PM

Hi. I had an point of contention in the game I DM I had to rule on

There were two zombies in a barn running at the double doors to get out. The paladin swung the open door shut and braced against it. He then ordered his camel mount to hold the other door closed with its weight.

I ruled he couldn't do that; mostly as, even having a telepathic link and the camel being int 6, I couldn't see how the camel would know what to do having never done it. Understanding the words someone says doesn't make you know how to complete a requested task. Also, I wasn't sure if it was an action it could perform as per the spell. I could see it being the thin end of the wedge as the effectively immortal camel gets used to pull suspect levers, check for traps, interact with objects, attack people and do all sorts of things I hadn't expected a camel todo. I wanted to nip sillyness in the bud.

It's a well trained camel who does any camel thing you want to order without question; I didn't want it to become a henchman. It carries stuff, it's amount and it comes and goes on the owners whim I thought.

Was I wrong?

RickAllison

2016-07-29, 02:53 PM

RulesJD

2016-07-29, 02:53 PM

Feuerphoenix

2016-07-29, 03:42 PM

JUST FYI:

1. Use Find Steed.

2. Hope on steed and cast a single target buff spell (Haste, Protect Good/Evil, whatever).

3. Get back off steed.

4. Congrats, you now have an independent and intelligent'ish steed that obeys your command via telepathy.

5. Realize that the Find Steed spell is more effective when you aren't mounted.

It is the best pet spell in the game (share spell + intelligent) when you realize how to abuse the stupid rulings.

Is it legit, to treat the steed as an independent mount that obeys your orders, if you dismount? How are warhorses treated in such a case?

RulesJD

2016-07-29, 04:07 PM

Is it legit, to treat the steed as an independent mount that obeys your orders, if you dismount? How are warhorses treated in such a case?

Yuuup. Thems the rules when the Intelligent (Independent) mount is not actually mounted. Tada.

Warhorses are not treated that way because they are not Intelligent. If you follow the PHB rules, the addition of Intelligence is what makes the dismounted Find Steed able to take the Attack action on its turn.

raspin

2016-07-29, 05:02 PM

JUST FYI:

1. Use Find Steed.

2. Hope on steed and cast a single target buff spell (Haste, Protect Good/Evil, whatever).

3. Get back off steed.

4. Congrats, you now have an independent and intelligent'ish steed that obeys your command via telepathy.

5. Realize that the Find Steed spell is more effective when you aren't mounted.

It is the best pet spell in the game (share spell + intelligent) when you realize how to abuse the stupid rulings.

6, You realise your haste/wtr spell stopped working on your mount when you got off almost as if it was the contact which shared the spell. You realise your dm is a b@5tard and you aren't as clever as you thought. :-)

Vogonjeltz

2016-07-29, 08:53 PM

Is it legit, to treat the steed as an independent mount that obeys your orders, if you dismount? How are warhorses treated in such a case?

Well, it's not a mount if you're not mounted, but no it's not independent because the spell says it's not.

Strill

2016-07-30, 03:41 AM

6, You realise your haste/wtr spell stopped working on your mount when you got off almost as if it was the contact which shared the spell. You realise your dm is a b@5tard and you aren't as clever as you thought. :-)

No it doesn't. The spell targeted your steed. Once the spell is cast, it doesn't matter if you're mounted or not.

Well, it's not a mount if you're not mounted, but no it's not independent because the spell says it's not.

That's just straight-up false. Nothing in the spell description prohibits the mount from acting independently.

Is it legit, to treat the steed as an independent mount that obeys your orders, if you dismount? How are warhorses treated in such a case?

It's not an "independent mount", since you're not riding it, but it's still an NPC capable of taking its own actions in combat, and there are no special restrictions on what actions it can take.

A Warhorse separated from its rider would act however it was trained to act. If trained to attack on command, then you could probably get it to attack someone with a Handle Animal check. Otherwise it might trample anything it sees as a threat. Presumably it's been trained not to run away.

Feuerphoenix

2016-07-30, 07:21 AM

It's not an "independent mount", since you're not riding it, but it's still an NPC capable of taking its own actions in combat, and there are no special restrictions on what actions it can take.

A Warhorse separated from its rider would act however it was trained to act. If trained to attack on command, then you could probably get it to attack someone with a Handle Animal check. Otherwise it might trample anything it sees as a threat. Presumably it's been trained not to run away.

Can I assume, that I actually summon a warhorse? As I understand it, it is just a spirit, who shifts in the being I want. So it is still a spirit and not an actual trained warhorse...

Strill

2016-07-30, 08:27 PM

Can I assume, that I actually summon a warhorse? As I understand it, it is just a spirit, who shifts in the being I want. So it is still a spirit and not an actual trained warhorse...

You can assume that it has warhorse training, sure. It being a spirit just makes it superior, since it's more intelligent, and can't be permanently killed.

raspin

2016-07-31, 05:08 AM

[QUOTE=Strill;21052828]No it doesn't. The spell targeted your steed. Once the spell is cast, it doesn't matter if you're mounted or not.

....er, who is the DM here? :-) If you're going to jump on your mount just to cast a spell so you can then jump off and have it affect two creatures who now act independently, with their own attacks, and now both with some boost etc that seems cheesey and you'd probably get away with it once.

Players can try to work the angles but sometimes a dm needs to show them where the line is and how much cheese he will tolerate. Besides, roleplay wise it makes more sense if the spell effects the mount when the mount and rider are a unit and I'm sure that was the thinking behind it; not to encourage paladins to be hopping on and off mounts in an effort to maximise their spell effect. If that was the intention they wouldn't require you to be on the mount to have it affect the mount, surely?. I see it as an effort to make the paladin spells still useful when mounted so you don't have to cast twice just so you and your mount, who act as one, both have the same spell effect.

I think sometimes the spirit of the rule, or common sense, trumps the wording of something. Fortunately, I'm totally sure my players would not do this as they too would see it as super lame (in the sense of exploiting the wording of a rule to gain an unintended advantage in the game).

But hey, I may be wrong....

shuangwucanada

2016-07-31, 05:41 AM

Players can try to work the angles but sometimes a dm needs to show them where the line is and how much cheese he will tolerate. Besides, roleplay wise it makes more sense if the spell effects the mount when the mount and rider are a unit and I'm sure that was the thinking behind it; not to encourage paladins to be hopping on and off mounts in an effort to maximise their spell effect. If that was the intention they wouldn't require you to be on the mount to have it affect the mount, surely?. I see it as an effort to make the paladin spells still useful when mounted so you don't have to cast twice just so you and your mount, who act as one, both have the same spell effect.

I think sometimes the spirit of the rule, or common sense, trumps the wording of something. Fortunately, I'm totally sure my players would not do this as they too would see it as super lame (in the sense of exploiting the wording of a rule to gain an unintended advantage in the game).

But hey, I may be wrong....

I agree with you 100%. Usually a fine line a DM can draw here is that when dismounted, "acting independently" does not mean it can potentially be another attacker unless itself is attacked. Most of other places in PHB describe animals acting independently will defend themselves, but nothing else.

If people don't try to exploit RAW but choose to follow RAI, most gray area of ruling of this spell goes away. RAI for this spell is pretty obvious. It is named properly. It's not called "conjure smart animal". it is called "find steed". Why people can't just use the conjured as a mount...

RulesJD

2016-08-01, 09:39 AM

[QUOTE=Strill;21052828]No it doesn't. The spell targeted your steed. Once the spell is cast, it doesn't matter if you're mounted or not.

....er, who is the DM here? :-)

*snip*

But hey, I may be wrong....

Not you because for the purposes of rules discussions, the rules are the DM.

And yes, you are wrong.

Share spell only requires mounted when cast, not that you must stay mounted. Sorry you don't like it, but the rule is clear. If you want to homebrew a rule then sure, but that's not RAW.

I fully agree that you should stay mounted on a Find Steed btw. Obviously that's the common understanding of a mounted Paladin knight. But, as currently interpreted by JC, it's mechanically superior to dismount.

Why?

Because unlike a normal Warhorse, a Find Steed is intelligent. That is why allows you to use it for attacking, unlike a normal Warhorse.

BiPolar

2016-08-01, 12:41 PM

[QUOTE=raspin;21055704]

Not you because for the purposes of rules discussions, the rules are the DM.

And yes, you are wrong.

Share spell only requires mounted when cast, not that you must stay mounted. Sorry you don't like it, but the rule is clear. If you want to homebrew a rule then sure, but that's not RAW.

I fully agree that you should stay mounted on a Find Steed btw. Obviously that's the common understanding of a mounted Paladin knight. But, as currently interpreted by JC, it's mechanically superior to dismount.

Why?

Because unlike a normal Warhorse, a Find Steed is intelligent. That is why allows you to use it for attacking, unlike a normal Warhorse.

Agreed, although my DM homeruled that we it remains independent while mounted so that it makes sense. Not sure if this is RAI, but it's our RAI :D Otherwise, why have a mount? It's better to have a summoned pet, which does not seem like the intent.

90sMusic

2016-08-01, 02:27 PM

Listen man, I get that you want to have a super horse that will help you fight and let you do extra damage and more actions in combat. I get that you can justify it with realism or examples from other editions or whatever.

I get it. I do.

The problem is action economy. The game is balanced entirely around the fact that it limits how much you can do on a given turn.

Even the beast master ranger, which is largely dedicated to having and using an animal companion, doesn't have their pet going around acting independently and taking full round actions while you take your own full round actions. The rules for the beastmaster are put in place to maintain that balance.

Prior to level 5 a ranger can either get the pet to attack, or they can attack. One or the other, not both. At 5+ they can shoot twice, or shoot once and have the pet attack once, but they can't do 3 attacks despite being able to shoot twice and having a bear standing right in front of an enemy that it could've been gnawing on every round for the past 2 minutes.

Action Economy. The game literally breaks if you try to invent rules and reasons to get around it and it blows your character's power out of the water. If you want to use your action just for attacks and get in all those multiple hits, then trample them with your horse, or have the horse use it's dash action so that you literally move nearly 3 times the rate of everyone else in virtually any combat encounter without giving up ANYTHING to do it, it breaks. the. game. I dont know how else to say it or how else to convey that concept.

The game is very flexible and lets you do all kinds of things, you can get creative with how you act and move and attack and everything else, but the rules do not allow you to add additional attacks to you per round permanently. It takes a limited duration effect like the spell of haste or something akin to that to achieve. What you are wanting to do is break the game, and the DM should not allow it because if he does, you will become by far the most powerful member in your party on a number of fronts.

RulesJD

2016-08-01, 02:30 PM

*snip*

That's nice.

Conjure Minor Elementals

Conjure Animals

Animate Dead

Animate Objects

etc.

So no, that's not a good argument.

90sMusic

2016-08-01, 02:33 PM

That's nice.

Conjure Minor Elementals

Conjure Animals

Animate Dead

Animate Objects

etc.

So no, that's not a good argument.

Or, you know, you could actually read what I said. You can't have the benefit of extra attacks PERMANENTLY. Every single one of those spells has limitations. Animate Objects lasts one minute. Conjure animals lasts 1 hour and requires concentration. Conjure minor elementals lasts 1 hour and requires concentration.

Find steed has an unlimited duration, it is permanent, and doesn't use concentration. It is also only 2nd level spell while the others are 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells. Again, not comparable at all. The guy essentially wants a spell that is the best summon spell in the game that only requires the use of a second level spell slot when it happens to die. That is a far, far different from requiring your precious concentration and higher level spell slots.

To compare it to ANY of those is quite frankly foolish.

RulesJD

2016-08-01, 02:37 PM

Or, you know, you could actually read what I said. You can't have the benefit of extra attacks PERMANENTLY. Every single one of those spells has limitations. Animate Objects lasts one minute. Conjure animals lasts 1 hour and requires concentration. Conjure minor elementals lasts 1 hour and requires concentration.

Find steed has an unlimited duration, it is permanent, and doesn't use concentration.

To compare it to ANY of those is quite frankly foolish.

It requires a spell slot on a class with few spell slots.

It is easily killed, which then requires another 1 hour to recast (no short rest).

Yes, your argument is still invalid.

90sMusic

2016-08-01, 02:48 PM

It requires a spell slot on a class with few spell slots.

It is easily killed, which then requires another 1 hour to recast (no short rest).

Yes, your argument is still invalid.

You're free to houserule game breaking features into the game as you desire. Only people that can tell you no are the players themselves when they get get bored when they are using legitimate action economy and doing next to nothing vs king kong paladin getting his full attack actions on top of dashing every round on top of having his mount deal additional damage every round on top of using concentration to maintain another spell effect.

You're free to change any rules you desire. But that doesn't mean your players will agree or appreciate it and it doesn't mean those kinds of shenanigans will fly at a decent table.

Those modifications to find steed though, they basically turn it into permanent haste spell by letting you get an extra attack per round and doubling your movement speed. Though technically it's nearly tripling move speed since a horse is 40ft and when dashing goes to 80ft. And while haste is 1 minute duration, requires concentration, and uses a third level spell slot, this one is permanent... 2nd level spell... But again. You can play the game however you want. Have fun. :)

RulesJD

2016-08-01, 03:01 PM

You're free to houserule *snip*

That's nice, but you are the one doing a houserule.

Both the rules RAW, and as interpreted by JC (you know, the actual author of the rules) all agree, Dismounted Find Steed = it can attack. You are free to houserule as you wish, but you are the one not following the rules.

Have fun.

RickAllison

2016-08-01, 03:05 PM

It requires a spell slot on a class with few spell slots.

It is easily killed, which then requires another 1 hour to recast (no short rest).

Yes, your argument is still invalid.

Your first point is invalid, it exchanges those slots for martial power. Since the balance is tipped that way, you have to compare it to other spells without regard to class (especially when bards can steal it anyway).

The other spells also can have their creatures killed off (Animate Objects can often be neutralized by one AoE, as can some configurations of Conjure Animals and Woodland Creatures), so we again have it where the limitations you describe are also limitations on the other spells.

RulesJD

2016-08-01, 03:18 PM

Your first point is invalid, it exchanges those slots for martial power. Since the balance is tipped that way, you have to compare it to other spells without regard to class (especially when bards can steal it anyway).

The other spells also can have their creatures killed off (Animate Objects can often be neutralized by one AoE, as can some configurations of Conjure Animals and Woodland Creatures), so we again have it where the limitations you describe are also limitations on the other spells.

Agreed. That's my point. It's like other spells, it just functions differently. One AoE will neutralize the Find Steed (Warhorse has 19 HP and only +1 Dex, Fireball does an average of 28 damage) just as easily as it neutralizes the other spells.

RickAllison

2016-08-01, 03:40 PM

Agreed. That's my point. It's like other spells, it just functions differently. One AoE will neutralize the Find Steed (Warhorse has 19 HP and only +1 Dex, Fireball does an average of 28 damage) just as easily as it neutralizes the other spells.

Indeed, but it trades that for being the only one that is permanent and doesn't require concentration. The fact that it has those benefits and still has a lower level is incredible. It is the only one that can be used for an entirely different day than the one it was cast on.

Really, a better spell comparison is Phantom Steed. At least those are intended for similar purposes.

RulesJD

2016-08-01, 04:56 PM

Indeed, but it trades that for being the only one that is permanent and doesn't require concentration. The fact that it has those benefits and still has a lower level is incredible. It is the only one that can be used for an entirely different day than the one it was cast on.

Really, a better spell comparison is Phantom Steed. At least those are intended for similar purposes.

1. Phantom Steed is a great spell, one that almost all Wizard's forget to pick up for unknown reasons. But, yet again, just 1 point of damage = poof.

2. It's also not a better comparison. Find Steed is meant to be a combat spell, it's literally in the description of fighting as a seamless unit and sharing self-buff spells.

3. It is, by default, on a class with very limited spell casting. Pop it in combat, which is stupidly easy by the time it comes online btw, and your Paladin is either skipping a short-rest, or not getting their Find Steed.

I literally don't see why this is an argument. The rules are clear, and while their interpretation is stupid, it is still the way it is. Oh noes, the Paladin gets a few extra attacks before some random trash mob 1-2 shots his 2nd level spell slot? Seriously? That's what you think is overpowered such that you're willing to complain about it? The RAI and RAW of the spell couldn't be more clear.

Strill

2016-08-02, 01:57 AM

....er, who is the DM here? :-) If you're going to jump on your mount just to cast a spell so you can then jump off and have it affect two creatures who now act independently, with their own attacks, and now both with some boost etc that seems cheesey and you'd probably get away with it once.

Players can try to work the angles but sometimes a dm needs to show them where the line is and how much cheese he will tolerate. Besides, roleplay wise it makes more sense if the spell effects the mount when the mount and rider are a unit and I'm sure that was the thinking behind it; not to encourage paladins to be hopping on and off mounts in an effort to maximise their spell effect. If that was the intention they wouldn't require you to be on the mount to have it affect the mount, surely?. I see it as an effort to make the paladin spells still useful when mounted so you don't have to cast twice just so you and your mount, who act as one, both have the same spell effect.

I think sometimes the spirit of the rule, or common sense, trumps the wording of something. Fortunately, I'm totally sure my players would not do this as they too would see it as super lame (in the sense of exploiting the wording of a rule to gain an unintended advantage in the game).

But hey, I may be wrong....

So then if a spell requires you to touch your target, does the spell go away if you stop touching them? If I touch someone to cast Enhance Ability on them, I would say that since I was touching them at the time that I targeted them, the spell remains. The same applies to your mount.

Listen man, I get that you want to have a super horse that will help you fight and let you do extra damage and more actions in combat. I get that you can justify it with realism or examples from other editions or whatever.

I get it. I do.

The problem is action economy. The game is balanced entirely around the fact that it limits how much you can do on a given turn.

Even the beast master ranger, which is largely dedicated to having and using an animal companion, doesn't have their pet going around acting independently and taking full round actions while you take your own full round actions. The rules for the beastmaster are put in place to maintain that balance.

Prior to level 5 a ranger can either get the pet to attack, or they can attack. One or the other, not both. At 5+ they can shoot twice, or shoot once and have the pet attack once, but they can't do 3 attacks despite being able to shoot twice and having a bear standing right in front of an enemy that it could've been gnawing on every round for the past 2 minutes.

Action Economy. The game literally breaks if you try to invent rules and reasons to get around it and it blows your character's power out of the water. If you want to use your action just for attacks and get in all those multiple hits, then trample them with your horse, or have the horse use it's dash action so that you literally move nearly 3 times the rate of everyone else in virtually any combat encounter without giving up ANYTHING to do it, it breaks. the. game. I dont know how else to say it or how else to convey that concept.

The game is very flexible and lets you do all kinds of things, you can get creative with how you act and move and attack and everything else, but the rules do not allow you to add additional attacks to you per round permanently. It takes a limited duration effect like the spell of haste or something akin to that to achieve. What you are wanting to do is break the game, and the DM should not allow it because if he does, you will become by far the most powerful member in your party on a number of fronts.

I'm well aware of that. The problem is finding a ruling that allows a moon druid mount to attack, but doesn't allow a Find Steed mount to attack.

shuangwucanada

2016-08-02, 06:12 AM

Vogonjeltz

2016-08-02, 08:20 AM

That's just straight-up false. Nothing in the spell description prohibits the mount from acting independently.

Except for the part where it says the steed fights in concert with the caster. So no, it's not false at all. The mount is entirely controlled under all circumstances, per the spell.

Dismounted Find Steed = it can attack.

Hang on a moment, arguably it can not because: "Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out,"
Mounts can't attack unless they are independent, and it's been fully established that the mount isn't independent. because of the second half of that sentence: "and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit."

Ergo, by default it can not attack unmounted or mounted.

RulesJD

2016-08-02, 09:11 AM

Except for the part where it says the steed fights in concert with the caster. So no, it's not false at all. The mount is entirely controlled under all circumstances, per the spell.

Hang on a moment, arguably it can not because: "Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out,"
Mounts can't attack unless they are independent, and it's been fully established that the mount isn't independent. because of the second half of that sentence: "and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit."

Ergo, by default it can not attack unmounted or mounted.

False. Read the actual rules. The Action limits ONLY apply when the creature is MOUNTED. In this case, it is not. You can either read the rules on pg. 198, or realize that I'm right.

The very big difference is that Find Steed is both Intelligent AND has the instinctive bond/telepathy with you. Thus, while dismounted, it may count as an NPC. An NPC that is loyal and wants to defend you above all else. Have fun flavor texting your way around that.

Tanarii

2016-08-02, 09:32 AM

It can attack when dismounted, but it doesn't mean that it WILL attack.

And you are not controlling it when dismounted. Your DM is.

When your DM is controlling it, it's neither your party's ally nor your party's enemy. When it takes damage, it is likely to attack the source, no matter which side that is. Sure, most of time the steed will end up on your side, but it still doesn't mean that it WILL attack.

That's my interpretation too. You can either control it while mounted or not control it / dismount it at which point it becomes a DM controlled NPC.

The former is fighting as a seamless unit and giving it orders to be obeyed. Either of the latter is choosing not to give it orders. Done and done.

BiPolar

2016-08-02, 09:32 AM

False. Read the actual rules. The Action limits ONLY apply when the creature is MOUNTED. In this case, it is not. You can either read the rules on pg. 198, or realize that I'm right.

The very big difference is that Find Steed is both Intelligent AND has the instinctive bond/telepathy with you. Thus, while dismounted, it may count as an NPC. An NPC that is loyal and wants to defend you above all else. Have fun flavor texting your way around that.

Once can also read it that even if the DM takes control when unmounted (which I don't agree with), you have the bond/telepathy that has a range of a mile. The DM can control it, but you can tell the DM what you are asking the Steed to do. If the DM doesn't do it, then they're just being a jerk. The horse is intelligent, bound to you, and communicates with you. No real reason for it NOT to listen to your directives.

RulesJD

2016-08-02, 09:54 AM

Once can also read it that even if the DM takes control when unmounted (which I don't agree with), you have the bond/telepathy that has a range of a mile. The DM can control it, but you can tell the DM what you are asking the Steed to do. If the DM doesn't do it, then they're just being a jerk. The horse is intelligent, bound to you, and communicates with you. No real reason for it NOT to listen to your directives.

Bingo.

Which wraps up nicely back with my original point (had this discussion many times). The most effective use of a Find Steed is as a pet, not as a mount. Which is monumentally stupid.

BiPolar

2016-08-02, 10:02 AM

Bingo.

Which wraps up nicely back with my original point (had this discussion many times). The most effective use of a Find Steed is as a pet, not as a mount. Which is monumentally stupid.

Yeah, once I realized that I instantly regretted picking Warhorse. However, I did for the first time have an opportunity to attack while mounted with a lance. And I critted. It was awesome.

raspin

2016-08-02, 11:32 AM

BiPolar

2016-08-02, 11:57 AM

"But Sir Meta of Lameland, why must you hop on your horse, cast a spell; then jump off before you, and your horse, engage in EVERY encounter" asks the squire. "So I can game the RAW by using the wording of the rules to overcome their intention, logic and indeed roleplay so as to get myself an edge. "Its called Cheesey power gaming and It's the paladin way". Truly epic. Yawwwwwn.

My young squire, in my years of knighthoodedness as the Paladin of Cheese, I noticed that this spectral mount I have summoned from the Celestial lands of Brie which is both intelligent and completely bonded to me telepathically doesn't seem to do anything on it's own when I'm mounted to it. Very strange. I truly would have thought this intelligent and bonded beast would be able to act upon my orders, but that clearly isn't the case.

Then, one day, I hopped off my mount so that I may cut down a foe with my 2-handed sword. As soon as I got off, my mount whom I call Cheddar, was able to take direction from me.

Realizing that Cheddar could act on his own without me on him opened up a new world of possibilities for me. I can send him out to do recon. I can rush into battle and hop off to gain some help in my fight . Why are you questioning my use of my Cheddar to it's utmost?

Vogonjeltz

2016-08-02, 04:06 PM

False. Read the actual rules. The Action limits ONLY apply when the creature is MOUNTED. In this case, it is not. You can either read the rules on pg. 198, or realize that I'm right.

The very big difference is that Find Steed is both Intelligent AND has the instinctive bond/telepathy with you. Thus, while dismounted, it may count as an NPC. An NPC that is loyal and wants to defend you above all else. Have fun flavor texting your way around that.

You're not arguing against the point I was making, which is not false.

I acknowledge the rules on 198; I'm then referencing the spell description in tandem with those rules. The description clearly states that the steed serves as a mount in and out of combat.

It follows that, even unmounted, the steed continues to serve as a mount, which necessarily means it uses those same mounted combat rules despite not having a rider.

For the second paragraph, the steed is not an NPC, that would be a non-player character, but the player controls this character per the seamless unit line.

Feuerphoenix

2016-08-02, 04:10 PM

You're not arguing against the point I was making, which is not false.

I acknowledge the rules on 198; I'm then referencing the spell description in tandem with those rules. The description clearly states that the steed serves as a mount in and out of combat.

It follows that, even unmounted, the steed continues to serve as a mount, which necessarily means it uses those same mounted combat rules despite not having a rider.

For the second paragraph, the steed is not an NPC, that would be a non-player character, but the player controls this character per the seamless unit line.

I read this mount quote rather more as a fact for its purpose. That you may use it everywhere and not only in combat, as the spell applies in first place.

Saeviomage

2016-08-03, 06:15 PM

So... once I shout an order at someone they become a controlled mount if they do what I say and are unable to complete the order unless I spend my action making them do so?

Or perhaps the argument is that any time I'm attacked by any animal I should claim that animals are too dumb to attack in combat unless attacked first?

Or maybe that int 6 creatures are too stupid to follow basic instructions?

nightfall29

2017-11-07, 07:32 PM

Wait, what? Nothing in the spell says you summon the SAME steed when you cast it. It doesn't resurrect a steed. It gets you a new one.

Nor does the spell say it shows up with any tack or barding. You have to already own that stuff to put on it. If it disappeared with the dead animal, you'd spend an awful lot of money replacing it every time.

Um... yeah, kind of EXACTLY says that... the barding/saddle bags, but it does say you get the same mount, even if it died before.

"When the steed drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. You can also dismiss your steed at any time as an action, causing it to disappear. In either case, casting this spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum."