Find Steed... does it have to be ride-able? [Archive]

Malifice

2018-12-09, 06:16 AM

Serious question; can a Paladin use Find Steed to summon a creature that he cant actually ride (like a Medium Paladin summoning a Falcon, Mastiff, Panther or Wolf).

The critter acts as a companion, and not a mount.

Yes, I'm aware 3 of those 4 are not expressly called out as allowable steeds but they're all CR 1/4 or lower and pretty clearly within the range of what the spell can whisk up.

Questions about share spells feature of the spell (requires you to be mounted to function) if so. Would you rule:

1) The Paladin has to hilariously actually sit on his Falcon or Mastiff in order to use the share spells feature of the spell (you need to be mounted on the beast to use the feature, because self evidently the magic comes from the Paladins anus)?

2) Just rule any substantial touching of the critter is OK? (Patting the Wolf as the spell is cast, or having the Owl resting on his forearm)

3) Rule if it cant be ridden by the Paladin, you cant share spells with it at all?

SirGraystone

2018-12-09, 11:37 AM

You can always ask your GM, but the spell is "Find Steed" not "Find Animal Companion"

Lunali

2018-12-09, 12:03 PM

If I were DM I'd allow summoning things that couldn't be mounted by the paladin, though I'd restrict it to things that could reasonably be a mount for someone.

I'd also say that you would actually have to be mounted to share spells, so number 3. Mounts and their riders are treated more or less as a single combatant, if you want to cast spells on both, you have to be able to act as one.

Malifice

2018-12-09, 12:55 PM

SociopathFriend

2018-12-09, 01:13 PM

So... you'd have me sit on my dog in order to share a cure wounds spell with it?

Cure Wounds doesn't have the target of self

LordEntrails

2018-12-09, 01:40 PM

If one of my players asked me this I would probably say no. Because it sounds like someone is trying to metagame for a benefit not intended by the spell.

The biggest concern would be by either replacing another ability (companion) or that they are trying to gain damage output. Neither of which I'm keen on unless it is done in a thoughtful and long term roleplaying aspect and not a mechanical benefit.

Lunali

2018-12-09, 06:28 PM

So... you'd have me sit on my dog in order to share a cure wounds spell with it?

You'd have to actually be using it as a mount, not just positioning yourself as if you were.

LudicSavant

2018-12-09, 06:47 PM

Serious question; can a Paladin use Find Steed to summon a creature that he cant actually ride (like a Medium Paladin summoning a Falcon, Mastiff, Panther or Wolf).

I'd say yes you can summon a mastiff you can't ride, no you can't share spells if you can't mount it. As for summoning a falcon, panther, or wolf, that's very much up to the particular campaign.

As for "replacing another ability (animal companion)" that bird has already flown. Find Steed / Greater Steed is already better than the Beastmaster IMHO.

Rusvul

2018-12-09, 09:10 PM

It's "Find Steed." I don't think I'd allow it to summon a "steed" that isn't a steed. I would consider expanding the list to other things that could be ridden--a panther, a wolf--but not a falcon. A falcon is not a steed for anything except maybe a tiny humanoid, and there are no tiny PC races. (If there were, though, I would allow a tiny PC summon a bird with Find Greater Steed. Find Steed, unlike its big sister, doesn't allow any flying mounts.)

However: If a PC summoned a steed too small for them to ride, I would allow them to share spells if the animal was in their lap (or something similar). Pat your mastiff on the head? No shared spells. Cuddle with it? Sure, why not? The consequence of this is that by summoning a steed too small for you to ride, you are making the "share spells" feature largely an out-of-combat thing: riding is a thing you can do in combat, cuddling generally isn't.

It's weird as hell to use Find Steed to get an animal companion--and definitely not what the spell is for--but as long as it's not breaking anything, I don't mind mechanically weird character concepts.

Cure Wounds doesn't have the target of self

It doesn't have to. It has to be a spell "that targets only you."

As for "replacing another ability (animal companion)" that bird has already flown. Find Steed / Greater Steed is already better than the Beastmaster IMHO.

I wonder if this could be the basis of some Ranger fix? Add a Find Companion spell that summons a pretty basic pet, since everyone seems to more-or-less agree that the other "Find X" spells work pretty well. Modify BM so that it gives boosts to the companion, and some "fighting-as-a-team" type stuff. That way, any ranger can have a cute friend, but only some focus on it. It would make Ranger more powerful as a class, but... I don't think anyone would complain about that.

Malifice

2018-12-09, 09:57 PM

I'm genuinely blown away that some DMs are saying they wouldnt allow the spell to be cast, unless you summon a spirit you can (or even more restrictive, actually do) actually ride on.

Nothing in the spell makes that a requirement other than an inference from the name (the fluff).

Heck; Crawford himself states this is a great way to use the spell:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/my-paladin-basically-uses-his-find-steed-as-a-companion-this-isnt-breaking-the-spirit-of-the-spell-right/
(https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/my-paladin-basically-uses-his-find-steed-as-a-companion-this-isnt-breaking-the-spirit-of-the-spell-right/)

Im imagining a Paladin summoning a 'steed' that is a hunting falcon, a panther or a wolf or some other kind of faithful animal (really a celestial, fey or fiend). The Paladin chooses the form of the critter (within the guidelines) and nothing in the guidelines states it must be large enough to be actually ridden (although the spell does grant an extra advantage if it is in fact ridden).

JNAProductions

2018-12-09, 10:03 PM

However: If a PC summoned a steed too small for them to ride, I would allow them to share spells if the animal was in their lap (or something similar). Pat your mastiff on the head? No shared spells. Cuddle with it? Sure, why not? The consequence of this is that by summoning a steed too small for you to ride, you are making the "share spells" feature largely an out-of-combat thing: riding is a thing you can do in combat, cuddling generally isn't.

Says you! My characters are all MASTERS of the snuggle struggle! :P

jdolch

2018-12-10, 01:09 AM

I cringe every time someone makes an inference by analyzing single words in the rules. Yes, that is how actual law works. But the D&D rules are so far behind actual standards for laws it's completely pointless. They can't even make clear rules when they do use lots of words and you want to take big conclusions from single words ... lol.

Sorry, as much as i wish they had done such an amazing job at clarifying the rules, that you could do this, this is just not the case. Not by a long shot. If it were the case we wouldn't need Crawford twittering clarifications from his phone while sitting on the toilet.

Malifice

2018-12-10, 01:19 AM

I see nothing in the thread that stops a Paladin from using the spell to summon something that he cant (at that point in time) actually ride on.

An Ancients Paladin of the wild hunt could (for example) summon a Wolf (well; a Mastiff, Wolves require DM permission). A Drow Paladin trying to emulate Drizzt could summon a Panther. A Paladin devoted to a God of Wisdom could summon an Owl. A Paladin devoted to the Raven Queen could summon a Raven. And so forth.

It's fluffy as ****, and breaks nothing.

Many of those creatures require DM approval (they're all CR 1/2 or lower, so fair game I would have thought), but there is nothing in the spell that says 'you must be able to physcially ride the creature summoned'.

The real question is 'do you have to actually sit on the creature in order to share spells with it?' RAW is yes, but I'm not sure that represents RAF or maybe even RAI.

I say nope personally. I'd be happy with a Paladin using half movement for a round (which is what he would have to use to mount a steed) to pat/ interact with his companion in order to share spells with it for that round.

Kalashak

2018-12-10, 01:38 AM

You can always ask your GM, but the spell is "Find Steed" not "Find Animal Companion"
This is pretty much how I feel about it too

Malifice

2018-12-10, 01:55 AM

This is pretty much how I feel about it too

So the flames of Greenflame blade in your games... have to be Green?

Or applying the same logic in reverse, do you allow a summoned Animal Companion to be ridden as a steed, seeing as the spell isnt called 'Find Steed'?

Are you saying that you would rule that the animal summoned has to be Large sized (for a medium paladin) so it can be legally ridden (whether or not the Paladin actually ever rides it)?

So you would limit the spell (for M sized Paladins) to summoning Large or bigger creatures like a horse or elk?

But a Small Paladin could summon a wolf or panther no worries at all?

Isnt that kind of arbitrary and limiting for no good reason?

Daithi

2018-12-10, 01:58 AM

Let's say your DM agrees to let you summon a companion that's in the 1/4 CR range or so. What happens when you get Summon Greater Stead? That really seems ripe for meta-gaming.

If I'm the DM I'd probably say no. It has too be a "stead".
However, it worth a shot, because I could see a DM being fine with this.

Kalashak

2018-12-10, 02:16 AM

So the flames of Greenflame blade in your games... have to be Green?

Or applying the same logic in reverse, do you allow a summoned Animal Companion to be ridden as a steed, seeing as the spell isnt called 'Find Steed'?

Are you saying that you would rule that the animal summoned has to be Large sized (for a medium paladin) so it can be legally ridden (whether or not the Paladin actually ever rides it)?

So you would limit the spell (for M sized Paladins) to summoning Large or bigger creatures like a horse or elk?

But a Small Paladin could summon a wolf or panther no worries at all?

Isnt that kind of arbitrary and limiting for no good reason?
No, yes, yes, yes, no, and no.

jdolch

2018-12-10, 02:17 AM

Let's say your DM agrees to let you summon a companion that's in the 1/4 CR range or so. What happens when you get Summon Greater Stead? That really seems ripe for meta-gaming.

So what?

The Paladin gets Find Greater Steed at level 13. Meta gaming would be what? Finding some other CR2 Creature than a mount? At that point in the game other classes get spells like Simulacrum and Reverse Gravity. If you think that at that point some CR2 Companion will break the game, then i think you never actually played at that level. People always make the mistake of not putting things in context. You don't get Find Greater Steed at level 4.

The intended use, i.e. getting a flying mount, probably IS the best use of this spell at the level you are at. IF there is one thing you can abuse with this spell it is the Ring of Spellstoring. And that is totally legit by RAW.

Malifice

2018-12-10, 04:27 AM

No, yes, yes, yes, no, and no.

Whats your 'good' reason?

Derpy

2018-12-10, 09:47 AM

"Your steed serves you as a mount..." (from spell description) if it can do this, they can use it how they want, if they cant use it as such it is not a valid creature to be summoned as a steed. That's my take on it.

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-10, 10:22 AM

Malifice, you asked a question. you didn't like the answers, so now you are arguing with people.

don't be that guy.

as to your post:
I would allow it.
I would allow by touch + 1/2 movement (mechanically the same, fluff how you need it.)

keep in mind that prior to Find Greater Steed, WotC pregen paladin had a brown bear as his Find Steed.
So even they weren't limiting it to 1/2CR creatures on the list.

Edenbeast

2018-12-10, 10:37 AM

Malifice

2018-12-10, 11:26 AM

I think throughout the spell's description it's clear what the spell is supposed to do. I would not allow for any alternative interpretations, except for the motorcycle in a modern setting.

Green is in the spell greenflame blade.

You make it be green and only green then?

There is nothing in the spell Find Steed that stops a Paladin from summoning a Horse, Mastiff or whatever and having it walk next to him, run errands for him, race back to town and dance on its hind legs or whatever, and never actually function as a steed.

The spell RAW functions better when you're actually using the critter you summon as a Steed (i.e. you can share spells with it), but in no way are you required to summon something that has to be able to actually function as a Steed for you.

Alternatively I just get my Sorcerer buddy to shrink me to Small size, cast the bloody spell, get me a panther or wolf and then resize myslef back to Medium.

Seriously; what kind of DM would actually rule the spell doesnt work when my Elven Paladin of the Hunt (Ancients Palaidn) conjures a Fey Wolf?

Not the kind I want to play with.

Edenbeast

2018-12-10, 12:40 PM

Green is in the spell greenflame blade.

You make it be green and only green then?

I would be fine with different colours as it wouldn't change the functionality of the spell. I've used Shield and described it as the spirit of a dead relative giving me extra AC and catching magic missiles that would otherwise hit me. Find steed gives you a steed, not a familiar, and not an animal companion.

There is nothing in the spell Find Steed that stops a Paladin from summoning a Horse, Mastiff or whatever and having it walk next to him, run errands for him, race back to town and dance on its hind legs or whatever, and never actually function as a steed.

That's true, and up to the player.

The spell RAW functions better when you're actually using the critter you summon as a Steed (i.e. you can share spells with it), but in no way are you required to summon something that has to be able to actually function as a Steed for you.

I disagree. The spell gives you a steed, which serves you as a steed. The way I read that, is that is has to be capable of, indeed, serving you as a steed.

Alternatively I just get my Sorcerer buddy to shrink me to Small size, cast the bloody spell, get me a panther or wolf and then resize myslef back to Medium.

Let's see, Enlarge/Reduce has a casting time of 1 action, with a duration of up to 1 minute. Find Steed, casting time: 10 minutes. I don't think that would work. You'll have your own size before Find Steed ends. Even if he casts it right at the end, for the majority of the casting time you'll be medium size. Besides, how willing would that sorcerer actually be to spend one or more spell slots just for you to have a smaller steed.

Seriously; what kind of DM would actually rule the spell doesnt work when my Elven Paladin of the Hunt (Ancients Palaidn) conjures a Fey Wolf?

Conjure Animals is a 3rd level druid spell. I'd allow you swap Plant Growth for Conjure Animals at level 9 so you can have lots of fey wolves.

diplomancer

2018-12-10, 01:29 PM

one thing my DM allowed (before Xanathar's was published) was to upcast Find Steed as a 3rd level slot for CR1 creatures. We had already agreed to get CR2 for 4th level (and CR3 for 5th, but not many CR3 options) when Xanathar was published allowing up to CR 2 with 4th level.

I think that is a good house rule that lets you have a dire wolf as a mount at 9th level (or even a hipogriff if your DM is very nice)

That said, the spell uses the word steed several times. To ask it to summon something that is not a steed, that is mechanically different from a steed, is like asking for a fireball to do thunder damage instead of fire damage, or to have a spell that affects creatures to affect anything (since everything that exists is a creature, i.e., was created)

Malifice

2018-12-10, 01:34 PM

I would be fine with different colours as it wouldn't change the functionality of the spell.

Summoning a M sized Mastiff instead of a L sized Warhorse also doesn't change the functionality of the spell.

Like; just to be clear - you'd be cool with a Paladin summoning a Large celestial, and never riding it, but not a medium one?

I've used Shield and described it as the spirit of a dead relative giving me extra AC and catching magic missiles that would otherwise hit me. Find steed gives you a steed, not a familiar, and not an animal companion.

Lets be clear here - my Paladin in your game summons a creature [fluffed to appear however he wants, you dont seem to care what it actually looks like when players fluff spells differently in your paragraph above] but never actually rides it. Not once. Just has it follow him around and fight stuff.

You would allow this I take it?

Nothing in the spell compels me to ride the thing I summon. You're clear that I can fluff it however I want.

How would you rule it? The spell fails unless I agree to ride the beast?

I disagree. The spell gives you a steed, which serves you as a steed. The way I read that, is that is has to be capable of, indeed, serving you as a steed.

Ok - so just to be clear, you're OK with me summoning a Large Wolf or Panther (How I fluff my Warhorse; has the same stats as a warhorse, just fluffed to look like something else).

You would never require me to ride it. It just has to be big enough that I actually can ride it?

Let's see, Enlarge/Reduce has a casting time of 1 action, with a duration of up to 1 minute. Find Steed, casting time: 10 minutes. I don't think that would work.

I get reincarnated as a Halfing. Cast the spell getting me a mastiff, then get Wished back into Human form.

Just to be clear; you're OK with this, but not me simply summoning a (sub par compared to a Warhorse) mastiff?

Conjure Animals is a 3rd level druid spell. I'd allow you swap Plant Growth for Conjure Animals at level 9 so you can have lots of fey wolves.

I dont really want a pack of wolves at 9th level, when by RAW (and RAI if you listen to Crawford) the spell Find Steed gets me a permanent loyal companion at 5th level.

I dont have to ride it, and nothing in the spell limits me to only summoning a creature I can, in fact, ride. The spell does give extra advantages if I am riding it (the ability to share spells).

I just think its a weird ruling. It breaks nothing allowing it (it's mechanically sub-par summoning something you cant ride), isnt prohibited by the spell, is super fluffy and a fun use of the spell (it conforms to RAW, and if you listen to Crawford also to RAI and RAW).

There is literally no good reason to prohibit it, other than reading into the rules something that isnt there, and stifling fun and nixing character concepts on the grounds of that ruling and nothing more (certainly not game balance).

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-10, 01:41 PM

The spell gives you a steed, which serves you as a steed. The way I read that, is that is has to be capable of, indeed, serving you as a steed.

It must serve you as a steed.
If you are not riding it, then it is not serving you as a steed.
Therefore:
Noone else can ride it
It cannot attack while you are not riding it (not serving as a steed)
It cannot attack while you are riding it/controlled (limited set of actions).

Tanarii

2018-12-10, 01:43 PM

As for "replacing another ability (animal companion)" that bird has already flown. Find Steed / Greater Steed is already better than the Beastmaster IMHO.
Nothing in the spell says the player gets to control the Steed while not mounted. A DM can rule it's controlled by them when not mounted, or require Animal a handling checks to direct it.

Although given they share a language it should be fairly easy to communicate what you want it to do, and allow complex directions/actions.

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-10, 01:45 PM

Nothing in the spell says the player gets to control the Steed while not mounted. A DM can rule it's controlled by them when not mounted, or require Animal a handling checks to direct it.

Although given they share a language it should be fairly easy to communicate what you want it to do, and allow complex directions/actions.

It's not a beast, so Animal Handling doesn't really apply

Man_Over_Game

2018-12-10, 01:50 PM

Before doing something that wasn't how the thing was intended, ask yourself:

Is there something else that does a similar thing?
Is that other thing more expensive than what you're trying to do, or is it worse?

If you answered "Yes" to both of those questions, then it's something you shouldn't do, or the cost needs to increase. In this instance, the "something else that does a similar thing" I'm referring to the Beast Master's Animal Companion.

Before allowing Paladins to have an easily accessible feature, it needs to be excessively clear that having a companion would have been better to pick by playing a Ranger.

Whether that means buffing the Ranger's pet so that yours is so weak that you're disappointed, or that means nerfing the Paladin's pet to the ground so that a Ranger's pet is clearly the superior, either case doesn't matter.

Paladin's pet must be MUCH worse than the Ranger's pet, due to comparing the costs for the Paladin vs. the costs for the Ranger (Paladin spends a prepared spell for the day, Ranger spends a subclass).

Until Ranger is clearly the better option for an animal companion, the option shouldn't be available for a Paladin, especially at so small of a cost.

Or, to put another way:

If the Ranger's method of getting a companion is 10x more than the Paladin's method of getting a companion, then the Ranger's companion needs to be 10x better. Or you can opt to make the Paladin's companion 10x worse.

Alternatively, you could also make the Paladin's companion cost 10x more (and make some kind of homebrew Paladin companion subclass and removing Find Steed altogether).

JackPhoenix

2018-12-10, 02:08 PM

I think throughout the spell's description it's clear what the spell is supposed to do. I would not allow for any alternative interpretations, except for the motorcycle in a modern setting.

There's already spell for that:

Find Vehicle
2nd level conjuration
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: 8 hours

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of a nonmilitary and vehicle of your choice, appearing in an unoccupied space within range. The vehicle has the statistics of a normal vehicle of its sort, though it is celestial, fey, or fiendish (your choice) in origin. The physical characteristics of the vehicle reflect its origin to some degree. For example, a fiendish SUV might be jet black in color, with tinted windows and a sinister looking front grille. You have a supernatural bond with the conjured vehicle that allows you to drive beyond your normal ability. While driving the conjured vehicle, you are considered proficient with vehicles of its type, and you add double your proficiency bonus to ability checks related to driving the vehicle. While driving the vehicle, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target the vehicle. If the vehicle drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. You can also dismiss the vehicle at any time as an action, causing it to disappear. You can’t have more than one vehicle bonded by this spell at a time. As an action, you can release the vehicle from its bond at any time, causing it to disappear.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, you can conjure a nonmilitary water vehicle large enough to carry six Medium creatures. When you
cast this spell using a spell slot of 5th level or higher, you can conjure a nonmilitary air vehicle large enough to carry ten Medium creatures. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 7th level or higher, you can conjure any type of vehicle, subject to the DM’s approval.

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-10, 02:56 PM

If the Ranger's method of getting a companion is 10x more than the Paladin's method of getting a companion, then the Ranger's companion needs to be 10x better. Or you can opt to make the Paladin's companion 10x worse.

Alternatively, you could also make the Paladin's companion cost 10x more (and make some kind of homebrew Paladin companion subclass and removing Find Steed altogether).

I disagree with this sentiment.

This is only a problem if a paladin and beastmaster play at the same table. not likely in a home game.

Nerf stuff to bring it inline with beastmaster is bad and short sighted.
Beastmaster is different than find steed. bonuses to HP, AC, toHit, damage.

Find steed is not much different than buying a horse/mastiff whatever, or animal friendshipping something in the wild.

Edenbeast

2018-12-10, 03:44 PM

It must serve you as a steed.
If you are not riding it, then it is not serving you as a steed.
Therefore:
Noone else can ride it
It cannot attack while you are not riding it (not serving as a steed)
It cannot attack while you are riding it/controlled (limited set of actions).

Exactly.

Summoning a M sized Mastiff instead of a L sized Warhorse also doesn't change the functionality of the spell.

No, it does. For an M-sized character, you need an L-sized steed, not M-sized.

Like; just to be clear - you'd be cool with a Paladin summoning a Large celestial, and never riding it, but not a medium one?

Actually, if you don't care about a steed, you don't have to use Find Steed. It's just one of the spells on the list of Paladin spells...

Lets be clear here - my Paladin in your game summons a creature [fluffed to appear however he wants, you dont seem to care what it actually looks like when players fluff spells differently in your paragraph above] but never actually rides it. Not once. Just has it follow him around and fight stuff.

You would allow this I take it?

Yes, although not however he wants. The spell lists a few options, and I'd allow other animals that could function as steed. I also agree with Man_Over_Game's sentiment. If you want something that is more akin to an animal companion, why not play a ranger?

Nothing in the spell compels me to ride the thing I summon. You're clear that I can fluff it however I want.

How would you rule it? The spell fails unless I agree to ride the beast?

You'd have a bored steed hanging around, complaining about it to your patron.

Ok - so just to be clear, you're OK with me summoning a Large Wolf or Panther (How I fluff my Warhorse; has the same stats as a warhorse, just fluffed to look like something else).

You would never require me to ride it. It just has to be big enough that I actually can ride it?

To be honest, I'm not sure what to answer. It's like asking me "Can I have a pink horse?" It's a bit different from Greenflame Blade. A dire wolf is large, but it wouldn't be a dire wolf, instead an unnaturally big wolf, with the stats of a warhorse... I guess I'd allow it.

Just to be clear; you're OK with this, but not me simply summoning a (sub par compared to a Warhorse) mastiff?

Again, the mastiff would not be able to serve as a mount considering your character is medium sized.

I dont have to ride it, and nothing in the spell limits me to only summoning a creature I can, in fact, ride. The spell does give extra advantages if I am riding it (the ability to share spells).

I just think its a weird ruling. It breaks nothing allowing it (it's mechanically sub-par summoning something you cant ride), isnt prohibited by the spell, is super fluffy and a fun use of the spell (it conforms to RAW, and if you listen to Crawford also to RAI and RAW).

There is literally no good reason to prohibit it, other than reading into the rules something that isnt there, and stifling fun and nixing character concepts on the grounds of that ruling and nothing more (certainly not game balance).

I'm curious, why are you so set on having a steed that you won't ride and instead wish to use as a companion? It seems to be an important feature to you, but you're not considering ranger, which offers a companion with progression. As paladin, your find steed won't scale, and you admit it's sub-par. I do agree with your sentiment and I don't want to break character concepts if they sound fun, or are not overpowered, just very fluffy. Coming back to my question, what do you want out of it? Say I allow it, but nothing more powerful than the actual find steed spell allows you to have. You can even have a medium sized wolf that you can't ride. You can share spells with it (not by sitting on it), but it has to be within 5 feet or lose the spell's effect. It can take mount actions. When uncontrolled, it's at the DM's discretion how it will act. Would that work for you?

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-10, 04:09 PM

It seems to be an important feature to you, but you're not considering ranger, which offers a companion with progression.

I would assume that he wants to play a paladin, not a ranger.

Find Steed does scale, albeit poorly (Find Greater Steed). That said, ranger's companion also scales poorly (4 hp per level, new abilities only the archetype progression, 5, 7, 11, 15)
Ranger share Spells doesn't come online until 15 (few PCs make it that far) and is more limited in scope (self only vs Paladins target only you. ie cure wounds works for Paladin, not ranger)

LudicSavant

2018-12-10, 06:09 PM

Nothing in the spell says the player gets to control the Steed while not mounted.

Nothing in the spell says you get to control it while it is mounted, either.

It just says that you fight as a seamless unit, can communicate telepathically while within 1 mile, and the devs have repeatedly said that you can have it act independently and it'll do what you say. JC has even said that it's a "great way to use the spell (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/my-paladin-basically-uses-his-find-steed-as-a-companion-this-isnt-breaking-the-spirit-of-the-spell-right/)."

AHF

2018-12-10, 06:18 PM

LudicSavant

2018-12-10, 06:19 PM

On a tangent, the Mastiff’s description says it has the chance to knock down a target if “the target is a creature.” Anyone know where the creature vs non-creature line is drawn? I wasn’t seeing that as a category of monster.

Every monster in the manual counts as a "creature."

Aberrations, Beasts, Celestials, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Fey, Fiends, Giants, Humanoids, Monstrosities, Oozes, Plants, and Undead are all creatures.

AHF

2018-12-10, 07:22 PM

Every monster in the manual counts as a "creature."

Aberrations, Beasts, Celestials, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Fey, Fiends, Giants, Humanoids, Monstrosities, Oozes, Plants, and Undead are all creatures.

Thanks. Wonder why they felt the need to include that verbiage?

Tanarii

2018-12-10, 07:38 PM

It's not a beast, so Animal Handling doesn't really applyAnimal Handling applies to mounts, not beasts.

So yeah, maybe you don't need to make a Animal Handling check to ask it do something for you. Given the intelligence and language shared.

But like Conjured Animals, the RAW of the spell allows the DM to control an uncounted steed, if they so choose. Players just assume they get control.

Nothing in the spell says you get to control it while it is mounted, either. Right. The mounted combat rules do that.

jdolch

2018-12-10, 09:17 PM

steed (stēd)
n.
1. A horse, especially a spirited one.
2. An animal used for riding: the use of camels as steeds.
3. Informal A vehicle, especially one that is ridden astride such as a bicycle or motorcycle.

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed, ... the steed takes on a form that you choose: a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a mastiff. (Your GM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds.) ...

Your steed serves you as a mount, ... While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.

I think throughout the spell's description it's clear what the spell is supposed to do. I would not allow for any alternative interpretations, except for the motorcycle in a modern setting.

I am just gonna quote myself on this.

I cringe every time someone makes an inference by analyzing single words in the rules. Yes, that is how actual law works. But the D&D rules are so far behind actual standards for laws it's completely pointless. They can't even make clear rules when they do use lots of words and you want to take big conclusions from single words ... lol.

Sorry, as much as i wish they had done such an amazing job at clarifying the rules, that you could do this, this is just not the case. Not by a long shot. If it were the case we wouldn't need Crawford twittering clarifications from his phone while sitting on the toilet.

Bottom Line: Stop channeling Ally McBeal and ask your DM how he wants to handle this.

Keltest

2018-12-10, 09:32 PM

I am just gonna quote myself on this.

Bottom Line: Stop channeling Ally McBeal and ask your DM how he wants to handle this.

Theres not really a lot of room for ambiguity here. The spell clearly is intended to provide the character with a mount. This isn't even a particularly nonsensical rules lawyering that sometimes gets attempted, its just a basic understanding of the use of a word.

Even summoning a creature that could plausibly be a steed for a PC race is pushing it, but that's at least keeping with the spirit of the spell, IE a mountable creature. Theres really not any way to spin, say, a falcon as being a steed, ever, under any circumstances.

JackPhoenix

2018-12-10, 09:47 PM

Thanks. Wonder why they felt the need to include that verbiage?

Because tripping objects is what cats do?

Keltest

2018-12-10, 09:56 PM

Because tripping objects is what cats do?

Mastiffs are dogs though.

Drakkoniss

2018-12-10, 11:17 PM

It would seem to me that there are certain key parts of the spell that must be taken into account. In particular, the fact that the verbiage is "Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out," suggests two things: it serves you, in particular and it must serve as a mount in some capacity.

Now, it also says, "you have an instinctive bond that allows you to fight as a seamless unit," which, in concert with the fact that it can communicate with you telepathically and you can only have one steed at a time, suggests a bond of the same sort of a wizard and their familiar; not only because of the fact that you shape its form with your mind/heart (for it is a generic spirit before it joins you, but gains a form [according to your will] only as a result of the bond). Furthermore, your bond can increase its intelligence, and you give it the capacity to have language; whereas, otherwise it may not. This all suggests that the spell is intended to be summoning a creature to serve as your mount, and no one else's. As such, it must be a creature that can be mounted, and mounted by you, according to the wording of the spell.

Now, there is nothing suggesting that you cannot use the mount in other ways (to pull a cart, to attack someone while unmounted, to provide a subject for a painting, or whathaveyou). In fact, this is encouraged. Creativity, generally, is encouraged in D&D. However, this is not a matter of the title of the spell's wording. It is not a matter of the creature being a "steed" or not: It must be your mount in some respect or another, or else the bond itself cannot form, I should think. The spell is a contract: "Come, serve as my mount, and I will bond with you and be with you until the contract is ended."

Also, the "summoned as steeds" bit pointing toward DM discretion effectively points the reader to the Mounts and Vehicles section of the PHB, which says "pegasi, griffons, hippogriffs, and similar animals" are the sort that define flying mounts, in particular. "Similar" is up to interpretation, but it seems reasonable to suggest that these only include those big enough to actually be mounted by a player character: they are in the equipment section, after all. This is further confirmed by the juxtaposition of this terminology with barding and saddles on the page.

Simply put: the spell seems to suggest that the spirit forms itself into any mount the character wants for themselves, but only just such a creature. Otherwise, it would not be that spell.

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-11, 08:49 AM

Animal Handling applies to mounts, not beasts.
So yeah, maybe you don't need to make a Animal Handling check to ask it do something for you. Given the intelligence and language shared.

A dragon letting a paladin ride it into combat would be insulted if the paladin used animal handling on it.

But like Conjured Animals, the RAW of the spell allows the DM to control an uncounted steed, if they so choose. Players just assume they get control.

It's a pretty good assumption

as far as Conjure Animals
"They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you)" the DM is allowed to control the path, i guess.

as far as Find Steed
"Your steed serves you as a mount, both in Combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit"
serves you, and seamless unit. explain to me how a seamless unit works if it doesn't do exactly what you expect it to.

this is a long-standing disagreement. you don't have to actually answer it. but everytime you bring this up i will raise this counterpoint.

Maxilian

2018-12-11, 10:08 AM

By RAW, you should be able to summon any of the creature that the spell point out (anything else is DM fiat), sadly, you won't be able to "share" spells with it unless you mount it, if you're a size bigger than your steed, then, it would be really hard for you to get the condition of "riding" it for the shared spell.

Note: Regardless of your size, its a potential steed (even though if you can't normally ride it, unless... something changes -Enlarge/Reduce, etc...)

Note2: It would work as any independant mount would. (With some DM advantages here and there cause it is a "loyal steed", DM fiat)

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-11, 11:15 AM

Creativity, generally, is encouraged in D&D.

DM: I encourage you to be creative, solve problems by thinking outside the box, use magic to bend the constraints...
PC: I am human, can i summon a mastiff?
DM: No. that violates the implied rule that you must be able to ride it.

MThurston

2018-12-11, 11:22 AM

1. It's find steed.

2. Having a non steed means you can not direct it to do anything.

3. Choosing to bring a non steed that you can not control is a dumb thing to do.

elyktsorb

2018-12-11, 11:36 AM

If you were a halfling with the Find Steed spell, then wouldn't you summon a mastiff? Or is a riding dog a separate dog?

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-11, 11:55 AM

If you were a halfling with the Find Steed spell, then wouldn't you summon a mastiff? Or is a riding dog a separate dog?

No, I would summon a war horse. more HP, more damage, large (interacts with Mounted Combatant feat better)

elyktsorb

2018-12-11, 12:18 PM

No, I would summon a war horse. more HP, more damage, large (interacts with Mounted Combatant feat better)

I didn't even realize that there was no penalty for a halfling riding a much larger creature. I've been using Mastiffs for no reason apparently.

Tanarii

2018-12-11, 02:22 PM

It's a pretty good assumptionNo it's not. Compare and contrast Animate Dead. That is explicit.

These other spells are on the DM to decide how it will work. Same with any non-mounted non-spell animal control, other than a Beast Master's companion.

This is a long-standing disagreement. you don't have to actually answer it. but everytime you bring this up i will raise this counterpoint.
Any argument that the player must ne allowed direct control when it is unmounted is flat out wrong. A DM can decide to rule that way, but the spell does not require it.

Maxilian

2018-12-11, 02:29 PM

I didn't even realize that there was no penalty for a halfling riding a much larger creature. I've been using Mastiffs for no reason apparently.

Well... the Mastiff is a mount that you can use everywhere, a Warhorse is not.

(That's the main perk of a small race as a mounted combatant)

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-11, 02:57 PM

No it's not. Compare and contrast Animate Dead. That is explicit.

These other spells are on the DM to decide how it will work. Same with any non-mounted non-spell animal control, other than a Beast Master's companion.

Any argument that the player must ne allowed direct control when it is unmounted is flat out wrong. A DM can decide to rule that way, but the spell does not require it.

Ha... I said you didn't have to answer it, and you didn't. I am disappointed that you skipped my points in favor of whataboutism.
I fully understand your point of view. I am not saying you are wrong. Portions of the spell+rules support your point of view.
I cannot square your point of view with the entire spell, including the flavor of the text.

You sidestepped a question that could end my find steed argument (not really a question, more of a request, reallly):

explain to me how a seamless unit works if it doesn't do exactly what you expect it to.

"They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you)".

If I say go through the fire and attack the orc, the summoned wolves better go through the fire and attack the orc.
the DM is allowed to control the exact path, i guess.

Animate Dead is explicit, I totally agree.
Does the existence of an explicit rule mean that implicit rules can't exist? nope. this is an example of specific beats general.

Maybe they made Animate Dead so explicit because it is so powerful: non-concentration and 24 hour duration... (just kidding, it sucks)
Maybe the guy that wrote this spell did a great job, and the guy who wrote find steed sucked (find steed is already self-contradicting so this is reasonable.)

it is a good assumption that the player can control his steed when unmounted.

1) the flavor of the text suggests it
2) most DMs do that anyway for this spell and similar spells
it might be wrong for a specific DM, but it is still a good assumption until proven otherwise

Malifice

2018-12-11, 03:50 PM

DM: I encourage you to be creative, solve problems by thinking outside the box, use magic to bend the constraints...
PC: I am human, can i summon a mastiff?
DM: No. that violates the implied rule that you must be able to ride it.

PC;: "Huh? Ok, no hard feelings, See you later.' (Changes DM to one that doesnt have hang ups about a Paladin with a loyal dog).

That's an arbitrarily ruling that serves no purpose other than DM jtyranny and stifling player creativity concepts and fun.

It's not for rules balance. It's simply the DM imposing an arbitrary and inane condition on the spell for ansolitely no good reason.

Tells me all I need to know about the game if it's one where the DM thinks this kind of arbitrary ruling takes precedent over fun.

He probably makes my Shadow blade spell be a blade and not some other non bladed weapon or equally arbitrary rulings.

The spell lets Paladin summon a mastiff. They cast it and they summon a mastiff.

As a DM I'd go the total other way to you and let them summon any animal they want of an equivalent CR and power level to those mentioned, fluff it how they wanted, and I'd also go as far as letting the share spells work (using a similar action ie the paladin must be adjacent to the beast and use half his movement that round to interact with it before casting the spell to share).

There is no good reason not to allow it and several good reasons to allow it.

Man_Over_Game

2018-12-11, 04:45 PM

There is no good reason not to allow it and several good reasons to allow it.

I like the idea of Paladin's have a "Pally's best friend" spell. But I'm still adamant the Beast Master needs an exponentially better pet option than the Paladin. Whatever the Paladin can do with a spell, something much, MUCH better has to be provided for the Ranger's subclass.

I mostly agree with most of your opinion, but that feels like at least one reason not to do it.

Malifice

2018-12-11, 04:52 PM

I like the idea of Paladin's have a "Pally's best friend" spell. But I'm still adamant the Beast Master needs an exponentially better pet option than the Paladin. Whatever the Paladin can do with a spell, something much, MUCH better has to be provided for the Ranger's subclass.

I mostly agree with most of your opinion, but that feels like at least one reason not to do it.

Dont punish everyone else for the Beast Masters poor design though. Like; literally every other 'Beast pet option' from familiars, to steeds to summoned monsters, to shadow hounds to summoned spectres to undead minions to conjured animals is better than the BM.

Heck; a Hunter ranger casting Animal Friendship (24 hour duration, charms a Beast for 24 hours) plus Animal Handling (and treating it well) gets him a permanent companion better than the Beast Masters central class feature!

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-11, 05:10 PM

Dont punish everyone else for the Beast Masters poor design though.

This.

(that said, beastmaster isn't horrible. especially now that the errata/update fixed 2 of my 4 major problems.)

Malifice

2018-12-11, 05:50 PM

This.

(that said, beastmaster isn't horrible. especially now that the errata/update fixed 2 of my 4 major problems.)

Yeah it's gotten better, but they're really polishing a turd at this point.

There is nothing in Ranger worth sticking at for more than 5 levels. You're better off going a Ranger 5, bailing out of the class then splashing Scout Rogue for a few levels, BM Fighter for a few levels, and a caster class of your choice (Druid is fluffy) for the rest, over sticking with Ranger for 20 levels.

You end up a better Ranger than the Ranger. Youre better in combat, better with skills, more mobile, a better caster and lose none of the exploration pillar goodies that Rangers get.

sithlordnergal

2018-12-11, 06:05 PM

Well... the Mastiff is a mount that you can use everywhere, a Warhorse is not.

(That's the main perk of a small race as a mounted combatant)

Well, there is a reason for it...but its kiiinda dumb. It allows a Small creature to dual wield lances. You see, here's how it works:

1) Pick of the Dual Wielder feat, allowing you to use any weapon for dual wielding.

2) Use a Mastiff, or any Medium creature, as your mount as a Small sized race. This way your mount fits into dungeons.

3) Buy two lances. The lance has a Reach and a special property. That property being "Special: You have disadvantage when you use a lance to Attack a target within 5 feet of you. Also, a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted."

By RAW, you can dual wield a pair of lances as a Small creature as long as you are mounted. As I said...its dumb, but it is a reason

AHF

2018-12-11, 06:05 PM

The 1 mile range telepathic link suggests to me that a Paladin can direct the steed when they are separated. Why have a 1 mile range otherwise?

Malifice

2018-12-11, 06:30 PM

The 1 mile range telepathic link suggests to me that a Paladin can direct the steed when they are separated. Why have a 1 mile range otherwise?

The spell clearly contemplates the fact that a Paladin will spend time unmounted with the critter still around. There is no requirement in the spell for him to ever actually mount the creature summoned.

I just disagree that due to the use of the word 'steed' in the fluff that a Paladin is forced into summoning something big enough he can (as at the instant of casting) actually ride.

Just like I disagree that the use of the word 'green' in greenflame blade means you have to have green fire when you cast it, or the use of the word 'blade' and 'shadow' n the Shadow Blade spell means you have to summon a bladed weapon made of shadow.

Keltest

2018-12-11, 08:21 PM

The spell clearly contemplates the fact that a Paladin will spend time unmounted with the critter still around. There is no requirement in the spell for him to ever actually mount the creature summoned.

I just disagree that due to the use of the word 'steed' in the fluff that a Paladin is forced into summoning something big enough he can (as at the instant of casting) actually ride.

Just like I disagree that the use of the word 'green' in greenflame blade means you have to have green fire when you cast it, or the use of the word 'blade' and 'shadow' n the Shadow Blade spell means you have to summon a bladed weapon made of shadow.

You are perfectly welcome to houserule it if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me that the intent is to summon a ridable creature. By definition, if you cant ride it, its not a mount.

Tanarii

2018-12-11, 09:30 PM

I fully understand your point of view. I am not saying you are wrong. Portions of the spell+rules support your point of view.
I cannot square your point of view with the entire spell, including the flavor of the text.As long as we're eliminating the outlying points of view, I'm cool. :smallamused: Those being "Player must get control of the creature when unmounted" and "DM must get control of the the creature when unmounted". RAW does not support a "must" statement.

You sidestepped a question that could end my find steed argument (not really a question, more of a request, reallly):

explain to me how a seamless unit works if it doesn't do exactly what you expect it to.Yes. I did. Because I think it's an individual DM call.

But to answer your question, in 5e, all (edit: controlled) mounts fight as a seamless unit. RAW statement in spell met.

"They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you)".

If I say go through the fire and attack the orc, the summoned wolves better go through the fire and attack the orc.
the DM is allowed to control the exact path, i guess.Conjure Animals is the one with that statement, right? Just to make sure we're on the same page. And agreed. If you give a verbal command to a Conjured Animal, and the DM has ruled something like 'the DM controls the creatures after the PC gives a verbal command of six seconds or less in combat', the DM should make a good faith effort to resolve that command as stated in as straight forward a manner as possible.

The advantage is it keeps the player honest on use of the spells. Of course, if you've got the right kind of players, you can just tell them to knock it off if they start to get abusive.

The disadvantage is it increases DM cognitive overhead. For some DMs that's a real problem.

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-11, 09:42 PM

As long as we're eliminating the outlying points of view, I'm cool. :smallamused: Those being "Player must get control of the creature when unmounted" and "DM must get control of the the creature when unmounted". RAW does not support a "must" statement.

Yes. I did. Because I think it's an individual DM call.

But to answer your question, in 5e, all (edit: controlled) mounts fight as a seamless unit. RAW statement in spell met.

Conjure Animals is the one with that statement, right? Just to make sure we're on the same page. And agreed. If you give a verbal command to a Conjured Animal, and the DM has ruled something like 'the DM controls the creatures after the PC gives a verbal command of six seconds or less in combat', the DM should make a good faith effort to resolve that command as stated in as straight forward a manner as possible.

The advantage is it keeps the player honest on use of the spells. Of course, if you've got the right kind of players, you can just tell them to knock it off if they start to get abusive.

The disadvantage is it increases DM cognitive overhead. For some DMs that's a real problem.

Ah. yeah, i wasn't saying must/always/never... i think we are in agreement now.

Malifice

2018-12-12, 01:25 AM

You are perfectly welcome to houserule it if you want, but it seems pretty clear to me that the intent is to summon a ridable creature. By definition, if you cant ride it, its not a mount.

There is no houserule involved.

Nothing in the RAW forces me summon a creature I can (at the time of summoning) actually legally ride.

diplomancer

2018-12-12, 07:50 AM

There is no houserule involved.

Nothing in the RAW forces me summon a creature I can (at the time of summoning) actually legally ride.

Nothing except the english language, and the repeated use of the word steed in the description of the spell.

Would you allow a player to cast a sunball if he was fighting fire resistant creatures (exact same stats as a fireball, but it does radiant damage)? Would you quit a game in disgust if a DM said "nope" to that? "I just want to fluff my fireball not as fire but as bright light, it's all energy anyways, we all know perfectly well that bright light can burn and even start fires"!

In 5e, if we are talking RAW we mean, ultimately, "something an Adventure's League DM HAS to accept". Everything else is a houserule (not that there is anything wrong with that). Using find steed to get a familiar is not RAW, no matter if a familiar is more or less powerful than a steed.

LudicSavant

2018-12-12, 07:56 AM

Nothing except the english language, and the repeated use of the word steed in the description of the spell.

Here's the definition for steed, as given by Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steed
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/steed

"Steed" means "horse," and doesn't necessarily refer to one being ridden.

And clearly the intent isn't actually that you can only use a horse, because it explicitly lists non-horse creatures as options in the spell. Which should be a clue that perhaps the word isn't intended to be taken quite so literally.

diplomancer

2018-12-12, 08:09 AM

yes it is a clue that the meaning invoked is the 2nd meaning of the word, i.e, "an animal used for riding". What cannot be used for riding is simply not a steed.

No one ever looked at a cat and said "what a fine steed"; on the other hand no one would be so pedantic, upon being complimented on the fine camel they are riding "what a beautiful steed!" to reply "you do know that this is a camel and not a horse, right?"

ShikomeKidoMi

2018-12-12, 08:11 AM

There is no houserule involved.Nothing in the RAW forces me summon a creature I can (at the time of summoning) actually legally ride.

Depends on how you parse the words "Your steed serves you as a mount." Not, I note, "your steed can serve you as a mount" but "your steed does serve you as a mount" which can be taken to be nonoptional.

LudicSavant

2018-12-12, 08:29 AM

yes it is a clue that the meaning invoked is the 2nd meaning of the word, i.e, "an animal used for riding". What cannot be used for riding is simply not a steed.

Even under this new definition that you've given (which is excluded from many dictionaries; in fact the only one that I could find that had it also considered motorcycles steeds), you wouldn't be ruling out anything.

If I summon a horse, it can clearly be used for riding, even if I don't ride it myself.

Or would you stop a Wizard from casting "Phantom Steed" while under the effects of Enlarge Person, since it wouldn't be a "steed" to them when they cast it?

Does casting Enlarge on the Paladin stop them from summoning the loyal warhorse Valefor, who they've summoned 30 times before?

If I cast Reduce, do I then get a different set of summonable creatures? Does the creature's behavior change if my size changes after it's summoned?

This should be another clue that the "you must be able to ride it at the time of casting" interpretation is iffy. If it worked that way, weird things would start to happen.

No one ever looked at a cat and said "what a fine steed"

And yet, Find Greater Steed explicitly suggests a cat as one of the steeds.

This should be yet another clue.

Yet another clue should be that the lead developer has specifically said that summoning a creature that you never ride and just using it as a battle companion is a "great use of the spell."

Edenbeast

2018-12-12, 08:43 AM

Here's the definition for steed, as given by Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steed
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/steed

"Steed" means "horse," and doesn't necessarily refer to one being ridden.

And clearly the intent isn't actually that you can only use a horse, because it explicitly lists non-horse creatures as options in the spell. Which should be a clue that perhaps the word isn't intended to be taken quite so literally.

Funny that you mention two American English dictionaries, but lets compare that to the Oxford Dictionary: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/steed

That is a steed, or Ross in German, or ros in Dutch...

I think it's pretty obvious, but not so funny as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wSw3IWRJa0

If I summon a horse, it can clearly be used for riding, even if I don't ride it myself.

That is where the "Your steed serves you as a mount," comes in.

Having said that, I would allow it under conditions I've stated before: it can only take the actions a (controlled) steed can take, and share spells only works within 5 ft. Now I'm curious what the OP's DM decides...

Or would you stop a Wizard from casting "Phantom Steed" while under the effects of Enlarge Person, since it wouldn't be a "steed" to them when they cast it?

The description of Phantom Steed is quite clear on this: "A Large quasi-real, horselike creature..." It's Large, no other size. So I guess the wizard would just summon a Large horse.

Yet another clue should be that the lead developer has specifically said that summoning a creature that you never ride and just using it as a battle companion is a "great use of the spell."

Whenever I read that comment, I can't help thinking of someone asking: "Can I use my mobile phone to serve food to someone?" Answer: "That's a great use of a mobile phone."

LudicSavant

2018-12-12, 08:55 AM

Funny that you mention two American English dictionaries, but lets compare that to the Oxford Dictionary I'm pointing to American English dictionaries because WotC's staff speaks American English. Not sure why you find that "funny."

Why are we comparing to a British English dictionary's definition that's listed as an archaic use of the term? Did WotC move to Britain or something? :smallconfused:

diplomancer

2018-12-12, 09:22 AM

if I saw someone riding a tiger, I guess I would say "quite a dangerous steed you've got there", and my meaning would be perfectly clear. Heck, if I suddenly was taken to a tiny world where I could ride a mouse, it would be a steed for me if I could tame it and ride it.

a steed is a ride-able animal, if it is not ride-able it is not a steed, and thus not a subject of a spell called "find steed"

I dont think you have to actually ride it all the time though, it has to be ride-able, because that is what a steed is.

Tanarii

2018-12-12, 09:23 AM

Yet another clue should be that the lead developer has specifically said that summoning a creature that you never ride and just using it as a battle companion is a "great use of the spell."If Mearls said that, it's a good indication you absolutely should NOT allow it to be used that way. He sucks when it comes reasonable rules interpretations or balance.

I mean, he's no Skip Williams. But that's a low bar to hop over.

LudicSavant

2018-12-12, 09:26 AM

If Mearls said that

It was Jeremy Crawford, actually. And he's commented on the matter repeatedly.

Anywho, this was mentioned and linked by people earlier in the thread. As far as RAI is concerned, the intent seems to be that you can totally use Find Steed for a companion.

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-12, 09:29 AM

If Mearls said that, it's a good indication you absolutely should NOT allow it to be used that way. He sucks when it comes reasonable rules interpretations or balance.
.

It's sad that his reputation is so low, cuz his interpretations are much more along the "5e is simple, plain english" and he isn't rude to twitter folks. Crawford encourages rules lawyering and is an arrogant schmuck about it to boot.

*edited to remove comment that is no longer a comment.*

diplomancer

2018-12-12, 09:37 AM

can I use find steed to summon an orc? If not, why not? Would only bad DMs forbid such a use of the spell? Would anyone claim that summoning an orc is covered by the RAW of the spell?

Edenbeast

2018-12-12, 09:39 AM

I'm pointing to American English dictionaries because WotC's staff speaks American English. Not sure why you find that "funny."

Why are we comparing to a British English dictionary's definition that's listed as an archaic use of the term? Did WotC move to Britain or something? :smallconfused:

I found it funny since it reminded me of the video included :smalltongue:

Steed is an archaic word, but it hasn't changed it's meaning in any sense. Steed refers to a riding horse, not just any horse. A wild horse is not a steed. In a more modern use of the word, a steed is a working/domesticated animal used as a mount. Or do we indeed need new terminology? A riding steed? A motorized steed? We don't, I think.

MThurston

2018-12-12, 09:40 AM

MThurston

2018-12-12, 09:42 AM

It was Jeremy Crawford, actually. And he's commented on the matter repeatedly.

Anywho, this was mentioned and linked by people earlier in the thread. As far as RAI is concerned, the intent seems to be that you can totally use Find Steed for a companion.

But you can not contol it. The only way to control it, is to ride it.

So, it is, in now way the same as an animal companion.

Tanarii

2018-12-12, 10:54 AM

It's sad that his reputation is so low, cuz his interpretations are much more along the "5e is simple, plain english" and he isn't rude to twitter folks. Crawford encourages rules lawyering and is an arrogant schmuck about it to boot.

*edited to remove comment that is no longer a comment.*I'll give him praise too: He's fantastic at big picture stuff.
I hated him for gutting 4e like he did, but hey, turns out he's good at that kind of big-picture stuff. He just sucks at mechanics.

Man_Over_Game

2018-12-12, 11:05 AM

But you can not contol it. The only way to control it, is to ride it.

So, it is, in now way the same as an animal companion.

Jeremy Crawford regarding Find Steed while unmounted: (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/636293240749056000) "While ridden, the steed follows the normal mounted combat rules (PH, 198). Unridden, it has normal action options."

Jeremy Crawford regarding your options for controlling a Find Steed mount: (https://youtu.be/99tX6tmc73Q?t=33m39s) "The spell says that you and the steed fight as a cohesive unit and you can communicate with it and it serves you. Really what that means is, it is up to you [...] whether to control it or let it act independently."

And for the uninitiated, there's two ways of riding a mount:

Controlled (The player has all control over the mount's actions during the player's turn, the mount can only Dash, Dodge or Disengage, and can use no other actions)

Uncontrolled (The mount controls all of the mount's decisions, and can do whatever it wants as normal. The mount is not hindered by having a rider, so the rider causes no penalties or restrictions for the mount's attacks or actions).

--------------

Here's a comparison graph:

Mount
Controlled
Uncontrolled

Mundane, purchased Horse
Can only Dash/Dodge/Disengage
Will run away, because it's a horse

Trained, non-magical Warhorse
Can only Dash/Dodge/Disengage
May fight if it's trained, but may not obey your actions

Find Steed Super-Mount
Can only Dash/Dodge/Disengage
Will always obey your commands, even fight

If a steed is not mounted, assume it does the same things it'd do if Uncontrolled.

Malifice

2018-12-12, 11:06 AM

But you can not contol it. The only way to control it, is to ride it.

No it's not.

Clearly you can direct it telepathically to do what you want, regardless of if you ride it or not.

Gallowglass

2018-12-12, 11:21 AM

Thanks. Wonder why they felt the need to include that verbiage?

To prevent

"I'm going to have my dog track the nearest +3 longsword!"

Tanarii

2018-12-12, 05:07 PM

An uncontrolled mounted Find steed is the same as an unmounted one: DMs choice who's controlling it.

Malifice

2018-12-12, 08:56 PM

An uncontrolled mounted Find steed is the same as an unmounted one: DMs choice who's controlling it.

The PC gets a choice. He can either get the Mount to submit to his will (it's controlled and acts on his initiative; mounted combat rules apply) or let it do its own thing (it gets its own initiative and actions and is controlled by the DM).

MThurston

2018-12-13, 08:23 AM

The spell clearly contemplates the fact that a Paladin will spend time unmounted with the critter still around. There is no requirement in the spell for him to ever actually mount the creature summoned.

I just disagree that due to the use of the word 'steed' in the fluff that a Paladin is forced into summoning something big enough he can (as at the instant of casting) actually ride.

Just like I disagree that the use of the word 'green' in greenflame blade means you have to have green fire when you cast it, or the use of the word 'blade' and 'shadow' n the Shadow Blade spell means you have to summon a bladed weapon made of shadow.

After reading the spell I came across a list of what they call a steed.

Then a line that said, "The DM may allow a player to pick another steed."

So the answer is, ask your DM.

I would not allow anything over CR 1/2 And you would have to be able to ride it.

The intent is very clear. The RAW has named the steeds you can take.

jdolch

2018-12-13, 08:29 AM

With that the rules clearly say you can not control the so called steed when you are not riding it. So that means you can not tell it to attack.

What? Where does it say that?

Malifice

2018-12-13, 10:19 AM

After reading the spell I came across a list of what they call a steed.

Then a line that said, "The DM may allow a player to pick another steed."

So the answer is, ask your DM.

I would not allow anything over CR 1/2 And you would have to be able to ride it.

The intent is very clear. The RAW has named the steeds you can take.

One of the steeds you can expressly take is a Mastiff. Have a look at it; its clearly inferior to the Warhorse option.

My Elf paladin summons a Mastiff.

You'd say no seeing as 'it cant be ridden' despite the spell placing no such limit on the spell (other than being unable to ride it, meaning I am unable to share spells with it, and via some kind of inference via your interpretation of the word 'steed').

What if the same elf summoned a Mastiff for a wounded halfling companion to ride? It's a 'steed' that is being summoned. You'd allow that I take it?

Maxilian

2018-12-13, 10:32 AM

One of the steeds you can expressly take is a Mastiff. Have a look at it; its clearly inferior to the Warhorse option.

My Elf paladin summons a Mastiff.

You'd say no seeing as 'it cant be ridden' despite the spell placing no such limit on the spell (other than being unable to ride it, meaning I am unable to share spells with it, and via some kind of inference via your interpretation of the word 'steed').

What if the same elf summoned a Mastiff for a wounded halfling companion to ride? It's a 'steed' that is being summoned. You'd allow that I take it?

In the post you have quoted, he is not denying the possibility of a Mastiff as a summon, he is just limiting the summons to what the spell mention.

a Mastiff can be summoned by anyone (as long as they have the spell), sadly they wouldn't be able to share the spell with the creature till they get to ride it. (Enlarge / Reduce the mount or rider or something alongs those lines)

Malifice

2018-12-13, 10:40 AM

In the post you have quoted, he is not denying the possibility of a Mastiff as a summon, he is just limiting the summons to what the spell mention.

a Mastiff can be summoned by anyone (as long as they have the spell), sadly they wouldn't be able to share the spell with the creature till they get to ride it. (Enlarge / Reduce the mount or rider or something alongs those lines)

No, he stated not only must it be a creature mentioned in the text (or one approved by the DM analogous to one of those creatures), but the summoner personally must also be able to physically ride it (or presumably the spell fails to work).

So an elf can summon a warhorse, but not a mastiff. Not even if its for his injured comrade to ride back to town.

Maxilian

2018-12-13, 10:52 AM

No, he stated not only must it be a creature mentioned in the text (or one approved by the DM analogous to one of those creatures), but the summoner personally must also be able to physically ride it (or presumably the spell fails to work).

So an elf can summon a warhorse, but not a mastiff. Not even if its for his injured comrade to ride back to town.

You're right my bad, though i agree with you, the idea of being only able to ride it or no summon is silly and IMHO go against the spell.

Regardless of what i would do with the summoned creature, the summoned creature parameters doesn't change, a mastiff is a steed because the mastiff that you summon is "trained" as a steed (or the spirit that takes that form)

Malifice

2018-12-13, 11:05 AM

You're right my bad, though i agree with you, the idea of being only able to ride it or no summon is silly and IMHO go against the spell.

Regardless of what i would do with the summoned creature, the summoned creature parameters doesn't change, a mastiff is a steed because the mastiff that you summon is "trained" as a steed (or the spirit that takes that form)

Earlier he was asserting that you have to not only summon a creature able to be ridden by you (i.e. a Large creature) but you also actually had to ride it.

So you couldnt summon your warhorse while on boring guard duty, just to have someone to (telepathically) talk to.

Paladin (Bored on guard duty): Nightshadow; I summon thee! (A black stallion famed by moonlight appears from nowhere, accompanied by an unearthly choir).
Paladin (telepathically): Mighty Nightshadow... why the long face?
Nightshadow (telepthically): I hate you.

MThurston

2018-12-13, 11:12 AM

One of the steeds you can expressly take is a Mastiff. Have a look at it; its clearly inferior to the Warhorse option.

My Elf paladin summons a Mastiff.

You'd say no seeing as 'it cant be ridden' despite the spell placing no such limit on the spell (other than being unable to ride it, meaning I am unable to share spells with it, and via some kind of inference via your interpretation of the word 'steed').

What if the same elf summoned a Mastiff for a wounded halfling companion to ride? It's a 'steed' that is being summoned. You'd allow that I take it?

I would allow it because it's on the list. However, if you could not ride it, I would make you use an action to ask it to attack but if attacking was suicide, the steed would not attack.

Malifice

2018-12-13, 11:20 AM

I would allow it because it's on the list. However, if you could not ride it, I would make you use an action to ask it to attack but if attacking was suicide, the steed would not attack.

Where on earth are you getting that from?

It has an intelligence of 6 and follows your orders. Its a literal celestial gift from your God.

That said, no Good aligned Paladin puts his steed in a situation where it gets needlessly hurt, or is forced to experience a painful death anymore than he would send his dog into a situation where it gets needlessly hurt.

I seriously cringe when I read threads about Good aligned PCs sending in their pet to gruesome, painful and pointless deaths doing something inane like finding traps, or creating a distraction or similar because 'i can just summon it again.'

Its supposed to be a friend, a companion a loyal ally and something your Good nice guy has some kind of freaking empathy for for gods sake.

Instead its trapped in some kind of Machiavellian loop of being constantly re-summoned only to be forced to die a horrific and painful death, over and over again, for all eternity, in a dystopian nightmare groundhog day of hellish proportions.

Maxilian

2018-12-13, 03:27 PM

I seriously cringe when I read threads about Good aligned PCs sending in their pet to gruesome, painful and pointless deaths doing something inane like finding traps, or creating a distraction or similar because 'i can just summon it again.'

Its supposed to be a friend, a companion a loyal ally and something your Good nice guy has some kind of freaking empathy for for gods sake.

It mostly depends on its ideals and opinions on certain creatures, mostly spirits.

That's the detail of "alignment", some may see it as "Giving priority to humanoids life over the well being of a creature that would always end up being well", so i guess it can depend.

Note: Yeah, in general, sending the same group of creatures over and over again to get killed, is not nice (and in most cases, something that a good creature would evade -Unless is dump enough to not understand that its not a mere tool- )

Maxilian

2018-12-13, 03:32 PM

Earlier he was asserting that you have to not only summon a creature able to be ridden by you (i.e. a Large creature) but you also actually had to ride it.

So you couldnt summon your warhorse while on boring guard duty, just to have someone to (telepathically) talk to.

Paladin (Bored on guard duty): Nightshadow; I summon thee! (A black stallion famed by moonlight appears from nowhere, accompanied by an unearthly choir).
Paladin (telepathically): Mighty Nightshadow... why the long face?
Nightshadow (telepthically): I hate you.

Had a Warlock PC in a game, that had problems with its Patron, so it takes out its anger on its Imp Familiar (as the Imp was a loyal servant of the Patron and was "assigned" by the Patron to be his companion), so everytime he was angry at his patron, the poor imp would (In most cases) die.

Was it good? Nope, not at all (nor would i say it was EVIL!, it was an ******* move), was it funny? Hell yeah

jdolch

2018-12-14, 02:21 AM

Where on earth are you getting that from?

It has an intelligence of 6 and follows your orders. Its a literal celestial gift from your God.

That said, no Good aligned Paladin puts his steed in a situation where it gets needlessly hurt, or is forced to experience a painful death anymore than he would send his dog into a situation where it gets needlessly hurt.

I seriously cringe when I read threads about Good aligned PCs sending in their pet to gruesome, painful and pointless deaths doing something inane like finding traps, or creating a distraction or similar because 'i can just summon it again.'

Its supposed to be a friend, a companion a loyal ally and something your Good nice guy has some kind of freaking empathy for for gods sake.

Instead its trapped in some kind of Machiavellian loop of being constantly re-summoned only to be forced to die a horrific and painful death, over and over again, for all eternity, in a dystopian nightmare groundhog day of hellish proportions.

They usually RP it so that the Spirit (which your steed actually is) doesn't mind being "killed" because it cannot actually be killed. It just gets disrupted and vanishes without a trace into another plane. Essentially getting "killed" for the spirit is the same as you using a dimension door.

Personally I agree with the notion but I refuse to abuse it.

Edenbeast

2018-12-14, 04:58 AM

They usually RP it so that the Spirit (which your steed actually is) doesn't mind being "killed" because it cannot actually be killed. It just gets disrupted and vanishes without a trace into another plane. Essentially getting "killed" for the spirit is the same as you using a dimension door.

Personally I agree with the notion but I refuse to abuse it.

That's very good, at our table we don't have these issues either, or hardly have these issues. But then, we have been together for a long time and we come from older editions, mainly 3.5, and there are several facets we preferred to keep and transitioned to 5e. For example the special mount and familiar. Even though they are now spells, several of the 3.5 limitations remain. First, the form is decided when you first cast the spell and will thereafter not change. Second, if it dies, you can't summon it back for one week. We changed the original duration (month for mount, year for familiar) to one week, and removed the xp-penalty for losing the familiar, since they don't level. I think these are just small tweaks that assist roleplaying and help avoiding some other issues (for example approaching the beast master companion's usefulness).

Deox

2018-12-14, 09:45 AM

Maxilian

2018-12-14, 09:53 AM

Following the thread off and on now. Maybe my question has already been answered:

@Malifice,
For my understanding (and clarity), can you please explain to me your use case(s)? That is, for what purpose are you wanting to use the Find Steed spell (if not for you to always immediately ride)?

A companion or an extra body? while they are not being used as a mount, they would act as any independant mount, letting it attack etc.... (having in mind is intelligent and loyal, is more likely for you to have it help mid combat), also you can have the creature serve as a mount for another character.

Deox

2018-12-14, 10:06 AM

Keltest

2018-12-14, 01:44 PM

If that truly is the case, I do not understand any challenges with letting a player do as much.

I believe the intent of the spell is, in fact, to summon a loyal spirit companion that happens to take form of a mount your character would typically use. However, if this is a loyal spirit companion, why would you not simply ask (should situation warrant) it to shape a new form to allow for another character to ride? Or indeed a companion in general? The only RAW hang-up (for me) is that the character in question must be mounted to share spells.

I have no particular problem with the spell generating a mount which then gets used for other things. The problem comes when you use it to summon something which could not even remotely plausibly be used as a mount by anything, such as an ordinary sized eagle.

MThurston

2018-12-14, 01:50 PM

diplomancer

2018-12-14, 02:20 PM

Man_Over_Game

2018-12-14, 03:18 PM

Exactly. If you can just summon anything you want with CR 1/2 or less, without regards as to whether it is a steed or not, I want a pixie.

That brings up a good point. Isn't lack of versatility part of the balance? Barbarians cannot use their Rage damage on ranged attacks, not because doing so would be overpowered, but reducing the versatility of the feature reduces its overall value (and brings it more in-line with other features).

Even limited to the "Steed" list, Find Steed is a REALLY strong level 2 spell compared to the others. Consider that Protection From Poison is another spell that Paladins get of the same level, when Paladins can already cure poisons at Paladin Level 1. Does Find Steed really need to get better, when it's already the best Level 2 spell on the Paladin list?

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-14, 05:03 PM

Exactly. If you can just summon anything you want with CR 1/2 or less, without regards as to whether it is a steed or not, I want a pixie.

And if your DM is okay with it, then have fun.

diplomancer

2018-12-14, 05:27 PM

And if your DM is okay with it, then have fun.

If my DM is ok with it I could have an Ancient Gold Dragon that can choose any element as its breath weapon.

I thought we were talking about what the spell is intended to accomplish and how the designers envisioned the spell being used.

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-14, 06:42 PM

[QUOTE=diplomancer;23571721
I thought we were talking about what the spell is intended to accomplish and how the designers envisioned the spell being used.[/QUOTE]

you went sarcastic about getting a pixie (not a beast which was the intent of the spell)... clearly you were not talking about what the spell was intended to accomplish.
choosing a pixie is a strawman argument at best.

The OP is talking about a medium sized beast that is on the list. well within the spell.

Beleriphon

2018-12-14, 09:44 PM

diplomancer

2018-12-15, 03:09 AM

you went sarcastic about getting a pixie (not a beast which was the intent of the spell)... clearly you were not talking about what the spell was intended to accomplish.
choosing a pixie is a strawman argument at best.

The OP is talking about a medium sized beast that is on the list. well within the spell.

The intent of the spell is a steed. It is why it uses the word steed 15 times (I wonder if any other spell on the list uses one single noun so many times) and never uses the word beast. If we are going to ignore the requirement of it being a steed, why are we going to create the requirement of it being a beast (note that many options of Find Greater Steed are not beasts, but they are all steeds)?

The OP talked about Falcons.

jdolch

2018-12-15, 03:50 AM

The intent of the spell is a steed. It is why it uses the word steed 15 times (I wonder if any other spell on the list uses one single noun so many times) and never uses the word beast. If we are going to ignore the requirement of it being a steed, why are we going to create the requirement of it being a beast (note that many options of Find Greater Steed are not beasts, but they are all steeds)?

The OP talked about Falcons.

Welcome to the Discussion. That Argument was only discussed for 4 pages.

diplomancer

2018-12-15, 05:39 AM

Welcome to the Discussion. That Argument was only discussed for 4 pages.

yes, and though it was proved several times people just ignored that and claimed that the RAW of the spell is to summon whatever you want as long as it is equal or less in power to a warhorse, and that only bad DMs would restrict the choice of steeds to beings that were steeds

jdolch

2018-12-15, 06:13 AM

yes, and though it was proved several times people just ignored that and claimed that the RAW of the spell is to summon whatever you want as long as it is equal or less in power to a warhorse, and that only bad DMs would restrict the choice of steeds to beings that were steeds

Nothing was proved (or proven). It's two opinions. One claims that the use of the word "Steed" doesn't leave any room for interpretation and the other one claims that D&D rules are worded so shoddy in so many places that you can't make inferences from the use of one word over another, when there are so many instances of rules that just make no sense and need lengthy bathroom break twitter clarification from Crawford.

diplomancer

2018-12-15, 06:17 AM

jdolch

2018-12-15, 07:07 AM

if that is the case, is it RAW to have a fireball do radiant damage? since rules are so shoddy I can have they mean whatever I want. It is Humpty-dumpty's D&D

Just to make it clear: I have no beef with DMs and players who agree otherwise and allow, as a houserule, find steed to summon pixies or fireballs that do radiant damage. I do have a beef with those who claim that only bad DMs would require fireball to do fire damage or find steed to get a steed.

That's not the same. Under no circumstances does Fireball do radiant damage. But the Animal-form of the Celestial (or Fiend, etc.) that you take into your service with "Find Steed" can already be ordered to attack, can already act independantly, can already scout on its own, etc. That's not in question. The whole idea that i can only get a Mastiff, etc. if i am small enough to ride it, is ridiculous. That means the nature of the spell changes according to the casters body weight? If i gain 5 pounds i can no longer summon my Mastiff?

Give me a break.

Of course you can't just cast "Find Steed" and get a Dragon, but whether or not it can carry you or not can hardly be the deciding factor when summoning a celestial. If anything, it is a question of CR.

Sorry if you can't see the difference.

diplomancer

2018-12-15, 07:32 AM

therefore, I want a pixie, and only a tyrannical dm would stop me from getting one

Malifice

2018-12-15, 08:06 AM

jdolch

2018-12-15, 08:08 AM

therefore, I want a pixie, and only a tyrannical dm would stop me from getting one

If it's any consolation, if i were your DM i would allow you your pixie mount. As kind of a going away present and then kick you off the table.

Malifice

2018-12-15, 08:17 AM

If it's any consolation, if i were your DM i would allow you your pixie mount. As kind of a going away present and then kick you off the table.

A pixie isnt a beast. 'Beast' is a game term, like 'round', or 'melee weapon attack'.

'Steed' is not a game term. There is nothing in the spell find steed that imposes a limitation of only being able to summon a beast you can (at the time of summoning) actually physically ride.

Not being able to ride it, simply stops you from sharing spells with it by RAW. Thats it.

jdolch

2018-12-15, 08:58 AM

Deox

2018-12-15, 09:46 AM

I have no particular problem with the spell generating a mount which then gets used for other things. The problem comes when you use it to summon something which could not even remotely plausibly be used as a mount by anything, such as an ordinary sized eagle.

Thanks for this; attempting to build foundation, please allow a hypothetical:
Suppose your race is small (gnome, hafling, whatever). Under the current reading (which I assume, and acknowledge is dangerous) can we agree a mastiff is allowed as an applicable use of Find Steed? If so, suppose (for whatever reason), this small race is then under an effect such as Reduce. Again, a mastiff would still be large enough to carry the rider, but, mechanically, couldn't something of small size now be summoned and still fall within acceptable use of Find Steed?

AHF

2018-12-15, 09:49 AM

A pixie isnt a beast. 'Beast' is a game term, like 'round', or 'melee weapon attack'.

'Steed' is not a game term. There is nothing in the spell find steed that imposes a limitation of only being able to summon a beast you can (at the time of summoning) actually physically ride.

Not being able to ride it, simply stops you from sharing spells with it by RAW. Thats it.

Not disagreeing with you but for I would say the spell pretty clearly defines steed as used here. The term “steed” for purposes of this spell is defined by:

the steed takes on a form that you choose, such as a Warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a Mastiff. (Your DM might allow Other Animals to be summoned as steeds.)

Those 5 beasts are steeds by RAW. All others require DM discretion.

The pixie example is a complete red herring. DMs almost always have discretion. Coming up with examples that 99.5% of players would consider foolish abuse of that discretion does not make for constructive dialogue useful for 99.5% of tables. Anyone playing with the outlier DMs likely has a host of other non-spec issues to deal with along with pixie mounts.

Malifice

2018-12-15, 11:57 AM

Not disagreeing with you but for I would say the spell pretty clearly defines steed as used here. The term “steed” for purposes of this spell is defined by:

Those 5 beasts are steeds by RAW. All others require DM discretion.

The pixie example is a complete red herring. DMs almost always have discretion. Coming up with examples that 99.5% of players would consider foolish abuse of that discretion does not make for constructive dialogue useful for 99.5% of tables. Anyone playing with the outlier DMs likely has a host of other non-spec issues to deal with along with pixie mounts.

Your steed takes on a form you choose.

So no worries with a Medium Paladin summoning a mastiff (dog).

Its one of the choices expressly allowed.

Keltest

2018-12-15, 12:59 PM

Thanks for this; attempting to build foundation, please allow a hypothetical:
Suppose your race is small (gnome, hafling, whatever). Under the current reading (which I assume, and acknowledge is dangerous) can we agree a mastiff is allowed as an applicable use of Find Steed? If so, suppose (for whatever reason), this small race is then under an effect such as Reduce. Again, a mastiff would still be large enough to carry the rider, but, mechanically, couldn't something of small size now be summoned and still fall within acceptable use of Find Steed?

Under a certain definition of acceptable. That would definitely fall under the purview of "the DM decides." Personally I would say no, you need to summon a steed that you can ride when you aren't affected by any temporary magical effects.

Deox

2018-12-15, 01:16 PM

Under a certain definition of acceptable. That would definitely fall under the purview of "the DM decides." Personally I would say no, you need to summon a steed that you can ride when you aren't affected by any temporary magical effects.

That's certainly reasonable, and I would tend to agree.

To continue the hypothetical, what if the Reduce effect, was not temporary (magical in nature, sure, but more instantaneous rather than a listed duration)? As a DM, how would you handle further uses of Find Steed?

Keltest

2018-12-15, 01:22 PM

That's certainly reasonable, and I would tend to agree.

To continue the hypothetical, what if the Reduce effect, was not temporary (magical in nature, sure, but more instantaneous rather than a listed duration)? As a DM, how would you handle further uses of Find Steed?

Then, assuming its current form can no longer be ridden, the next time the spell was cast I would allow the caster to select a new, size appropriate form for the same spirit, or dismiss it for a totally new one. If it can still be ridden with no problems, then the spell functions as normal.

Toofey

2018-12-15, 01:25 PM

RAW it probably doesn't but if I were DMing it would say it absolutely must.

diplomancer

2018-12-15, 01:37 PM

the spell never once says beast. You have done away with a clear restriction of the spell (that it has to be a steed... really, how differently would you write that spell if you wanted to restrict it to steeds?), and for balance purposes created a restriction that the spell never mentions (that it has to be a beast)

and, strangely enough, I am the one who is trying to abuse the rules... go figure

Malifice

2018-12-15, 01:54 PM

RAW it probably doesn't but if I were DMing it would say it absolutely must.

Why?

Its not for game balance reasons. The warhorse is much stronger than the dog, and the dog cant share spells RAW. And it just nixes a character concept, ans shuts down a player having fun.

What good reason would you have to say so?

Keltest

2018-12-15, 02:03 PM

Why?

Its not for game balance reasons. The warhorse is much stronger than the dog, and the dog cant share spells RAW. And it just nixes a character concept, ans shuts down a player having fun.

What good reason would you have to say so?

Let me ask you this. What is it about the Find Steed spell that makes you think it should be able to generate something that cannot be used as a steed by the caster?

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-15, 02:36 PM

the steed takes on a form that you choose, such as a Warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a Mastiff. (Your DM might allow Other Animals to be summoned as steeds.)
Those 5 beasts are steeds by RAW. All others require DM discretion.

If they didn't add the parenthetical, then "such as" means you can choose from additional beasts, including a brown bear (officially endorsed by WotC)
The parenthetical also restates and obvious fact that adds nothing to the spell, of course the DM can allow other animals, she is the freaking DM!

The wording "such as" is different from the definitive list in Find Familiar. And of course the DM can allow different things.

AHF

2018-12-15, 02:52 PM

Let me ask you this. What is it about the Find Steed spell that makes you think it should be able to generate something that cannot be used as a steed by the caster?

The definition of summonable steeds includes mastiff without limitation. Reading in a requirement that it must be rideable is a very reasonable RAI reading. (Allowing anything off the list is also reasonable to me given that Crawford says it is ok to summon with no intention to ride). The reading that prevents any Paladin summoning a mastiff is not a RAW one.

denthor

2018-12-15, 02:58 PM

I have always wanted a paladin on his battle cow.

diplomancer

2018-12-15, 06:41 PM

Player: "Hey Dm, I have this really cool character concept, a Paladin with an Owl as a steed. You see, he swore an oath to a god of knowledge and therefore he wants to have as his steed it's symbol"

DM: "Well, that IS a cool character concept, but I am a bit worried about the balance. You see, letting you have that would give you an improved familiar, since the owl could scout for you with a range of 1 mile".

Player: "Well, not exactly. An owl is clearly less powerful than a warhorse, and I will have the drawback of not being able to have a summoned mount, so it all balances out, see?"

Dm: "Aw shucks, you are right, there is a drawback. Ok, go ahead."

Player: *casts find Steed, gets his super familiar, and buys a warhorse*

Anything wrong with this scenario? Is there no clear mechanical benefit that the caster got from being allowed to summon any animal with CR<1/2? It gets more fun if you let the share spells option work and remember that bards have invisibility and can get find steed as a magical secret.

jdolch

2018-12-15, 08:32 PM

Player: "Hey Dm, I have this really cool character concept, a Paladin with an Owl as a steed. You see, he swore an oath to a god of knowledge and therefore he wants to have as his steed it's symbol"

DM: "Well, that IS a cool character concept, On a Paladin, i personally have to disagree, but everyone's taste is different.

but I am a bit worried about the balance. You see, letting you have that would give you an improved familiar, since the owl could scout for you with a range of 1 mile". So? "Find Familiar" is a first level spell. "Find Steed" is a second level spell. In addition "Find Familiar" allows you to:
Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll.
The "Find Steed" spell does not grant an Ability like this.
AND the "Familiar" grants the Ability to
Additionally, as an action, you can see through your familiar’s eyes and hear what it hears until the start of your next turn, gaining the benefits of any special senses that the familiar has. That is much more powerful than just getting a second hand report and having to issue remote commands based on flawed guesswork.

It's already balanced. There is nothing to balance out.

Player: "Well, not exactly. An owl is clearly less powerful than a warhorse, and I will have the drawback of not being able to have a summoned mount, so it all balances out, see?" The Player has to buy the Warhorse and if it dies or he loses it, it's gone. The normal Warhorse doesn't have the abilities of the "Find Steed" Warhorse/Spirit.

Dm: "Aw shucks, you are right, there is a drawback. Ok, go ahead."

Player: *casts find Steed, gets his super familiar "Steed"-Owl, and buys a warhorse*

Anything wrong with this scenario?No, perfectly fine.
Is there no clear mechanical benefit that the caster got from being allowed to summon any animal with CR<1/2? It gets more fun if you let the share spells option work and remember that bards have invisibility and can get find steed as a magical secret.Whether or not the "Magical Secrets" Bard is broken, is a different topic. And regarding share spell on a distant owl ... Why would that work? It clearly states
While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed. So, no.

JackPhoenix

2018-12-15, 10:13 PM

Mastiffs are dogs though.

Exactly! That's why mastiff stat block specifies it works against cretures and not objects.

diplomancer

2018-12-16, 04:24 AM

1- losing your senses to watch through the eyes of your familiar is far more dangerous than hearing your non-steed 1 mile away. Also, as D&D is a descriptive game, unless the DM is out to screw with you by making your owl give you bad information telepathically, seeing through the eyes of the owl or having the owl tell you what its seeing is exactly the same thing (since in both cases it is the DM doing the describing, unless you are playing a very high-tech, virtual reality variety of D&D I'm unaware of).

2. Telepathic communication for 1 mile allows the non-steed far greater versatility than an ordinary familiar, with its 100 feet communication limit. Use your imagination, not only about what the non-steed can tell you, but what you can tell it to do.

3- "oh my Gilean, my Warhorse died (things that die in battle in Dungeons and Dragons are very rare, they usually get knocked unconscious... in which case, a warhorse is even better than the find steed which disappears at 0HPs, you can revive your regular warhorse at the cost of 1 point of lay on hands) and I can't get a new one or revivify it any soon? What am I going to do?" *uses an action to dismiss owl, summons warhorse with find steed, as soon as he can buy a warhorse he regains his owl*

Admit it. You want a clear mechanical benefit of being able to have both a scout and a mount (or an animal companion- with whom you can share spells, including, according to some interpretations, smite spells- and a mount) and for that reason are doing away with the clear requirement that your summons be a steed.

If your DM is ok with it, more power to you, but don't argue that you are simply following the clear intent of the spell, or that there are no balance issues with taking the best Paladin 2nd level spell (so good as to be a reasonable candidate for magical secrets... not many 2nd level spells, of any class, on that list) and making it even better and more versatile.

Malifice

2018-12-16, 04:26 AM

Let me ask you this. What is it about the Find Steed spell that makes you think it should be able to generate something that cannot be used as a steed by the caster?

The rules.

jdolch

2018-12-16, 05:05 AM

diplomancer

2018-12-16, 05:22 AM

It sure has. It has been shown that:
1- the clear intent of the spell is to get you a rideable creature.

2- that to ignore that intent creates obvious balance problems, even if you create a limitation that is not mentioned by the spell at all (i.e. that it be a Beast)

After that has been established, people are free to play how they want at their tables.

With all that said, if I were DM'ing and a player came to me with this idea, because he really wanted that character concept, I would work with him along the following lines:

*you substitute the "find steed" spell from your list, which you lose permanently, and get instead "find animal companion", a homebrew spell with similar description and power of the find steed spell with the caveat "your animal companion is extremely jealous and refuses to follow your instructions if you are currently using another animal as your steed".*

this way the player gets what he wants at my table without opening it up for abuse. If the player disagrees, than I know that it is not about character concept but about power, and quickly get rid of this rules-lawyering power-gamer.

Deox

2018-12-16, 10:40 AM

Then, assuming its current form can no longer be ridden, the next time the spell was cast I would allow the caster to select a new, size appropriate form for the same spirit, or dismiss it for a totally new one. If it can still be ridden with no problems, then the spell functions as normal.

Certainly reasonable and appropriate. Let's put the hypothetical together and add expand further.

Our normally small sized paladin just got high enough level to cast Find Steed. She decides to summon a Mastiff (because doggos!) Since the duration of Find Steed is instantaneous, baring any unfortunate circumstances (or should our paladin wish to dismiss), Beethoven is here to stay. During one of their adventures, a mishap with a <insert effect here> (Rod of Wonder, DM / Deity intervention, etc.) Reduces our paladin on a 'permanent' level. Paladin decides to dismiss Beethoven in its current form and summon something size appropriate (will use an owl as a point of reference / sake of discussion).

Our paladin, now riding a flying Beethoven, continues adventuring and no mishaps follow the steed, nor does she dismiss. The Reduce effect is removed (such as magic, quest, DM / Deity intervention, etc.). Paladin is now back to small size, but Beethoven is a tiny owl.

How would you continue to adjudicate? Still fair game? The only immediate implication is that the paladin and Beethoven can no longer share spells.

Keltest

2018-12-16, 11:12 AM

Certainly reasonable and appropriate. Let's put the hypothetical together and add expand further.

Our normally small sized paladin just got high enough level to cast Find Steed. She decides to summon a Mastiff (because doggos!) Since the duration of Find Steed is instantaneous, baring any unfortunate circumstances (or should our paladin wish to dismiss), Beethoven is here to stay. During one of their adventures, a mishap with a <insert effect here> (Rod of Wonder, DM / Deity intervention, etc.) Reduces our paladin on a 'permanent' level. Paladin decides to dismiss Beethoven in its current form and summon something size appropriate (will use an owl as a point of reference / sake of discussion).

Our paladin, now riding a flying Beethoven, continues adventuring and no mishaps follow the steed, nor does she dismiss. The Reduce effect is removed (such as magic, quest, DM / Deity intervention, etc.). Paladin is now back to small size, but Beethoven is a tiny owl.

How would you continue to adjudicate? Still fair game? The only immediate implication is that the paladin and Beethoven can no longer share spells.

Rinse and repeat. Owlthoven is too small to serve as a mount (and frankly, given the build of owls, I would question that even for a correctly sized rider, but lets ignore that for now), so the caster can either pick a new form for the spirit again or get a new one entirely the next time they cast the spell. However, since Owlthoven was already summoned at the time, the spell doesn't affect a change on them until the next time they get brought out through Find Steed.

Out of character, I wouldn't force the player to resummon the mount at any point, but would have the spirit be put out at essentially being demoted to scout through no fault of their own. I would also remind the player that they wouldn't be able to bring back Owlthoven as an owl should he be forcibly unsummoned somehow, so they shouldn't count on it staying like that for the rest of the game.

Deox

2018-12-16, 11:41 AM

snip

Perfectly fair and reasonable. Think we're on the same page. :smallsmile:

Keltest

2018-12-16, 11:58 AM

Perfectly fair and reasonable. Think we're on the same page. :smallsmile:

I would suggest, of course, that if your intent is to get an owl as your "steed" while being small or medium sized, there are easier ways to do it than trying to invoke divine intervention to have your size permanently changed, twice.

Deox

2018-12-16, 12:22 PM

I would suggest, of course, that if your intent is to get an owl as your "steed" while being small or medium sized, there are easier ways to do it than trying to invoke divine intervention to have your size permanently changed, twice.

Agreed. Was more to understand a thought process and question what, if any, potential impacts.

diplomancer

2018-12-16, 01:16 PM

Out of character, I wouldn't force the player to resummon the mount at any point, but would have the spirit be put out at essentially being demoted to scout through no fault of their own.

Keltest, I agree very much with your interpretation and just want to point out one genre point; the "noble paladin on his steed" is a staple of the sources of D&D, and lives on even today when you see a statue of a brave leader on his horse (which you can see, for instance, in pretty much every european capital or large city); it is a gallant image, and one in which the steed is as immortal as the hero. As Chesterton said in so many words, Chivalry means that one of the best compliments one can pay a man is to call him a horse. THAT is the basis of the spell and it is very reasonable for a DM to say that this glory is what the Celestial, Fey or Fiend gets from this relationship, and why it chooses to serve the Paladin.

To be demoted to a scout, for a creature whose sole reason to come to the prime material plane IS to be the loyal steed of a great warrior, would be as demoralizing as, I dont know, an Archmage to serve a king who basically only asks him to Prestidigitate badly cooked food. He can do it, but it is somewhat humiliating. I would interpret the NPC mount as getting more and more despondent as time passes, something like Marvin in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie

AHF

2018-12-16, 06:02 PM

Keltest, I agree very much with your interpretation and just want to point out one genre point; the "noble paladin on his steed" is a staple of the sources of D&D, and lives on even today when you see a statue of a brave leader on his horse (which you can see, for instance, in pretty much every european capital or large city); it is a gallant image, and one in which the steed is as immortal as the hero. As Chesterton said in so many words, Chivalry means that one of the best compliments one can pay a man is to call him a horse. THAT is the basis of the spell and it is very reasonable for a DM to say that this glory is what the Celestial, Fey or Fiend gets from this relationship, and why it chooses to serve the Paladin.

To be demoted to a scout, for a creature whose sole reason to come to the prime material plane IS to be the loyal steed of a great warrior, would be as demoralizing as, I dont know, an Archmage to serve a king who basically only asks him to Prestidigitate badly cooked food. He can do it, but it is somewhat humiliating. I would interpret the NPC mount as getting more and more despondent as time passes, something like Marvin in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie

You realize Crawford tweeted in sage advice that using the steed as a companion, etc and never riding is a “great” use right?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/my-paladin-basically-uses-his-find-steed-as-a-companion-this-isnt-breaking-the-spirit-of-the-spell-right/

When Crawford is saying what you claim immutably and obviously wrong is great means you are dramatically overstating the universality of your opinion, right?

diplomancer

2018-12-16, 07:46 PM

Im pointing out the genre origins of the spell, as old as the oldest romances of the middle ages.

I would allow a PC to cast find steed to get an animal companion as long as he did not use another animal as his steed. If he did insist that there was nothing wrong with doing that, I would roleplay the companion (it is an NPC, ultimately I get to decide what it does), as getting more and more jealous of the actual steed and dispondent about his less glorious role, since the PC refuses to use him as his steed, which is what he agreed to. It might eventually decide to quit its job and leave the PC in disgust about him violating the spirit of their agreement, going to serve someone else who actually wants to use it, and no other, as his mighty and loyal steed.

Its a bit like Gandalf sending Shadowfax into battle on his own and then getting a regular warhorse to carry him into battle... I'm not sure Shadowfax would be ok with this arrangement for very long, nor would he be mollified by the argument "hey, I can command you to fight on your own, but this warhorse is only useful to me if I ride it, this way we get the best of both worlds, see?"
But naturally there might be exceptional circumstances that Shadowfax might accept that role, it is just not what he expects from his bond with Gandalf.

Malifice

2018-12-16, 08:39 PM

Im pointing out the genre origins of the spell, as old as the oldest romances of the middle ages.

Paladins are not necessarily 'mounted knights in shining armor'.

I could be playing a Half elf (wild elf/ Chultan human) Ancients Paladin of Ubtaao from the jungles of Chult, who has never left the jungle in his life, and wouldnt know what a horse was if one bit him on the face.

If he wants to use Find Steed to summon a Hadrosaurus, Velociraptor, Pteranadon or similar animal, I would absolutely let him regardless of if he can ride the beast summoned or not.

To the DMs in this thread that would prohibit such a use of the spell, because 'you have to summon something you can actually ride', I'd almost certainly bail on that game based on that ruling (it tells me the DM and I are on totally different wavelengths).

It's an arbitrary ruling, and one totally unecessary to preserve game balance, or for any other reason I can possibly think of.

JNAProductions

2018-12-16, 08:52 PM

Paladins are not necessarily 'mounted knights in shining armor'.

I could be playing a Half elf (wild elf/ Chultan human) Ancients Paladin of Ubtaao from the jungles of Chult, who has never left the jungle in his life, and wouldnt know what a horse was if one bit him on the face.

If he wants to use Find Steed to summon a Hadrosaurus, Velociraptor, Pteranadon or similar animal, I would absolutely let him regardless of if he can ride the beast summoned or not.

To the DMs in this thread that would prohibit such a use of the spell, because 'you have to summon something you can actually ride', I'd almost certainly bail on that game based on that ruling (it tells me the DM and I are on totally different wavelengths).

It's an arbitrary ruling, and one totally unecessary to preserve game balance, or for any other reason I can possibly think of.

You don't see how this added versatility adds power to what's arguably one of the best classes in the game? I agree it's not going to BREAK the game, but to say it's totally unnecessary seems a bit excessive.

Malifice

2018-12-16, 11:58 PM

You don't see how this added versatility adds power to what's arguably one of the best classes in the game?

What added versatility?

He can summon a Warhorse (a better option than any of the other creatures expressly mentioned) and have it do anything a Mastiff can do and more.

The dog has an AC of 12, 5 HP, 40' movement and 1 attack (+3, d6+1).
The horse has an AC of 11, 19 HP, 60' movement, and 1 attack (+6, 2d6+4).

Nothing in the spell says the Paladin has to ride the summoned creature or it vanishes. Even the tightest strictest and most anally retentive interpretation of the spell (it must be a Beast able to be used as a Steed) doesnt make the Paladin ride it 'or else' when it appears.

In fact the spell expressly contemplates the caster and creature being up to 1 mile apart (the range of the telepathic communication) in addition to telling you what riding it does (it lets you share spells when ridden, and only when ridden) so you clearly do not 'have' to ride it because the text of the spell expressly tells you what happens when you dont ride it.

You can (RAW) summon a warhorse to do whatever you want (carry a message to a far away town for example), and never actually ride the thing.

I mean none of us would have a problem with an Elven Ancients Paladin summoning an Elk (expressly allowed in the spell), and (instead of riding it) sending it into battle un-ridden (or sending it with a note attached to its collar, or a fallen comrade on its back to a far away villiage or whatever).

He cant share spells with it while it's not ridden, but nothing in the spell forces him to ride it. He could summon it just to have someone to talk to telepathically while bored if he wants to.

From a game balance perspective, allowing the Paladin to summon a Beast less powerful than a Warhorse doesnt break a damn thing. His choice of summoning a Beast that is incapable of being ridden (again, by RAW) simply only stops him from being able to share spells with the Beast (another nerf).

Medium Paladin summons a Dog? Fine; he gets a Beast less powerful than a Warhorse, that (by RAW) he cant share spells with (seeing as he cant ride it).

Instead of summoning a weaker creature than the Warhorse (a Mastiff ) that he cant share spells with, he COULD have instead summoned a more powerful Warhorse which can do everything the Dog can do and more (it can also be ridden giving all the tasty mounted combat benefits, and can have spells shared when it is ridden).

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 01:59 AM

as I said, I would allow the steed to be used as an animal companion, as long as it is indeed a steed, though I would never create the requirement, which is not stated anywhere in the spell, but for some reason people think it is, that it be a Beast. If the player really wanted to summon a non-rideable creature, I would work with him on the "find animal companion" spell along the lines I described earlier.

If the player summoned a steed, used it as an animal companion, and then got another animal as his steed, I would see that as power-gaming. As it is technically allowed by the rules (though I believe it goes against the spirit of the spell), I would allow it, but roleplay the summoned creature as I think appropriate, both inside and outside of combat, since, by RAW, the played is not in control of it.

Malifice

2018-12-17, 02:17 AM

as I said, I would allow the steed to be used as an animal companion, as long as it is indeed a steed, though I would never create the requirement, which is not stated anywhere in the spell, but for some reason people think it is, that it be a Beast.

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed, creating a long-lasting bond with it. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the steed takes on a form that you choose, such as a Warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a Mastiff. (Your DM might allow Other Animals to be summoned as steeds.)

'Animal' is the word used, and all the creatures expressly mentioned are beasts (animals).

More important for mine is the CR (most are CR 1/4 or lower, with the Warhorse the noteable exception).

If the player really wanted to summon a non-rideable creature, I would work with him on the "find animal companion" spell along the lines I described earlier.

Why? Find steed already does that by RAW.

If the player summoned a steed, used it as an animal companion, and then got another animal as his steed, I would see that as power-gaming.

What? How on Hades is that 'power gaming'?

Is it power gaming if he purchased both a Warhorse and a Dog instead of summoning one with a spell and purchasing the other?

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 03:36 AM

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed, creating a long-lasting bond with it. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the steed takes on a form that you choose, such as a Warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a Mastiff. (Your DM might allow Other Animals to be summoned as steeds.)

'Animal' is the word used, and all the creatures expressly mentioned are beasts (animals).

More important for mine is the CR (most are CR 1/4 or lower, with the Warhorse the noteable exception).

Why? Find steed already does that by RAW.

What? How on Hades is that 'power gaming'?

Is it power gaming if he purchased both a Warhorse and a Dog instead of summoning one with a spell and purchasing the other?

1-Animal is not a game term, Beast is. I would say an Owlbear, for instance, is an animal, but it's type is Monstrosity, if I recall correctly. So are gryphons and hypogriffs. Orcs and other humanoids are also, technically, animals. And I would have no problem with a player summoning some rideable Monstrosity of comparable power, or, for instance, a Skeleton Warhorse for an Oathbreaker Paladin. Your non-RAW requirement of it being a Beast, as a way to balance it not being a steed, would preclude those options.

2- I would create the requirement of the new spell for balance reasons; a spell able to summon a Warhorse or an Owl, according to what the caster wants at the moment, is obviously more powerful than a spell that is able to just summon a Warhorse. And Find Steed is already powerful enough as it is.

3- It is powergaming because you are breaking the spirit of the spell (which is to summon a being that will serve you as a steed), in order to squeeze out a mechanical advantage, without being willing to give up something of comparable power in return (i.e, being without a mount). That is obviously powergaming. As the rules technically allow it, I would let a player do it, but would roleplay the summoned creature, an NPC, should I remind the player, as I think appropriate.

Buying a warhorse and a dog is not powergaming. Doing that and thinking that you will have full control of your dog in battle is.

Why dont people just start buying lots and lots of animals and hirelings to go on adventures and battles with them? Because it would make the DM's life a nightmare (combats would drag out, to try to balance it he would start having to track food for all the company, etc), and there really is no reason to do so in a properly balanced game, which is why that is usually not a problem in any table.

Malifice

2018-12-17, 03:52 AM

3- It is powergaming because you are breaking the spirit of the spell (which is to summon a being that will serve you as a steed), in order to squeeze out a mechanical advantage, without being willing to give up something of comparable power in return (i.e, being without a mount). That is obviously powergaming. As the rules technically allow it, I would let a player do it, but would roleplay the summoned creature, an NPC, should I remind the player, as I think appropriate.

No, you're inferring the spell has a 'spirit' for me to break, which is a position I wholly refute.

The Spell lets me summon a Warhorse. If I summon it merely as a companion to play cards with, and not to ever bother riding it ever I am not breaking any 'spirit' of any spell, and nor am I gaining any sort of advantage.

Nothing in the spell makes me ride it. Nothing. The spell expressly contemplates me not riding it (I can comunicate with it up to 1 mile away, and I can only share spells with it when I ride it).

'Hey DM, watch me powergame; I summon a dog instead of a warhorse. Not only is the dog mechanically weaker than the Horse (and a lower CR), I also cant share spells with my dog, seeing as I cant ride it.'

We have very different definitions of 'power-game'.

Buying a warhorse and a dog is not powergaming. Doing that and thinking that you will have full control of your dog in battle is.

Why would you have full control over a Dog (or any other thing) summoned with Find steed?

Its smart (Int 6) for its kind, and you communicate with it telepathically, and its loyal to you, but it's still an NPC.

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 04:09 AM

I explained why it is powergaming *if you have another animal as your steed*. I also explained why it is also powergaming *if you want the added versatility of being able to summon, for instance, an owl today, an animal with far different uses from a warhorse, and a warhorse tomorrow*

As the spirit assumes "the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed" (I italicized the noun, the most important element of a sentence), if there were another animal being used as a steed instead of the summoned spirit, I would roleplay it as I deem appropriate (up to and including giving as much of an elastic interpretation to "loyal" as the player does to "steed").

I see you did not dispute that there is nothing in the text of the spell that should restrict it to creatures of the Beast type... perhaps you believe that such a restriction is in the "spirit" of the spell.

jdolch

2018-12-17, 06:22 AM

No, you're inferring the spell has a 'spirit' for me to break, which is a position I wholly refute.

The Spell lets me summon a Warhorse. If I summon it merely as a companion to play cards with, and not to ever bother riding it ever I am not breaking any 'spirit' of any spell, and nor am I gaining any sort of advantage.

Nothing in the spell makes me ride it. Nothing. The spell expressly contemplates me not riding it (I can comunicate with it up to 1 mile away, and I can only share spells with it when I ride it).

'Hey DM, watch me powergame; I summon a dog instead of a warhorse. Not only is the dog mechanically weaker than the Horse (and a lower CR), I also cant share spells with my dog, seeing as I cant ride it.'

We have very different definitions of 'power-game'.

Why would you have full control over a Dog (or any other thing) summoned with Find steed?

Its smart (Int 6) for its kind, and you communicate with it telepathically, and its loyal to you, but it's still an NPC.

Just forget it. You can talk until you're blue in the face and he is still not gonna suddenly go "I understand". Not gonna happen. I don't know if he's trolling or just stubborn. But really any effort that you put into this is wasted.

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 06:34 AM

I have already shown that, since D&D is a cooperative game, I, as a DM, would try to talk with the player, trying to let him have his character concept without getting obvious power boosts to one of the best spells in the game. If he insisted on getting it his way, assuming that he is a good friend and I wouldn't just boot him out of the game for such obnoxious behavior, I would impose the appropriate roleplaying consequences. As an absolute last resort, I might also point out, depending on the sotuation, that if he is a paladin of devotion, such abuse of your pact with the summoned spirit is a breach of the honesty and the honor tenets of your oath. If he is an Ancients Paladin and the spirit became depressed for not fulfilling its desired goals (which is a real possibility), he would be violating the Kindle the Light tenet. Other oaths I think are not violated by this "I am following the letter of our agreement if not the spirit, so sucks to be you" attitude.

From the player's side, If I wanted it, I would work it out with the DM in a short talk and accept whatever he decided without trying to force the rules to give me a slight mechanical advantage. For instance I would be totally fine and even grateful to a DM that worked with me to create the "find animal companion" spell in order to allow my character concept.

You, of course, are free to push the rules for whatever mechanical advantage you want if your DM is ok with it.

But me being willing to negotiate with my player or my DM is me being a troll or stubborn, you insisting that "this is my right by RAW, this breaks nothing!" is you being reasonable.

MThurston

2018-12-17, 07:02 AM

You realize Crawford tweeted in sage advice that using the steed as a companion, etc and never riding is a “great” use right?

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/20/my-paladin-basically-uses-his-find-steed-as-a-companion-this-isnt-breaking-the-spirit-of-the-spell-right/

When Crawford is saying what you claim immutably and obviously wrong is great means you are dramatically overstating the universality of your opinion, right?

If he said that, then he is an idiot.

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 07:21 AM

If he said that, then he is an idiot.

The repeated use of the word "steed" in the rulebook is meaningless fluff, and woe to the DM who wishes to integrate that word and its consequences into his world; Crawford's tweets are divinely established RAW which all people of goodwill are required to follow or be considered a bad DM if they disagree.

MThurston

2018-12-17, 07:33 AM

The repeated use of the word "steed" in the rulebook is meaningless fluff, and woe to the DM who wishes to integrate that word and its consequences into his world; Crawford's tweets are divinely established RAW which all people of goodwill are required to follow or be considered a bad DM if they disagree.

SMH.

Saying that find steed is not for steeds is pissing on every D&D edition before it and goingto crazy town.

The spell lists what you can summon. Every single one but a dog is rideable for med sized players. So the small players have a nice choice the dog was added.

The rule says anything else must be approved by the DM.

Not so you can ride a rhino! But for water and flying worlds.

Water world equals seahorses.

Flying worlds like aviator equal a giant pterodactyl.

Not a pixie.

jdolch

2018-12-17, 08:56 AM

Not so you can ride a rhino!

Rhino is CR 2. Nobody claimed you can get something that has a higher CR than the ones listed. I would add to that things like the Pixie that has a lower CR but should be considered higher, because it can be abused (and anyone picking it IS going to abuse it).

But i see no reason to not allow, for example, a Wolf or Worg or Panther.
Direwolf, Lion and Tiger i am not sure about but could be ok, maybe. They mainly just have higher hitpoints.

LudicSavant

2018-12-17, 09:02 AM

Not to mention that a rhino is literally on the Find Greater Steed list.

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 09:03 AM

SMH.

Saying that find steed is not for steeds is pissing on every D&D edition before it and goingto crazy town.

The spell lists what you can summon. Every single one but a dog is rideable for med sized players. So the small players have a nice choice the dog was added.

The rule says anything else must be approved by the DM.

Not so you can ride a rhino! But for water and flying worlds.

Water world equals seahorses.

Flying worlds like aviator equal a giant pterodactyl.

Not a pixie.

Exactly. About the mastiff option; suppose we were playing a completely different game, and in this game there was a spell called "find football player" (I mean soccer for you American folks). The spell goes on to describe the various ways you can use your football player and says "your football player can be a defender, a striker, a midfielder, a goalkeeper, or a pitcher ". "Wait! you say, there is no such thing as a pitcher in football!" Yes, but in this game that we are playing, there is a variant culture where there is actually such a function in football, though it is not the usual culture (say, a especialized player who throws the ball from the sides of the pitch). Obviously, the pitcher can not be summoned just for any match, only for a match where he can actually function as a football player, and probably only by people who have enough familiarity with that culture to consider it as an option.

It is the exact same thing for the Mastiff. Your ride-able animal (which is the most open definition of steed to be found) can be a Mastiff is a nonsensical phrase for a Medium sized creature.

Another possible way to interpret it is this (and I might be fine with the Mastiff, other creatures are DM's call): the spell says that the steed you summon is unusually strong: as the Mastiff is suggested as a steed, an argument could be made that this is an unusually strong Mastiff, able to carry a medium-sized creature even though he is also medium-sized. As long as he was being used as the primary steed of the character, I also think this interpretation would be ok, though the image is a bit ludicrous. It should not be necessary to say that no normal-sized owl, falcon or eagle, no matter how unusually strong they are, could ever function as a steed to any PC-sized creature, but if I let a mastiff carry an elf pretty soon there will be people claiming here that there is no mechanical reason for not letting an eagle carry a halfling.

About the power level of the creature summoned by the spell, I have a small story to tell (this was before Xanathar's was published by the way): I was playing an Ancients Paladin in a reskinned Princes of the Apocalypse campaign; when we were around level 8 we were dealing with the Air Cultists, which used Griffons and Hypogriffs as their mounts. We were invited by them on a hunt, and I left my Steed behind while we were doing it, as he couldn't join it. When we came back, I went to him and told him, "Hey man, wouldn't that be great if you could turn into such a creature, that would be so cool!". Out of character, I suggested to the DM to allow me to upcast Find Steed, summoning CR1 creatures with a 3rd level slot, CR2 creatures with a 4th level slot, and, if we ever got there, CR3 creatures with a 5th level slot. I had so much fun with my steed that just waiting to go up in level as a Paladin to get the higher level slots was a good incentive to remain as a Paladin throughout the entire campaign. In the meanwhile Xanathar was published, we noticed we were about right for the power level of the upcasted Find Steed, and I just decided to keep my steed as a Pegasus all the way to 20th level.

Moral of the story is: Have fun by cooperating with your DM in an organic story-telling way, don't try to use a spell for a completely different goal than its design intent to squeeze out a mechanical advantage; who knows, you might even get greater power as a result ;)

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-17, 09:05 AM

Rhino is CR 2. Nobody claimed you can get something that has a higher CR than the ones listed. I would at to that things like the Pixie that has a lower CR but should be considered higher, because it can be abused (and anyone picking it IS going to abuse it).

Actually, WotC claims you can get someone off the list and higher CR. The pregen half orc paladin is rocking a brown bear.
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/171027/Pregen-Characters-HalfOrc-Paladin-5e

and he has a pet mastiff.

Deox

2018-12-17, 10:18 AM

I could be playing a Half elf (wild elf/ Chultan human) Ancients Paladin of Ubtaao from the jungles of Chult, who has never left the jungle in his life, and wouldnt know what a horse was if one bit him on the face.

If he wants to use Find Steed to summon a Hadrosaurus, Velociraptor, Pteranadon or similar animal, I would absolutely let him regardless of if he can ride the beast summoned or not.

This was what I was looking for, Malifice (may have missed similar explanation in previous posts). As a player, I do not find this to be an unreasonable request. As a DM, I would discuss with you the intended implications (along with adhering to Session 0 / Gentlemen's Agreement) and let it fly, so long as it does not become disruptive.

MThurston

2018-12-17, 11:06 AM

This was what I was looking for, Malifice (may have missed similar explanation in previous posts). As a player, I do not find this to be an unreasonable request. As a DM, I would discuss with you the intended implications (along with adhering to Session 0 / Gentlemen's Agreement) and let it fly, so long as it does not become disruptive.

That have elk in the jungles and that is on the list.

Deox

2018-12-17, 11:23 AM

That have elk in the jungles and that is on the list.

To nitpick, there is a distinction between a forest and a jungle. To my knowledge, elk inhabit the former. Regardless, is there a particular reason to not allow a re-skinned / re-fluffed creature that is more thematically appropriate for a jungle? Additionally, if there is no disruption to the game, is there really an issue?

MThurston

2018-12-17, 11:44 AM

To nitpick, there is a distinction between a forest and a jungle. To my knowledge, elk inhabit the former. Regardless, is there a particular reason to not allow a re-skinned / re-fluffed creature that is more thematically appropriate for a jungle? Additionally, if there is no disruption to the game, is there really an issue?

Elk are a forest and a jungle animal. Smaller sizes of course in the jungle, but as a DM you could get one of a bigger size.

Man_Over_Game

2018-12-17, 11:50 AM

'Radiant' and 'beast' are game terms though.

Steed is not. Its fluff.

For those that are interested, in RPG Stack Exchange:

Is there “flavor text” in D&D 5e spells? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/78012/is-there-flavor-text-in-dd-5e-spells/78022#78022)

Does Burning Hands really require touching thumbs? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46603/does-burning-hands-really-require-touching-thumbs)

jdolch

2018-12-17, 11:59 AM

For those that are interested, in RPG Stack Exchange:

Is there “flavor text” in D&D 5e spells? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/78012/is-there-flavor-text-in-dd-5e-spells/78022#78022)

Does Burning Hands really require touching thumbs? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46603/does-burning-hands-really-require-touching-thumbs)

Does it have any more weight because it is written in a different forum?

It has the same problem every such analysis has: The D&D rules aren't up to a standard which would allow such logical conclusions. They are scattered somewhere between a hot mess and serviceable. They are nowhere near the standard of civil law and thus you cannot employ the established practices in regards to D&D rules. You just can't. And even common sense/logic often fail because of the same reason. All you can do is read them and draw reasonable conclusions. What is reasonable is determined by the DM. That is even a stated goal of the D&D 5e design according to Mearls.

That's why i take the toilet twitters from crawford with a boatload of salt. If he wanted to be the authority on how D&D works, he should have done a better job when he made the rules in the first place. Most things he twitters about don't even enter the erratas AFTER he twittered about them. Nope, sorry. That doesn't meet my standards for predigested thoughts that i would follow rather than thinking about it myself.

MThurston

2018-12-17, 12:04 PM

Man_Over_Game

2018-12-17, 12:07 PM

Does it have any more weight because it is written in a different forum?

It has the same problem every such analysis has: The D&D rules aren't up to a standard which would allow such logical conclusions. They are scattered somewhere between a hot mess and serviceable. They are nowhere near the standard of civil law and thus you cannot employ the established practices in regards to D&D rules. You just can't. And even common sense/logic often fail because of the same reason. All you can do is read them and draw reasonable conclusions. What is reasonable is determined by the DM. That is even a stated goal of the D&D 5e design according to Mearls.

Stack Exchange is designed around coming up with well analyzed answers to questions, using facts and experience. It also uses a voting system to determine how well the community understands and perceives that answer. Questions and answers are constantly quality controlled by everyone, all the time. Writing down a bad answer with no experience or misleading facts (or just something the community thinks is an incorrect interpretation) actually negatively impacts your score, and your score determines your privileges as a mod on the site. Everyone's a "mod", just of varying degrees.

Forums, like GitP is better for opinions, when there can be no right or wrong. And while GitP is a great tool for brainstorming and theorycrafting, there are much better options when you want to actually get hard answers to things. RPG.SE does this perfectly.

--------------

Crawford always says to take his word at only what the INTENT of the original rule was, and that his quotes, and 5e in general, is something for your DM to decide on where to go from there.

Break the rules, it's encouraged, but don't do it accidentally or passively. Do so with intent, with reasoning behind those changes, and understanding why your decision is better than the existing choices.

jdolch

2018-12-17, 12:15 PM

Using logic, we all would think that you could only summon something you can ride from the list.

Dear Lord... *massaging temples* If that where the case we wouldn't need this thread, now would we?

One example: To put the words "such as" in there is idiotic. It makes the whole thing a hot mess. Now you can't argue that the list is exclusive if they themselves preface it with "such as".

How it really works is the last sentence: "Your DM decides what is reasonable" That's how D&D 5e works. It's frustrating but there you go. So if you ask "can i have a Wolf instead". Your DM should look up the stats of the Wolf and the stats of the Warhorse and decide if that gives you an unfair advantage CONSIDERING THE CAMPAIGN HE IS PLAYING FOR YOU.

This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.

Write it 10.000 times: The DM decides. Got it now? THE DM DECIDES!

Deox

2018-12-17, 12:16 PM

Elk are a forest and a jungle animal. Smaller sizes of course in the jungle, but as a DM you could get one of a bigger size.

That's fair. Thanks for pointing that out.

jdolch

2018-12-17, 12:26 PM

Stack Exchange is designed around coming up with well analyzed answers to questions, using facts and experience.

Which is great when there actually are facts and experience is objective. None of which are the case here. (I am using Stack exchange a lot for things like programming problems. But there are objective rules and objective experiences concerning programming)

It also uses a voting system to determine how well the community understands and perceives that answer. Questions and answers are constantly quality controlled by everyone, all the time. Writing down a bad answer with no experience or misleading facts (or just something the community thinks is an incorrect interpretation) actually negatively impacts your score, and your score determines your privileges as a mod on the site. Everyone's a "mod", just of varying degrees.

Compared to GitP, with a classic-but-chaotic system of just throwing your opinions against a dartboard and seeing what sticks, I think that getting actual ANSWERS is better on Stack Exchange.

Forums, like GitP is better for opinions, when there can be no right or wrong.

Thankfully i can think for myself, as i am sure can many of you. Despite some research into "the intelligence of crowds" listening to the masses is a really, really bad idea. 50% of people have below average Intelligence, right of the bat. And that's even before you factor in things like bias, political correctness, aversion to new ideas, etc., etc.

Crawford always says to take his word at only what the INTENT of the original rule was, and that his quotes, and 5e in general, is something for your DM to decide on where to go from there.

The DM decides. Exactly. I am sure he is a nice guy but frankly every time he twitters something it's a testament to his incompetence to phrase concise rules in the first place. That doesn't inspire me to over analyze single words in the rules or use logic on something that was drafted with less thought than crawford can muster while sitting on the toilet. If you can explain how some rule works, why the hell wasn't that how the rule was phrased in the first place. (Or at least in the Errata). Nope, sorry, If I buy a car and then week after week a technician from the car company comes to my house to fix this and fix that. Am i supposed to be amazed by how good the service is or appalled by how bad the car was built in the first place? Exactly.

Break the rules, it's encouraged, but don't do it accidentally or passively. Do so with intent, with reasoning behind those changes, and understanding why your decision is better than the existing choices.

To break the rules, you have to first agree on what the rules are. So while true in and of itself, that advice doesn't help at all in many such circumstances.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/df/df5c504d10c538e4c5b88e308206a324ed6c0fcff9e54a3e13 1fc3c17aff7464.jpg

MThurston

2018-12-17, 01:39 PM

jdolch

2018-12-17, 01:58 PM

Power gamers is the reason for the question.

No to both implications of that nonsensical, inflammatory statement.

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 01:59 PM

Dear Lord... *massaging temples* If that where the case we wouldn't need this thread, now would we?

One example: To put the words "such as" in there is idiotic. It makes the whole thing a hot mess. Now you can't argue that the list is exclusive if they themselves preface it with "such as".

How it really works is the last sentence: "Your DM decides what is reasonable" That's how D&D 5e works. It's frustrating but there you go. So if you ask "can i have a Wolf instead". Your DM should look up the stats of the Wolf and the stats of the Warhorse and decide if that gives you an unfair advantage CONSIDERING THE CAMPAIGN HE IS PLAYING FOR YOU.

This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.
This is how 5e works: The DM decides.

Write it 10.000 times: The DM decides. Got it now? THE DM DECIDES!

Jdolch, if your position is, simply,"the DM decides", I could not agree more with it. What I am disputing is the position "this is what the spell, by the rules, allows me to do, and a DM who does not accept my interpretation of it is needlessly nerfing the character concept I'm entitled to get."
THAT attitude is... well, let's just say I really don't want someone with that attitide as a PC. Every game would devolve into rules arguments.

The rest of my posts are explanations of the ruling I would have as a DM (that allowing that interpretation brings an increase in power to a class and a spell that definitely don't need it, while also going against what is, to me, the RAI of the spell)

My position, for all rules questions, is that the player can make a SHORT pitch for his interpretation, the DM can either wholly accept it, wholly reject it or work out a compromise, even if it involves explicit homebrew, with the understanding that, ultimately, "The DM decides"

jdolch

2018-12-17, 02:05 PM

Jdolch, if your position is, simply,"the DM decides", I could not agree more with it. What I am disputing is the position "this is what the spell, by the rules, allows me to do, and a DM who does not accept my interpretation of it is needlessly nerfing the character concept I'm entitled to get."
THAT attitude is... well, let's just say I really don't want someone with that attitide as a PC. Every game would devolve into rules arguments.

The rest of my posts are explanations of the ruling I would have as a DM (that allowing that interpretation brings an increase in power to a class and a spell that definitely don't need it, while also going against what is, to me, the RAI of the spell)

My position, for all rules questions, is that the player can make a SHORT pitch for his interpretation, the DM can either wholly accept it, wholly reject it or work out a compromise, even if it involves explicit homebrew, with the underatanding that, ultimately "The DM decides"

For someone who doesn't want to be part of rules arguments you have one hell of an opinion on everything. Or do you mean you just want everybody to agree with you? Good luck with that.

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 02:19 PM

Everything? Do I go around every rules question here telling people how they should play their game? Perhaps you would like to show where I have done that.

Even this topic, which I am more passionate about, I only jumped into the fray after malifice had posts like the below, clearly stating that only a stifling, arbitrary, tyrannical DM would rule differently from him.

"That's an arbitrarily ruling that serves no purpose other than DM jtyranny and stifling player creativity concepts and fun.

It's not for rules balance. It's simply the DM imposing an arbitrary and inane condition on the spell for ansolitely no good reason.

Tells me all I need to know about the game if it's one where the DM thinks this kind of arbitrary ruling takes precedent over fun."

So my question to YOU is: Is your interpretation of the spell the right one, so that only a stifling, tirannycal, arbitrary DM would disagree with it, and would you leave a game if your DM saw it otherwise, and, for instance, proposed my compromise? Would you badger him to make him change his mind?

If not, I really don't have a quarrel with you about this rule, you just have different standards for your game than I do, which is totally fine

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-17, 03:33 PM

That's an arbitrarily ruling that serves no purpose other than DM tyranny and stifling player creativity concepts and fun.

It's not for rules balance. It's simply the DM imposing an arbitrary and inane condition on the spell for absolutely no good reason.

For the most part, I am with Malifice on this.

It isn't an arbitrary ruling, but it is an unnecessarily strict interpretation.
It isn't for balance reasons. A smaller animal is weaker (HP/damage) than a larger in each case. (Falcon weaker than wolf weaker than war horse)

The ability to ride the specific animal is not a balance thing either.
A small creature as a paladin is not explicitly handicapped compared to a medium creature (my gnome is a terror with a lance). There is no reason to suggest that a small paladin "needs" additional (better?) mount choices that are unavailable to a medium paladin.

So the argument is "cuz the spell says so" requires strict interpretations of "steed" and "mount" on the same order as reflavoring a spell.

Man_Over_Game

2018-12-17, 03:41 PM

For the most part, I am with Malifice on this.

It isn't an arbitrary ruling, but it is an unnecessarily strict interpretation.
It isn't for balance reasons. A smaller animal is weaker (HP/damage) than a larger in each case. (Falcon weaker than wolf weaker than war horse)

The ability to ride the specific animal is not a balance thing either.
A small creature as a paladin is not explicitly handicapped compared to a medium creature (my gnome is a terror with a lance). There is no reason to suggest that a small paladin "needs" additional (better?) mount choices that are unavailable to a medium paladin.

So the argument is "cuz the spell says so" requires strict interpretations of "steed" and "mount" on the same order as reflavoring a spell.

A smaller creature is fine in terms of balance, but making the spell more versatile makes it better, and compared to the other level 2 Paladin spells, Find Steed is already one of the (if not THE) best level 2 spell pick.

It's not necessarily about the Paladin breaking the game that's a concern for me, it's the fact that the Paladin is getting goodies that others are not getting. Other classes (except Bard, I guess) don't get access to Find Steed.

As long as everyone's happy, including the non-paladin players, I'm cool with it. But usually, I see Paladins already taking a lot of fun and glory in games, and most would agree that they're the last class that needs special attention. But if tuning Paladins down is out of the question, then there needs to be some active intent on bringing everyone else up.

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 04:37 PM

there are two balance issues with this interpretation:

one is the versatility. a spell that allows you to summon a warhorse at a moment and a falcon another is just better than a spell which only allows you to summon a warhorse. They are different beasts, used for different purposes (i.e., a falcon is a terrible steed, but a warhorse is a terrible scout). Is it "game-breaking"? Of course not! But it is a small mechanical advantage being wrangled out of ignoring a rule, which, I, personally, think is not the right way to approach D&D.

The other balance issue is the ability to summon an Animal Companion, which is intellgent, loyal to you, and can be reasonably expected to fight your battles with you, with no action cost, and with no drawback of giving up the ability to have a steed, because you just bought another animal to act as your steed. You do lose the ability to share spells with the companion (though, at the beginning of the thread, the very same people who are arguing that this would balance the spell now, were arguing then that it would be a silly thing to require you to sit on your companion to share spells with him), but this is more of a situational advantage (like misty-stepping with your mount on top of a roof).

Because there are these 2 balance issues, and because I believe we all agree that the Paladin or the Find Steed spell do not need a power boost, if I were DMing, and if a player wanted to have an animal companion instead of a steed, I would propose to the player the "find animal companion" spell I mentioned earlier in substitution of the "find steed" spell. This way the player gets the animal companion that he wants without getting a power advantage from it, no matter how small. The spell would probably include a mechanic for sharing spells with the companion. As a player, I would be happy to have such a cooperative DM that allows me to bend the rules a little to let me have an Animal Companion as a paladin in order to fulfill my character concept. I would not begrudge it that the DM, to try to preserve balance, took away the Find Steed spell from me or added a line to the "find animal companion" spell on the general jealousy lines I mentioned earlier.

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-17, 04:43 PM

A smaller creature is fine in terms of balance, but making the spell more versatile makes it better, and compared to the other level 2 Paladin spells, Find Steed is already one of the (if not THE) best level 2 spell pick.

I agree it is helluva spell.

let's ignore the falcon for now, stick with a medium "steed"

Are we really making it more versatile (better) by saying "a medium paladin can have the same choices and abilities as a small paladin"?
why should the small paladin get more choices than a medium one?
no other class gives bonuses to the small guy.

there are two balance issues with this interpretation:

one is the versatility. a spell that allows you to summon a warhorse at a moment and a falcon another is just better than a spell which only allows you to summon a warhorse.

***side note: i disagree that you can change the summoned steed.

In either case, casting this spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum.

If you cast this spell while you already have a familiar, you instead cause it to adopt a new form.

The other balance issue is the ability to summon an Animal Companion, which is intellgent, loyal to you, and can be reasonably expected to fight your battles with you, with no action cost, and with no drawback of giving up the ability to have a steed, because you just bought another animal to act as your steed.

Do you have an issue with a paladin summoning a warhorse and buying a mastiff?

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 04:54 PM

I agree it is helluva spell.

let's ignore the falcon for now, stick with a medium "steed"

Are we really making it more versatile (better) by saying "a medium paladin can have the same choices and abilities as a small paladin"?
why should the small paladin get more choices than a medium one?
no other class gives bonuses to the small guy.

***side note: i disagree that you can change the summoned steed.
it is really not game-breaking to allow a mastiff to carry a medium paladin as his steed, if that is really what your player wants. It is unusually strong, after all (says right there in the spell description). As specific beats general, the unusually strong mastiff can carry a medium-sized creature even though the general mounted combat rules forbid that.

as to the side note: "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" would you mean that after releasing the spirit from its bond you would require the Paladin to only summon other spirits that would take on the same form as the previous spirit?

as to your final question, yes and no. It really bogs down combat for no good reason, and I have to rebalance encounters because of it, re-calculating CRs, etc. But if a player really wanted to do it I would let him, making it clear to the players that all decisions of the mastiff in combat are under my control (i.e, the mastiff would not willingly charge at a dragon or probably at any "unworldly" creature... think of how Farmer Maggot's dogs, which are properly trained guard dogs, react to the Nazgul)

NaughtyTiger

2018-12-17, 05:12 PM

it is really not game-breaking to allow a mastiff to carry a medium paladin as his steed
nothing says the small paladin has to ride his mastiff in combat, so i would not expect a medium paladin to have to ride his steed in combat either. I don't consider that required to this discussion.

(as far as the controlled/uncontrolled bit: DM control is fine, but should be in keeping with " allows you to fight as a seamless unit")

as to the side note: "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" would you mean that after releasing the spirit from its bond you would require the Paladin to only summon other spirits that would take on the same form as the previous spirit?

pretty much, take on the same form as the previous spirit.
but you appear to differ on this point... are you okay with a gnome paladin summoning a warhorse on the open field and a mastiff in a dungeon?
why should the small paladin have more flexibility?

as to your final question, yes and no. It really bogs down combat for no good reason, and I have to rebalance encounters because of it, re-calculating CRs, etc. But if a player really wanted to do it I would let him, making it clear to the players that all decisions of the mastiff in combat are under my control (i.e, the mastiff would not willingly charge at a dragon or probably at any "unworldly" creature... think of how Farmer Maggot's dogs, which are properly trained guard dogs, react to the Nazgul)

I dont' see the difference between:

loyal, trained, brave-in-the-face-of-a-dragon WarHorse and easily scared 50GP pet mastiff
loyal, trained, brave-in-the-face-of-a-dragon Mastiff and easily scared 200GP warhorse.
loyal, trained, brave-in-the-face-of-a-dragon Mastiff and easily scared 50GP pet mastiff (for a halfling)

"The other balance issue is the ability to summon an Animal Companion, which is intellgent, loyal to you, and can be reasonably expected to fight your battles with you, with no action cost, and with no drawback of giving up the ability to have a steed, because you just bought another animal to act as your steed."
You just admitted that it isn't so much a balance issue as you don't want another token on the field.

diplomancer

2018-12-17, 06:06 PM

As I said, I would probably interpret the spell to let a medium-sized Paladin use an unusually strong medium sized creature as his steed. Specific beats general.

I would also let him summon different spirits with different forms (or even tbe same spirit with different forms). I dont see a real balancing issue as long as they are all steeds, riding a mastiff has a negligible (in my view) mechanical advantage to a medium-sized Paladin), and I think it is kind of a **** move to not let a Paladin summon a Dolphin for a special undersea part of your campaign while keeping his roleplaying bond to the spirit he summonned.

As long as you are using your summonned steed as your steed, the only question I would ask a player who wants to buy a mastiff for battles (or to hire a company pf mercenaries to go adventuring with him) is whether he really wants me to rebalance all the encounters of the adventire just to accomodate his wishes to make more damage per round. If he really does (because having pets or being a leader of a mercenary company is part of his character concept), I would accept it, and the extra work that it would entail,if he otherwise brought good things to my game.

As a player, I would try to avoid concepts such as "pet master" or "mercenary captain" as I appreciate the sheer ammount of work it takes to be a DM.

Having another token on the field *is a balance issue*.

jdolch

2018-12-18, 01:28 AM

It's not necessarily about the Paladin breaking the game that's a concern for me, it's the fact that the Paladin is getting goodies that others are not getting. Other classes (except Bard, I guess) don't get access to Find Steed.

Every class is getting something other classes aren't getting. "Find (Greater) Steed" might as well be a class ability. That they made it a spell is, as far as i am concerned, just another one of their failures. Especially considering that, if you use it as intended and don't abuse it (to find traps, etc.) you only need to cast it once
and then you can take it off the spell list and don't expend daily slots. That means it doesn't even drain resources if used normally. Yeah should definitely have been a once per long Rest class ability.

As long as everyone's happy, including the non-paladin players, I'm cool with it.

Seriously? So, if i am not cool with Rogues stealthing mid combat, even though a minute ago they were standing in plain sight. Or with a Barbarian raging. Or a Fighter action surging. Or a Sorcerer ....etc.etc.etc. then they have to stop doing it? Cool. Those are all overpowered abilities that make me feel weak in comparison. And i am not cool with it.

summon a warhorse at a moment and a falcon another

The spell clearly states
a long lasting bond and while one can argue that this is fluff, later the spell clearly states
casting the spell again summons the same steed. So No.

The other balance issue is the ability to summon an Animal Companion, which is intellgent, loyal to you, and can be reasonably expected to fight your battles with you, with no action cost, and with no drawback of giving up the ability to have a steed, because you just bought another animal to act as your steed. You can't have one animal one minute and another the next. See above. Plus your Animal Companion can easily be killed if you just let it fight with you. It's not that strong as you make it out to be here. A Wolf or Worg isn't that much stronger than a Warhorse. Quite the opposite in fact. Because you forego the shared spell (Shield of Faith for example), you forego the ability to use a Lance. And you also forego the ability to use mounted combatant.

In fact the strongest use of the "Steed" in Combat is when you use it according to your interpretation. Because then I can take a Lance, mount up on my Warhorse, share Haste with it and it is unkillable because of 1. Mounted Combatant (And my 27 AC) and 2. I am too fast for most enemies to even get a hit in.

Also you can use a Horse to scout in 1 Mile. If a player tries to get an eagle as companion, i would just rule against it as a DM if i feel that this would ruin my campaign.

You do lose the ability to share spells with the companion (though, at the beginning of the thread, the very same people who are arguing that this would balance the spell now, were arguing then that it would be a silly thing to require you to sit on your companion to share spells with him), but this is more of a situational advantage (like misty-stepping with your mount on top of a roof).

It's actually pretty powerful beyond misty stepping. But being mounted is a hard requirement. I can see it being houserules as "have to touch it" but that's it. If can't share a spell with your "steed" while you are not mounted on it (or at least touching it, depending on the DMs ruling).

if I were DMing, and if a player wanted to have an animal companion instead of a steed, I would propose to the player the "find animal companion" spell I mentioned earlier in substitution of the "find steed" spell.

If you were the DM you could do whatever you wanted, but it's probably fair to say lots of people here wouldn't play at your table. I know I wouldn't. No offense.

And personally I don't use the spell to "powergame". But i can see lots and lots of RP reasons, why i would want e.g. a Worg or Wolf instead of a Horse or an Elk. Even if that means i can't ride it and can't cast spells through it.

I completely agree: If someone uses this leeway to abuse the **** out of the spell, it should be shut down hard. Curiously enough mostly the people, who argued against the spell being open, came to ridiculous powergamer conclusions like summoning a Pixie. I find that quite telling.

BurgerBeast

2018-12-18, 02:01 AM

The reason for the “such as” text is because it is possible to play D&D in a setting in which none of the listed creatures exist.

And then some RAW-rigid person would come along and (a) insist that it can’t be cast or (b) insist that it summons an animal that doesn’t otherwise exist because the rules say so.

Dark Sun, for example (if memory serves). But any homebrew world could conceivably not have the listed creatures.

diplomancer

2018-12-18, 02:14 AM

"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" - last paragraph of the spell

would you mean that after releasing the spirit from its bond (i.e., dissolving that "long-lasting bond" mentioned previously in the spell) you would require the Paladin to only summon other spirits that would take on the same form as the previous spirit? You would not allow a Halfling Paladin to dismiss his Pony before going on an Underwater adventure to summon a CR 1/2shark? I thought I was the overly-strict killjoy DM! (I would probably not even require him to summon another spirit but that depends of how much fun you get from interpreting different animal personalities)

As I also mentioned, if you want a different creature for RP reasons, I would let you have it. I would also let you mount it if you wanted, since it is exceptionally strong. I wouldn't like it if you summoned it (whether it is in the approved list or not) and then used another creature as your steed, and would roleplay your summoned spirit appropriately.

I would never dream of using the spell to get a pixie (or a scout, or an animal companion while I ride another mount, or anything that is not my primary steed for that matter). I was just pointing out one of the possible implications of allowing non-steeds to be summoned by the spell called "Find Steed", as long as they had the appropriate CR (an argument someone made on this thread, you I think, that CR should be the limiting factor)

jdolch

2018-12-18, 05:17 AM

The reason for the “such as” text is because it is possible to play D&D in a setting in which none of the listed creatures exist.

That is your HEAVILY biased interpretation. Not saying you're wrong. But that's just as valid as anything else that was discussed here. (apart from pixies)

jdolch

2018-12-18, 05:30 AM

"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" - last paragraph of the spell

would you mean that after releasing the spirit from its bond (i.e., dissolving that "long-lasting bond" mentioned previously in the spell) you would require the Paladin to only summon other spirits that would take on the same form as the previous spirit? You would not allow a Halfling Paladin to dismiss his Pony before going on an Underwater adventure to summon a CR 1/2shark?...

Yes. Yes. Yes. You are constantly pointing out how this and that could be abused and come up with all kinds of clever examples. Do you even realize that nobody of the "pro crowd" has mentioned anything of the kind?

You people are the only one who come up with one crazy abuse after the other.
Maybe just stop projecting what you would do onto other people.

For any DM, there is an easy solution: If a player at the table starts to abuse something (no matter what the rules say, even if they specifically allow it) to the point where it negatively influences the flow of the game, just take him or her to the side and give a warning. If he or she doesn't stop, forbid it. If he or she doesn't accept that, kick them off the table.

And that's that.

I am now done discussing this with you. The only thing you have convinced me off is that i'll never play at the same table as you. The other people can judge for themselves but this is getting to far into trolling for my taste. The End.

diplomancer

2018-12-18, 05:49 AM

I really don't see it as any kind of abuse (much less crazy abuse) for a halfling to have as his steed a Pony on one adventure and a Shark on another. I am even surprised that people actually could see it that way. Interesting.

The reason I am mentioning a halfling is because I'm not sure if there is a large CR1/2 Sea Creature, and because I realize that my interpretation of allowing the Paladin's "unusually strong" steed to carry him even if they have the same size might be considered by some people as too generous, not because there is an evil secret exploit that I am ready to whip out once people grant that it's not abuse to summon two different steeds for two different and incompatible environments.

MThurston

2018-12-18, 07:44 AM

For the most part, I am with Malifice on this.

It isn't an arbitrary ruling, but it is an unnecessarily strict interpretation.
It isn't for balance reasons. A smaller animal is weaker (HP/damage) than a larger in each case. (Falcon weaker than wolf weaker than war horse)

The ability to ride the specific animal is not a balance thing either.
A small creature as a paladin is not explicitly handicapped compared to a medium creature (my gnome is a terror with a lance). There is no reason to suggest that a small paladin "needs" additional (better?) mount choices that are unavailable to a medium paladin.

So the argument is "cuz the spell says so" requires strict interpretations of "steed" and "mount" on the same order as reflavoring a spell.

It's a strict interpretation that find steed is a rideable thing?

I think it's in the name of the spell.

1. Find animal companion
2. Find beast companion
3. Find flying companion
4. Find ground vehicle

So a can take a ghost for 1.

So I can take a celestial for 2.

So I can take a sea horse for 3.

So I can take a boat

I think we all should be smart enough to figure out it means steed.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-18, 08:56 AM

It's a strict interpretation that find steed is a rideable thing?

I think it's in the name of the spell.

1. Find animal companion
2. Find beast companion
3. Find flying companion
4. Find ground vehicle

So a can take a ghost for 1.

So I can take a celestial for 2.

So I can take a sea horse for 3.

So I can take a boat

I think we all should be smart enough to figure out it means steed.
Perhaps if the spell was "find mount" but since mount is the mechanical term for rideable creatures, not steed, we're forced to make assumptions on what "steed" means. The end result of reading the spell is "These example creatures and any other animals your DM says are okay" are steeds.

I'd also argue that "steed" being used throughout the spell is a specific term to the creature you choose to summon via that spell and not a reference to it being rideable as a requirement. Find Familiar uses similar wording, but not every cat or owl can be labeled a familiar just because Find Familiar describes them as one.

It's more strict than it has to be ruling that it absolutely must be rideable at the moment of summoning (as there's no direct evidence to support this), but it's part of your job as a DM to fill in the grey areas.

MThurston

2018-12-18, 08:59 AM

Perhaps if the spell was "find mount" but since mount is the mechanical term for rideable creatures, not steed, we're forced to make assumptions on what "steed" means. The end result of reading the spell is "These example creatures and any other animals your DM says are okay" are steeds.

I'd also argue that "steed" being used throughout the spell is a specific term to the creature you choose to summon via that spell and not a reference to it being rideable as a requirement. Find Familiar uses similar wording, but not every cat or owl can be labeled a familiar just because Find Familiar describes them as one.

It's more strict than it has to be ruling that it absolutely must be rideable at the moment of summoning (as there's no direct evidence to support this), but it's part of your job as a DM to fill in the grey areas.

steed
/stēd/Submit
nounARCHAIC•LITERARY
a horse being ridden or available for riding.

LudicSavant

2018-12-18, 09:05 AM

I think it's in the name of the spell.

This argument just doesn't hold any water at all.

The fact that Expeditious Retreat has "retreat" in the name doesn't mean that it can only be used to retreat.

Likewise, Phantom Steed has steed in the name, and says that it summons a steed, yet it lets you summon whether you can ride it or not. In fact, one of the most common uses of the spell is to summon the steed for someone else to use.

You're reading a word as having a far more restrictive and specific definition than it actually has, and ignoring numerous context clues that suggests that your definition is not intended for the spell (which numerous posters have pointed out to you, the latest of which being ProsecutorGodot above), and ignoring the devs themselves telling you that your interpretation isn't the intent, and saying that the devs are "idiots" if they think they know the intent of their own work better than you.

steed
/stēd/Submit
nounARCHAIC•LITERARY
a horse being ridden or available for riding.

First of all, that's one of multiple available definitions. The one you've chosen is the archaic definition from British English, such as can be found in the Oxford Dictionary.

Second of all, of the examples given in the spell text itself, exactly one is a horse, and the rest aren't. This is sufficient evidence to prove that this is not the definition in use. Certainly not in the restrictive, literal sense that you are claiming.

Third of all, even if you cut out the "horse" part, a creature is ridable whether you, personally, are riding it or not, so that wouldn't even rule out anything.

Your argument doesn't have a single leg to stand on.

MThurston

2018-12-18, 09:15 AM

This argument just doesn't hold any water at all.

The fact that Expeditious Retreat has "retreat" in the name doesn't mean that it can only be used to retreat.

Likewise, Phantom Steed has steed in the name, and says that it summons a steed, yet it lets you summon whether you can ride it or not. In fact, one of the most common uses of the spell is to summon the steed for someone else to use.

You're reading a word as having a far more restrictive and specific definition than it actually has, and ignoring numerous context clues that suggests that your definition is not intended for the spell (which numerous posters have pointed out to you, the latest of which being ProsecutorGodot above), and ignoring the devs themselves telling you that your interpretation isn't the intent, and saying that the devs are "idiots" if they think they know the intent of their own work better than you.

First of all, that's one of multiple available definitions. The one you've chosen is the archaic definition from British English, such as can be found in the Oxford Dictionary.

Second of all, of the examples given in the spell text itself, exactly one is a horse, and the rest aren't. This is sufficient evidence to prove that this is not the definition in use. Certainly not in the restrictive, literal sense that you are claiming.

Third of all, even if you cut out the "horse" part, a creature is ridable whether you, personally, are riding it or not, so that wouldn't even rule out anything.

Your argument doesn't have a single leg to stand on.

Power gaming at it best.

Bill Clinton would be proud of you.

"It depends on your definition of is, is."

jdolch

2018-12-18, 09:27 AM

Power gaming

Is this like Communism? Somebody better call McCarthy.

MThurston

2018-12-18, 09:49 AM

Is this like Communism? Somebody better call McCarthy.

Make light of it all you want. We all play games and know these people. The ones you hate to play with and make the game suck for all.

Keltest

2018-12-18, 10:18 AM

Make light of it all you want. We all play games and know these people. The ones you hate to play with and make the game suck for all.

I believe the technical term is "that guy".

jdolch

2018-12-18, 10:20 AM

Make light of it all you want. We all play games and know these people. The ones you hate to play with and make the game suck for all.

Power Gaming is totally valid. Problems arise when power gamers play with non powergamers. But that is not the fault of power gamers, as much as you would like that. It's just a mis-match.

These so called power gamers would be just as justified to claim that the roleplayers can't build a good character to save their life and then moan that everybody should play badly build characters because that's somehow morally superior. While the power gamers now have to content with a story that progresses at a snails pace because this one character keeps doing annoying **** under the guise of roleplaying.

Both ways to play the game are valid, just don't do it at the same table.

So get of the high horse and just play with people who want to play the game like you want to play it. I do feel your pain. I don't like playing with people who constantly try to create problems inside the group under the guise of roleplaying. Like playing a loudmouth Barbarian and bullying other partymembers or playing a social character and then use persuasion rolls and suggestion spells to get their will.

So i just don't play with these people, but i don't blame them. I am sure that can be fun if the group gets behind it.

The way you keep using the word "Power Gamer" as if it were somehow morally inferior or "dirty" to play this way just shows a lot of ignorance. And in fact you do that kind of bullying to shame other people into playing the game the way you want to play it.

And that is not Okay.

AureusFulgens

2018-12-18, 11:07 AM

Power Gaming is totally valid. Problems arise when power gamers play with non powergamers. But that is not the fault of power gamers, as much as you would like that. It's just a mis-match.

These so called power gamers would be just as justified to claim that the roleplayers can't build a good character to save their life and then moan that everybody should play badly build characters because that's somehow morally superior. While the power gamers now have to content with a story that progresses at a snails pace because this one character keeps doing annoying **** under the guise of roleplaying.

Both ways to play the game are valid, just don't do it at the same table.

So get of the high horse and just play with people who want to play the game like you want to play it. I do feel your pain. I don't like playing with people who constantly try to create problems inside the group under the guise of roleplaying. Like playing a loudmouth Barbarian and bullying other partymembers or playing a social character and then use persuasion rolls and suggestion spells to get their will.

So i just don't play with these people, but i don't blame them. I am sure that can be fun if the group gets behind it.

They way you keep using the word "Power Gamer" as if it were somehow morally inferior or "dirty" to play this way just shows a lot of ignorance. And that is in fact bullying to shame other people into playing the game you want to play it.

THANK you. This right here.

Look, I understand feeling annoyed with people who like to understand mechanics and use them to their fullest extent if you aren't that sort of person, but ultimately their fun is just as valid as yours, and conflict only arises if you aren't able to understand that. Worst case, maybe you should just play at different tables. Best case, learn to appreciate that other people get different things out of the game.

And this is a thread that's fundamentally about piecing together the answer to an ambiguous rules question. I'm not sure what you expected to find here if not what you would call "power-gamers."

On the question at hand: massive shrug?

Based on common perceptions of the Paladin class, I think that most people (and probably the designers) expect that the spell will be used to summon a creature to ride, as having a general "animal companion" is not something we generally associate with Paladins (it's usually a Ranger or Druid thing). In that sense, it is probably meaningful that the word "steed" is used, in that it points toward the default use of the spell. Kind of the way that Expeditious Retreat is named that way because the most likely use is a Wizard getting the hell out of Dodge if they find themselves in a tight spot.

But I also tend to agree that... I mean, why not? Let your player's paladin summon a cat that follows them around, why the heck not. It could be just as much a "I like the flavor" thing as a "I want the most powerful mount I can find" thing. A Vengeance Paladin with a falcon which he uses to hunt his enemies is probably the coolest thing I've heard this week, and it doesn't sound any mechanically crazier than some of the things I've ridden around. Opinions on Crawford aside, his comment shows that the designers don't hate the idea of a Paladin not riding their steed, and that it isn't the end-all and be-all of their intentions.

If you're not down with that and the local orders of paladins specifically ride horses/elk/whatever, then explain that to your players and move on. There is also nothing wrong with that. "Arbitrary" restrictions can be a neat way of tying the players into the world: "You recognize a paladin because they're the one on the faintly glowing war horse" - again, as long as the players buy into it.

If you're worried about stepping on the Ranger's toes, then... well, only worry about that if you HAVE a Ranger at the table?

Ultimately, this is a spell where appropriate creatures are specifically left up to DM discretion. It's not just normal 5e "we didn't write rules for this because we're lazy" nonsense, it's outright TOLD that the DM should decide what's available, and that's lovely.

D&D is built on trust. Worried that a mechanical choice is outshining the other players at the table? Talk to them and figure out if there's a way to tie their hands a bit to level the playing field. Worried that a restriction is cramping a player's style? Talk to them about how they feel about it. A player who starts to cackle loudly about "beating" you when you attempt the first conversation, or turns into an acting diva who hates all restrictions whatsoever when you attempt the second conversation... should be a warning that you have bigger problems than Find Steed.

TL;DR:

Restrictions are fine, and wanting them doesn't mean you hate fun.
Freedom is fine, and wanting it doesn't make you an evil power-gamer.
5e is flexible, partly by design and partly by lack of design, and you might as well use that for all it's worth.

LudicSavant

2018-12-18, 11:13 AM

Power gaming at it best.

Bill Clinton would be proud of you.

"It depends on your definition of is, is."

My post doesn't even have anything to do with power gaming, nor did it say that it depends on your definition. You're just dropping red herrings and hoping people will take the bait.

What I actually said is that your definition is inappropriate for this context, while ProsecutorGodot's is more germane. Rather than address the reasoning for that, you just come out swinging with random insults.

MThurston

2018-12-18, 11:27 AM

My post doesn't even have anything to do with power gaming, nor did it say that it depends on your definition. You're just dropping red herrings and hoping people will take the bait.

What I actually said is that your definition is inappropriate for this context, while ProsecutorGodot's is more germane. Rather than address the reasoning for that, you just come out swinging with random insults.

Trying to say Find Steed is for non rideable things is just stupid. It clearly tells you what you can get, even adding a mount for a small character.

Using the dog in an example that medium size characters can get a dog is just trying to break the intent of the rule.

I could care less what Crawford has to say on the matter.

Anyone who has played any D&D games, knows what find steed is for.

Argueing that a DM MUST allow you to summon what ever you want is abusing the rules and the intent of the rules.

Building a character within the rules is fine all day. Trying to bend the rules or break them however is not.

Find Steed of all thing should be easy to understand.

LudicSavant

2018-12-18, 11:39 AM

Argueing that a DM MUST allow you to summon what ever you want is abusing the rules and the intent of the rules.

Quote where anyone argued any of these things.

diplomancer

2018-12-18, 12:57 PM

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-18, 01:51 PM

no one claimed that the D&D police will arrest a DM that requires find steed to get a steed.

Several people have argued that a DM that does so (enev if he otherwise tries to accomodate the player's wishes) is a bad, tyrannical, anal retentive DM.

Subtext- especially if you are a newbie Dm that is being brow-beaten by a more experienced player- "allow this (ab)use of the rules or you are a bad DM

and if people can claim that the repeated (15 times!) use of the word steed is fluff, what makes some people think that they wouldn't claim the same thing for the word mount.
Because Steed is only defined in the context of Find Steed (relative to the mechanical interpretation, which is the core of this debate) and Mount is defined in the equipment chapter of the PHB.

There are mounts that don't fall directly under the definition of what you can acquire through Find Steed (ignoring the DM's ability to allow any animal they choose) so it's not a given that Steed and Mount are synonymous as game terms.

One is up for interpretation, very literally, as Find Steed says that the DM holds an explicit right to decide any other animal could also function for Find Steed. It's not limited to animals that can be used for riding or "mounts" from the Mounts and Vehicles section of the PHB.

I don't agree that a DM who would say no to such a request is automatically "badwrongfun DM the tyrant of many tables" but if a player wants to use Find Steed to summon a Mastiff (something that the spell is always able to do) and the DM rules that they can't "because you are a medium creature and can't ride it and that's power gaming, you just want a telepathic beast you can have around" then I would probably give them a good long side eye.

It's also worth noting, that if you really are trying to make a case for mount and steed to be treated as synonymous, this line in the PHB states that mounts do not in fact serve the primary purpose of riding, rather they're intended to carry your stuff.

A good mount can help you move more quickly through the wilderness, but its primary purpose is to carry the gear that would otherwise slow you down.
By most accounts, having a mastiff steed would be more useful in dungeon delves than a warhorse and any adventurer (medium or small) would be happy to have it around.

Man_Over_Game

2018-12-18, 02:13 PM

By most accounts, having a mastiff steed would be more useful in dungeon delves than a warhorse and any adventurer (medium or small) would be happy to have it around.

Sure, but couldn't that just be one of the inherent flaws of the spell?

Identify is a level 1 spell that requires a 100 GP item.
Burning Hands technically requires touching thumbs.
Casting Blindness/Deafness twice on the same person can't make them both Blind AND Deaf.

Saying that Find Steed is limited isn't exactly a ludicrous thought.

MThurston

2018-12-18, 02:17 PM

One is up for interpretation, very literally, as Find Steed says that the DM holds an explicit right to decide any other animal could also function for Find Steed. It's not limited to animals that can be used for riding or "mounts" from the Mounts and Vehicles section of the PHB.

I don't agree that a DM who would say no to such a request is automatically "badwrongfun DM the tyrant of many tables" but if a player wants to use Find Steed to summon a Mastiff (something that the spell is always able to do) and the DM rules that they can't "because you are a medium creature and can't ride it and that's power gaming, you just want a telepathic beast you can have around" then I would probably give them a good long side eye.

SMH

We all as gamers SHOULD know what Find Steed means. A rideable mount. Any other arguement is being unreasonable.

The arguement that my halfling friend needs a mount is not a good answer.

It is a gift and a class fixture. Paladin's and mounts are the staple.

It is not at all an animal companion.

The rule should have been more clear because of rules lawyers. Small creature can summon dogs.

Steed is a very clear term. Rideable horse.

And the rule saying that the DM can make exceptions is not saying the DM has to make exceptions.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-18, 02:30 PM

Sure, but couldn't that just be one of the inherent flaws of the spell?

Identify is a level 1 spell that requires a 100 GP item.
Burning Hands requires touching thumbs.
Saying that Find Steed is limited isn't exactly a ludicrous thought, honestly.

I don't know what you're implying exactly, but it's certainly not Find Steed's fault that a Warhorse can't fit through a small space.

If you mean that the steed summoned must be something you're able to ride, we've just gone over why that's incorrect as well. As per the wording of Find Steed:

Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out
and the definition of Mount in the PHB:

A good mount can help you move more quickly through the wilderness, but its primary purpose is to carry the gear that would otherwise slow you down.

You absolutely could decide that the steed must be a mount that you're able to ride, but a mounts primary purpose isn't even to be something you ride. It's an overly strict interpretation. Not wrong, you run your game how you like, but at least recognize that there's no by the book reason for not allowing a medium sized creature to summon a mastiff with find steed. Regardless of whether you allow it at your table or not, it's something the spell explicitly lets you do.

We all as gamers SHOULD know what Find Steed means. A rideable mount. Any other arguement is being unreasonable.
I can't honestly take you seriously if you're trying to tell me that it has to be a rideable mount. Nowhere in the spell does it say that you must ride the mount, it simply lists additional benefits while mounted.

If we take your reasonable interpretation then a Paladin who summons his Warhorse to pull a carriage is breaking the intent of the spell. The intent is that he summons a steed, the intent has nothing to do with what he does afterwards with it.

Steed is a very clear term, in the context of Find Steed it's "a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, a mastiff and your GM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds". You don't have to be small to summon a mastiff as your steed.

Keltest

2018-12-18, 02:32 PM

I can't honestly take you seriously if you're trying to tell me that it has to be a rideable mount. Nowhere in the spell does it say that you must ride the mount, it simply lists additional benefits while riding a mount.

If we take your reasonable interpretation then a Paladin who summons his Warhorse to pull a carriage is breaking the intent of the spell. The intent is that he summons a steed, the intent has nothing to do with what he does afterwards with it.

Steed is a very clear term, in the context of Find Steed it's "a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, a mastiff and your GM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds". You don't have to be small to summon a mastiff as your steed.

A steed is a rideable mount, by definition. If its not a game term, we default to the dictionary definition.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-18, 02:41 PM

A steed is a rideable mount, by definition. If its not a game term, we default to the dictionary definition.

I'm beginning to understand why Crawford just copy pastes passages directly from the books. Apparently people don't read them.

You summon a spirit that assumes the form of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed, creating a long-lasting bond with it. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the steed takes on a form that you choose: a warhorse, a pony, a camel, an elk, or a mastiff. (Your GM might allow other animals to be summoned as steeds.)
...
Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.

And then we find what a mount is:

A good mount can help you move more quickly through the wilderness, but its primary purpose is to carry the gear that would otherwise slow you down.

Nothing about Find Steed lists that you must be able to ride your mount, and in game terms something could be considered "your mount" without you ever having used it to ride. A Mastiff that you buy from a trainer in waterdeep is, in game terms, your mount, whether you choose to use it as a guard dog or a playmate for your kiddo.

It is a game term. I only say that it's up for interpretation because your DM can add(and subtract) to list on their own whim.

EDIT: A Mastiff also does fall under the term "rideable", but again Find Steed never says that the caster must ride their mount.

Tanarii

2018-12-18, 02:43 PM

Several people have argued that a DM that does so (enev if he otherwise tries to accomodate the player's wishes) is a bad, tyrannical, anal retentive DM.

Subtext- especially if you are a newbie Dm that is being brow-beaten by a more experienced player- "allow this (ab)use of the rules or you are a bad Dm Meanwhile I would not, as a player, probably not be interested in sitting down at the same table with either a player that wants to treat their steed as an autonomous animal companion, or a DM that would allow it.

AFAICT the point of the spell is to summon a mount and give it a few buffs. Not to give an animal companion.

They're not Bad Players or Bad DMs. They're not Bad People. There is nothing wrong with them. I'm just not interested in playing in that kind of game. Just like I'm not interested in "collective storytelling" folks.

Keltest

2018-12-18, 02:46 PM

I'm beginning to understand why Crawford just copy pastes passages directly from the books. Apparently people don't read them.

And then we find what a mount is:

Nothing about Find Steed lists that you must be able to ride your mount, and in game terms something could be considered "your mount" without you ever having used it to ride. A Mastiff that you buy from a trainer in waterdeep is, in game terms, your mount, whether you choose to use it as a guard dog or a playmate for your kiddo.

It is a game term. I only say that it's up for interpretation because your DM can add(and subtract) to list on their own whim.

EDIT: A Mastiff also does fall under the term "rideable", but again Find Steed never says that the caster must ride their mount.

I cant tell if you legitimately don't understand whats being said or if youre just purposely being dense to avoid admitting youre wrong at this point.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-18, 03:03 PM

I cant tell if you legitimately don't understand whats being said or if youre just purposely being dense to avoid admitting youre wrong at this point.

A Mastiff is a mount. Mount's serve the primary purpose of carrying your things in 5E. Nowhere in Find Steed does it require that you are able to ride the steed, it simply gives you a benefit for doing so.

Circling back to the very first page:
You can summon a Mastiff even if you are unable to use the mastiff as a rideable mount, but since you cannot be mounted on the Mastiff you would be unable to make use of the sharing spells benefit of being mounted on your steed.

Your size does not disallow you from summoning a mastiff, it's something that you are explicitly able to summon with the spell. There is no support for not allowing a mastiff to be summoned by a medium creature beyond "I feel like you shouldn't be able to". If you want to run it that way at your table, that's your right. Don't go around telling people that they have to when there's no reason for it.

diplomancer

2018-12-18, 04:33 PM

AHF

2018-12-18, 09:52 PM

THANK you. This right here.

Look, I understand feeling annoyed with people who like to understand mechanics and use them to their fullest extent if you aren't that sort of person, but ultimately their fun is just as valid as yours, and conflict only arises if you aren't able to understand that. Worst case, maybe you should just play at different tables. Best case, learn to appreciate that other people get different things out of the game.

And this is a thread that's fundamentally about piecing together the answer to an ambiguous rules question. I'm not sure what you expected to find here if not what you would call "power-gamers."

On the question at hand: massive shrug?

Based on common perceptions of the Paladin class, I think that most people (and probably the designers) expect that the spell will be used to summon a creature to ride, as having a general "animal companion" is not something we generally associate with Paladins (it's usually a Ranger or Druid thing). In that sense, it is probably meaningful that the word "steed" is used, in that it points toward the default use of the spell. Kind of the way that Expeditious Retreat is named that way because the most likely use is a Wizard getting the hell out of Dodge if they find themselves in a tight spot.

But I also tend to agree that... I mean, why not? Let your player's paladin summon a cat that follows them around, why the heck not. It could be just as much a "I like the flavor" thing as a "I want the most powerful mount I can find" thing. A Vengeance Paladin with a falcon which he uses to hunt his enemies is probably the coolest thing I've heard this week, and it doesn't sound any mechanically crazier than some of the things I've ridden around. Opinions on Crawford aside, his comment shows that the designers don't hate the idea of a Paladin not riding their steed, and that it isn't the end-all and be-all of their intentions.

If you're not down with that and the local orders of paladins specifically ride horses/elk/whatever, then explain that to your players and move on. There is also nothing wrong with that. "Arbitrary" restrictions can be a neat way of tying the players into the world: "You recognize a paladin because they're the one on the faintly glowing war horse" - again, as long as the players buy into it.

If you're worried about stepping on the Ranger's toes, then... well, only worry about that if you HAVE a Ranger at the table?

Ultimately, this is a spell where appropriate creatures are specifically left up to DM discretion. It's not just normal 5e "we didn't write rules for this because we're lazy" nonsense, it's outright TOLD that the DM should decide what's available, and that's lovely.

D&D is built on trust. Worried that a mechanical choice is outshining the other players at the table? Talk to them and figure out if there's a way to tie their hands a bit to level the playing field. Worried that a restriction is cramping a player's style? Talk to them about how they feel about it. A player who starts to cackle loudly about "beating" you when you attempt the first conversation, or turns into an acting diva who hates all restrictions whatsoever when you attempt the second conversation... should be a warning that you have bigger problems than Find Steed.

TL;DR:

Restrictions are fine, and wanting them doesn't mean you hate fun.
Freedom is fine, and wanting it doesn't make you an evil power-gamer.
5e is flexible, partly by design and partly by lack of design, and you might as well use that for all it's worth.

Applauding this post over here.

AHF

2018-12-18, 10:10 PM

I think the best way to resolve this issus is just for each person to state what he, as a DM, would allow, and what he wouldn't.

With that said, here is my position;

1 - as long as the intent of the player is to use the summoned spirit, primarily, as a steed:

a- I would allow a player to summon any of the sugestions listed in Find Steed, no matter the size. I would also allow a medium steed from find steed carry a medium rider (for 2 reasons; specific beats general (the spell lets you summon a steed, a steed is an animal that you can ride, therefore you will be able, within reason, to ride the animal that you summon with this spell) and the text in the spell about "unusually strong", which otherwise has no mechanical meaning). To counterbalance this permission, I would make clear to the player, in most games, that this allowance does not cover flying animals.

b- I would allow him to change the steed for different circunstances (like I mentioned earlier, changing the form for a water-based adventure). I would, through roleplaying, encourage the player not to abuse this rule.

2- If the player made it clear that he wanted an Animal Companion instead of a steed:

- I would allow it on the condition that he accepted the "no other animal used as a steed" limitation. Also, in that case, I would probably limit the changes of the form of the steed (no possibility of getting a good for combat companion in one moment, and a great, tiny, stealthy scout the next- heck, I would likely disallow all tiny and most small animals... too much room for abuse as I see it.

3- If the player didn't make it clear he wanted an animal companion but uses it exclusively like this WHILE USING ANOTHER CREATURE AS HIS MOST COMMON STEED, I would impose growingly severe roleplaying punishments of his abuse of the intent of the spell.

From the player's side... heck, I just want a steed, they are so cool and so good. If I was knocked in the head and decided I wanted an animal companion instead, I would be happy to get the conditions imposed above, and would never dream of subjecting my DM to convoluted readings of the spell to make him believe that he ought to give me what I want without any other restriction

There is room to disagree on interpretation of this spell but where your view has ended up at seems like a place 98% of players would be fine with. Even through I read the spell a little differently I’d personally be fine playing with this set of guidelines.

—————————————-

As a total tangent given the multiple posters who have opined they would rule “you must ride the summoned steed or it is abusing the spell, Crawford can blow it out his rear” and the definition of mount saying they primary carry your equipment, has anyone ever heard of a DM who has called out players for abusing the spell if the mount doesn’t spend a significant amount of time hauling equipment? That seems like a logical but absurd situation. “All you do is use your mount to carry you around when the clear game definition of mount says they are primarily for carrying your junk around. You are violating the intent of the spell and power gaming by putting your mount in constant danger for a mechanical benefit. Start living by the clear written definition of what a mount is about or forget using this spell anymore. Shame...shame!!”

Tanarii

2018-12-19, 01:29 AM

As a total tangent given the multiple posters who have opined they would rule “you must ride the summoned steed or it is abusing the spell, Crawford can blow it out his rear” and the definition of mount saying they primary carry your equipment, has anyone ever heard of a DM who has called out players for abusing the spell if the mount doesn’t spend a significant amount of time hauling equipment? That seems like a logical but absurd situation. “All you do is use your mount to carry you around when the clear game definition of mount says they are primarily for carrying your junk around. You are violating the intent of the spell and power gaming by putting your mount in constant danger for a mechanical benefit. Start living by the clear written definition of what a mount is about or forget using this spell anymore. Shame...shame!!”
You and your gear, yes. That's the primary purpose. You're misreading the "primary purpose" sentence in the PHB to try and exclude the rider. That's a clear strawman argument. It's a comment on the main benefit of a mount. It can carry a lot more than you can, including carrying more on top of carrying you and all your gear you carry. So nice try, but no.

The secondary purpose, at the players discretion, is sometimes to be ridden in combat, using the mounted combat rules.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-19, 01:49 AM

You and your gear, yes. That's the primary purpose. You're misreading the "primary purpose" sentence in the PHB to try and exclude the rider. That's a clear strawman argument. It's a comment on the main benefit of a mount. It can carry a lot more than you can, including carrying more on top of carrying you and all your gear you carry. So nice try, but no.

The secondary purpose, at the players discretion, is sometimes to be ridden in combat, using the mounted combat rules.

The exact wording once again

A good mount can help you move more quickly through the wilderness, but its primary purpose is to carry the gear that would otherwise slow you down.
Riding and carrying you and your equipment are clearly separated in this. I'm pretty sure that it's most aptly referring to using a wagon or cart pulling:
-Your parties camping gear
-Your loot
-Your unconscious wizard
-The 15 useless greatclubs that your rogue refused to leave with the bugbear corpses
-The head of the Manticore you just slew and need to present to the barony for payment
-and you

And I didn't bring it up to shut down the idea that mounts are intended to be ridden (clearly they are) it's because arguing that a steed summoned by the spell must be ridden (and not used for the multitude of other things "serving as a mount" entails) is just as much of a strawman. The spell doesn't mention any need for it to be ridden, just that you gain a benefit for doing so.

Just to show what I think is a reasonable use of Find Steed, which would be "against the intent of the spell" under a strict interpretation: A King serves in his court flanked by his guards and a group of Mastiff. The guards are elites, and the Mastiff are actually the bound steed of the Paladin's serving under the Oath of Crown to this King. Their oath to him granted them a way to maintain vigil over their king while serving him out in the kingdom as well. If anything untoward happens to the King, all Paladins within a mile will be there to deliver swift justice.

jdolch

2018-12-19, 01:49 AM

I think this thread has reached the point where nobody will convince anybody and we'll just have to agree to disagree. (we probably reached that point on page 2)

Arkhios

2018-12-19, 01:58 AM

I think this thread has reached the point where nobody will convince anybody and we'll just have to agree to disagree. (we probably reached that point on page 2)

FWIW, this topic has been beaten to death a long while ago, and many times before.

Still, whether it has to be ridable, there's only one person (per table) who can and will tell you that: Your DM. Ask, and learn.
If I had to judge, I admit it's difficult. On one hand, the spell's name has the word 'Steed', which itself refers to a horse. Considering that horses are/were used as either mounts or beasts of burden, it does kinda imply a mount.
On the other hand, since the spell does let you have a creature other than a horse, technically, it's up to you what you'll do with it, and the spell's description doesn't dictate whether you have to ride it or not. Thus, it's up to you (and your DM).

diplomancer

2018-12-19, 04:40 AM

There is room to disagree on interpretation of this spell but where your view has ended up at seems like a place 98% of players would be fine with. Even through I read the spell a little differently I’d personally be fine playing with this set of guidelines.

Thank you. To be honest, I believe that those 2% of players who are not ok with that are the annoying ones who spoil the game for all the table, and whom I am happy to filter out by my guidelines.

diplomancer

2018-12-19, 06:14 AM

It's ok to be in the 2%. That just means you are special :smallcool:

To the 98% of players; notice that the 2%, to defend their position, start making wild accusations about a conspiracy to create little tricks to discredit them, even when the accused conspirators have had different positions in the course of the discussion.

That is why I prefer to not play with them.

EDIT: Jdolch deleted his posts, I did not double-post or triple post. I guess I should have seen that this is the kind of maneuver a ruleslawyering powergamer would do to win an argument and should have selected "reply with quote". Lesson learned

diplomancer

2018-12-19, 06:36 AM

Interesting, because the 98% number came from someone who DISAGREES with my interpretation, but accepts it as a reasonable way to play, and, if playing with me, would accept the guidelines.

Actually, there have been, to my recolection, exactly 2 people who have considered my stated guidelines to be overly strict, and would refuse to play under them, even if they might disagree with my particular interpretation of the spell. You and Malefice. Though there have not been 100 posters to this discussion, we can extrapolate that, in a board with far more optimizers than the general populace of players, it is bound to have, mixed in with the regular optimizers, a greater ammount of rules-lawyering powergamers who complain about overly strict DMs.

My attempt to suggest that people say their guidelines was my attempt to make the discussion more productive. Sorry if that upset you in any way.

EDIT: Jdolch deleted his posts, I did not double-post or triple post. I guess I should have seen that this is the kind of maneuver a ruleslawyering powergamer would do to win an argument and should have selected "reply with quote". Lesson learned

MThurston

2018-12-19, 07:07 AM

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-19, 07:16 AM

{{Scrubbed}}

The question from page 1 is to determine the rules behind Find Steed, we should be taking a critical look to make a reasonable ruling. There's nothing wrong with that.

And once again, I must point out, that if we choose to use the definition that you're proposing a majority of the animals explicitly allowed to be summoned as a steed are incorrect. Seeing as they aren't horses.

My only goal has been to explain my reasoning to the best of my ability. Every single post I've made has included a variation of the idea "but you do what you want at your table, that's your right"

I support you and anyone else in their right to make a ruling based on their own interpretation of the rules, regardless of how much I might seem to disagree.

OvisCaedo

2018-12-19, 07:18 AM

I've got no horse in this race (heh), but it's always amusing to see people trying to use dictionary definitions to argue for rules in a game deliberately designed with a hard mechanical distinction between "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon".

though that's sort of the fault of the system itself for intentionally using both ends of the spectrum on casual wording and nitpicking

MThurston

2018-12-19, 07:31 AM

Keltest

2018-12-19, 07:50 AM

{{Scrubbed}}

Exactly this. The spell doesn't actually specifically say you have to ride it once you have it, but the intent of the spell is clearly to provide you with a rideable creature. Using it exclusively as a packmule and never to imitate a heavy cavalry charge is a criminal misuse of resources but is not using the spell to generate something it was never meant to generate, like a flying scout.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-19, 08:00 AM

LOL. My own ruling. It's the rule book.
1. Is every animal listed in Find Steed rideable? Don't add size of character. Don't try to manipulate the question to fit your answer.
Yes. Every animal on that list is rideable.

2. Why was a dog added?
For small characters to ride and not look silly.
Citation needed. Also you've gone against your own wishes and added creature size into the argument.

You can't argue that it's a RAW reading when no such distinction exists in the book. Nowhere in the spell does it say anything about your creature size inhibiting your ability to summon a mastiff with Find Steed. It just isn't there. Similarly, there's no wording that implies that you must use your mount to ride, mounts do not serve the sole purpose of being used for riding in and out of combat. Any animal not listed on the spell is up to the DM at that table to decide, not us.

And again, I have no issue with you ruling it this way at your table. It is not okay to call someone "a no good badwrongfun rules lawyer ruining my good time" if they don't see it the same way. Give someone else the same respect that you expect to be afforded when they decide on their own ruling.

diplomancer

2018-12-19, 08:07 AM

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-19, 08:33 AM

one other consideration, from the DM's point of view, explaining why I really would not like a player summoning a creature with this spell, even if it is one of the creatures expressly allowed by the spell, and then using it for other purposes while having a different creature as his steed:

The Steed is an NPC. An NPC capable of communicating directly with one of the player characters. Not only that, but due to its nature as a part of the group, it is probably THE NPC that will get the most screentime during the course of a campaign. It is my duty, as a DM, to understand the motivations of this NPC in order to roleplay him properly.

And what do I know about this NPC? That he formed a bond with the Paladin (or the Bard) to be his steed and left its home to come to the Prime Material Plane for that goal. If he cannot accomplish that goal, I have to roleplay him appropriately, as someone who is being frustrated at accomplishing his goals, foiled by the very person he trusted to make the bond with. That is a recipe for conflict and, possibly, even eventual betrayal.

On the other hand, as the Paladin actually used the steed as HIS steed, that would make the steed happier and happier as the Paladin progressed.
Mechanically, the steed does as it's commanded, acting on it's own when it isn't.

A Paladin should (in my opinion) be allowed a loyal mastiff steed if they choose "he is my eyes and ears on the king even when I am not present, his service to the kingdom is indispensable. Even from a great distance I keep in contact with him to ensure that all is well"

DM: "but you haven't taken him out of the castle in a week, he's kind of angry about it and he destroyed your rations in protest."

The Steed shares the goals of the one who summoned it, in and out of combat. Having your DM plot an inevitable betrayal is the sort of thing I expect from an Imp Familiar, not a Celestial Mastiff.

AHF

2018-12-19, 08:46 AM

Looks at definition of steed including 80% non-horses and features that (a) only apply when riding and (b) apply when not riding. Concludes that steed = horse and intent of rule is only for riding.

Sees sage advice from the guy who wrote that rule saying that using find steed to have a companion you never ride is a “great use of the the spell.”

Ignores author’s feedback in interpreting intent of text in order to read in limitations not present in the text based on an out of game definition of “steed.”

Who is the rules lawyer in this discussion?

diplomancer

2018-12-19, 08:46 AM

AHF

2018-12-19, 08:49 AM

Mechanically, you can only control your steed if you ride it, otherwise it is free to act as it will. Though it is loyal to you when it is summonned, there is nothing in the text of the spell forcing it to remain loyal after he realizes he has been conned, it is just a natural Role Playing consequence. The betrayal, if it ever came, would come after a long time of roleplaying conflict.

And forcing a Celestial Mastiff who came to the Prime Material Plane to serve you as your steed to have some other function while you ride out to glory on another creature is the sort of thing that I would expect from an Oath-breaker Paladin not a Good-aligned one ;)

There is no textual support for the idea that a steed would feel betrayed and duped if asked to do things other than let the PC ride on them. You have equally as much textual support for a Paladin becoming an oath breaker if he doesn’t have the steed constantly carrying his equipment.

Serving as a guard dog is much more the natural role of a mastiff both in game and in the real world than as a controlled mount. There is nothing wrong under the spell using a dog only as a controlled mount (that is 100% allowed under my reading) but if we are using out of game definitions of steed to support some theory that this spirit assumes the steed form after waiting a millennia wanting desperately to be ridden because that is the natural expectation of a horse then let’s not ignore the fact that this is not the natural expectation for a mastiff and most dogs even in D&D don’t fill this role.

diplomancer

2018-12-19, 08:52 AM

There is no textual support for the idea that a steed would feel betrayed and duped if asked to do things other than let the PC ride on them. You have equally as much textual support for a Paladin becoming an oath breaker if he doesn’t have the steed constantly carrying his equipment.

I never said that though. I said that it can feel duped if you hardly ever use it as a steed and decides to use something else instead. As it is an NPC, it is a full prerogative of the DM to decide how it will react to the con. At first, it will probably just be unhappy and point that out to his master. For most good Paladins, that would be sufficient for him to either release the spirit or to use it as it wants to be used.

It is not a dog. It is a spirit who took on the form of a dog, according to your request, when you summoned him to be your steed (even the phrase that mentions the dog says "your steed assumes the form..." even as a dog, it is still your steed, that's what you summoned)

MThurston

2018-12-19, 09:32 AM

Citation needed. Also you've gone against your own wishes and added creature size into the argument.

You can't argue that it's a RAW reading when no such distinction exists in the book. Nowhere in the spell does it say anything about your creature size inhibiting your ability to summon a mastiff with Find Steed. It just isn't there. Similarly, there's no wording that implies that you must use your mount to ride, mounts do not serve the sole purpose of being used for riding in and out of combat. Any animal not listed on the spell is up to the DM at that table to decide, not us.

And again, I have no issue with you ruling it this way at your table. It is not okay to call someone "a no good badwrongfun rules lawyer ruining my good time" if they don't see it the same way. Give someone else the same respect that you expect to be afforded when they decide on their own ruling.

Rules Lawyering again. You believe the rules are inclusive in the writting and they are not.

For you it has to say small creature must summon a dog. Medium creature must summon a warhorse, camel or Elk.

To save ink they did not put the above.

Now I have to listen to you say any creature is able to be summoned.

MThurston

2018-12-19, 09:37 AM

MThurston

2018-12-19, 09:43 AM

There is no textual support for the idea that a steed would feel betrayed and duped if asked to do things other than let the PC ride on them. You have equally as much textual support for a Paladin becoming an oath breaker if he doesn’t have the steed constantly carrying his equipment.

Serving as a guard dog is much more the natural role of a mastiff both in game and in the real world than as a controlled mount. There is nothing wrong under the spell using a dog only as a controlled mount (that is 100% allowed under my reading) but if we are using out of game definitions of steed to support some theory that this spirit assumes the steed form after waiting a millennia wanting desperately to be ridden because that is the natural expectation of a horse then let’s not ignore the fact that this is not the natural expectation for a mastiff and most dogs even in D&D don’t fill this role.

Because of bad rules writting I would ask you why you wouldn't want a rideable steed for your medium frame.

After awhile the dog would go away and find steed would not work for the Paladin.

Why do you ask? Because the gift is not being uses as Intended. If you don't want a steed to ride into combat, then you don't need one.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-19, 10:13 AM

Mechanically, you can only control your steed if you ride it, otherwise it is free to act as it will. Though it is loyal to you when it is summonned, there is nothing in the text of the spell forcing it to remain loyal after he realizes he has been conned, it is just a natural Role Playing consequence. The betrayal, if it ever came, would come after a long time of roleplaying conflict.

And forcing a Celestial Mastiff who came to the Prime Material Plane to serve you as your steed to have some other function while you ride out to glory on another creature is the sort of thing that I would expect from an Oath-breaker Paladin not a Good-aligned one... that sort of betrayal could even break one of the tenets of his oath, and if the Paladin is unrepentant about it, well... ;)
Paladin's gain their power through their oath. This particular Paladin gained this power through the Oath of the Crown, he is sworn in all ways to protect his king.

It makes absolutely perfect sense that his steed would be on board with that goal, no matter what it entails. He's working directly to protect the king while the Paladin works out in the city to enforce the kings will, why would he feel anything but satisfaction? What higher honor for him and his summoner is there than protecting their charge?

Because of bad rules writting I would ask you why you wouldn't want a rideable steed for your medium frame.

After awhile the dog would go away and find steed would not work for the Paladin.

Why do you ask? Because the gift is not being uses as Intended. If you don't want a steed to ride into combat, then you don't need one.
The intent is that you summon a steed, there is nothing in the spell that requires anything to be done specifically with it after it's summoned.

MThurston

2018-12-19, 10:23 AM

Paladin's gain their power through their oath. This particular Paladin gained this power through the Oath of the Crown, he is sworn in all ways to protect his king.

It makes absolutely perfect sense that his steed would be on board with that goal, no matter what it entails. He's working directly to protect the king while the Paladin works out in the city to enforce the kings will, why would he feel anything but satisfaction? What higher honor for him and his summoner is there than protecting their charge?

The intent is that you summon a steed, there is nothing in the spell that requires anything to be done specifically with it after it's summoned.
SMH.

They have trained dog already for that. And your dog is no better than them besides the int bump. Same HPs.

If you don't need him to ride, then you don't need him at all.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-19, 10:31 AM

SMH.

They have trained dog already for that. And your dog is no better than them besides the int bump. Same HPs.

If you don't need him to ride, then you don't need him at all.

You misunderstand. A trained dog isn't sufficient in this case as it can't telepathically contact the Paladin at the king's request.

You shake that head anymore and you're gonna sprain your neck.

MThurston

2018-12-19, 10:42 AM

You misunderstand. A trained dog isn't sufficient in this case as it can't telepathically contact the Paladin at the king's request.

You shake that head anymore and you're gonna sprain your neck.

You misunderstand. While your out in that dungeon your dog and the King are dead to the assassin.

It does no good to have YOUR loyal mount away from you for long periods of time.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-12-19, 10:51 AM

You misunderstand. While your out in that dungeon your dog and the King are dead to the assassin.

It does no good to have YOUR loyal mount away from you for long periods of time.

It doesn't have to be with you to do good for you, it's doing good for the king, which is in turn a good thing for you. This was just an example I presented of what I see as a good and creative use of the spell.

Not every adventure involves a dungeon delve, in fact one of the most recent published adventure is a city setting. It's quite useless to have a warhorse in the sewers. Equally as useless to have a warhorse in a dungeon with corridors that would prevent it from squeezing through. You can't take a warhorse with you into a house or into dangerous mountainous terrain.

You could very reasonably make use of a Mastiff in all of those locations though. It would be a really bum move for your divine power to "gift" you with a warhorse shortly before your plans for an indoor assault because "this is what you're allowed, who cares what you want or need".