Paladin Mount and Smite spells

[Grayson01]

So here is the question I have,

The find steed say below:
“While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed”.

If you cast say Wrathful Smite on your self
“Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

The next time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, your attack deals an extra 1d6 psychic damage. Additionally, if the target is a creature, it must make a Wisdom saving throw or be frightened of you until the spell ends. As an action, the creature can make a Wisdom check against your spell save DC to steel its resolve and end this spell”.

Would it also be cast on the steed since the target of the spell is only self. And then you could strike with a weapon attach and your steed could donkey kick a target(or separate targets) and the targets would suffer the effects of the Smite spell from both the Paladin and from the horse?

[Witty Username]

Per JC rulings, and Sage Advice. Mount doesn't smite because it targets both the smiter and the smited. The short version is this gets weird, I recommend drawing your own lines.

[Keltest]

So by RAW, this should work. The trouble is getting the mount to attack. In order for that to happen it has to be acting independently, and its a bit up in the air whether Find Steed's mount will actually do that.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

Per JC rulings, and Sage Advice. Mount doesn't smite because it targets both the smiter and the smited. The short version is this gets weird, I recommend drawing your own lines.

That precedent is pretty flimsy. I mean that would put Armor of Agathys on the no go list also by the same logic but still allow crown of stars which seems... odd.

Someone should ask JC if you can cast shapechange while riding on your magic steed and transform from one idiot bard on a stolen magic pony into two ancient brass dragons and see if his head explodes because by RAW I think that would work.

[claypigeons]

That precedent is pretty flimsy. I mean that would put Armor of Agathys on the no go list also by the same logic but still allow crown of stars which seems... odd.

Someone should ask JC if you can cast shapechange while riding on your magic steed and transform from one idiot bard on a stolen magic pony into two ancient brass dragons and see if his head explodes because by RAW I think that would work.

It's the same "logic" that disqualifies Dragon's Breath but allows Haste.

JC either doesn't know how his own rules work, or he's confused as to how plain English operates.

Dragon's Breath targets one creature. It gives you an optional Bonus Action ability that can effect multiple targets.

Haste targets one creature. It gives you an extra attack that can target multiple creatures (albeit on multiple turns).

Why is one allowed and the other isn't? Because the wind was blowing a certain way when the question was asked.

[diplomancer]

It should work, but it doesn't. Ask your DM.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

It's the same "logic" that disqualifies Dragon's Breath but allows Haste.

JC either doesn't know how his own rules work, or he's confused as to how plain English operates.

I agree in general with your point but I think Dragons Breath is a touch spell not range: self so would be ineligible since the steed spells only duplicate range: self type magic Haste likewise I think it's 60' range or something. But RAW I think you could duplicate Shadow Blade, but not smites. Which is a similar situation, and leads to the hilarious mental image of a griffin flying around shanking people with a magical sword "you are proficient in" full stop

[claypigeons]

I agree in general with your point but I think Dragons Breath is a touch spell not range: self so would be ineligible since the steed spells only duplicate range: self type magic

I wasn't speaking just about the Find Steed share spells, it was more about JCs lack of logical consistency in the rulings in general.

[Kenny_Snoggins]

I wasn't speaking just about the Find Steed share spells, it was more about JCs lack of logical consistency in the rulings in general.

Yeah I agree. That whole spell is a Sage Advice mess, like is it a controlled mount? Does it have those restrictions even though it says it follows your orders in combat?

Now I really want to see someone use a ring of spell storing to give a wizard a griffin that he casts Tensers transformation while riding so I can see a magic bird cat pick up a pair of lances and just skewer people

[Zalabim]

It's the same "logic" that disqualifies Dragon's Breath but allows Haste.

JC either doesn't know how his own rules work, or he's confused as to how plain English operates.

Dragon's Breath targets one creature. It gives you an optional Bonus Action ability that can effect multiple targets.

Haste targets one creature. It gives you an extra attack that can target multiple creatures (albeit on multiple turns).

Why is one allowed and the other isn't? Because the wind was blowing a certain way when the question was asked.

This has been explained a million times in very plain language. You'd have to bury your head under a rock to still not understand it.

The action granted by haste can be used to do things the character can already do. The action to use dragon's breath only exists within the spell. The creature touched is using your spell to deal damage to other creatures. It's the same logic that allows life cleric to make great berries. Disagree with the ruling if you want. I just wish people would stop RPing that it isn't consistent with existing rulings.

[claypigeons]

This has been explained a million times in very plain language. You'd have to bury your head under a rock to still not understand it.

The action granted by haste can be used to do things the character can already do. The action to use dragon's breath only exists within the spell. The creature touched is using your spell to deal damage to other creatures. It's the same logic that allows life cleric to make great berries. Disagree with the ruling if you want. I just wish people would stop RPing that it isn't consistent with existing rulings.

When cast, the spell targets one creature. It doesn't matter what comes after. You can pretzel twist the logic all you like, but Twin Spell and the spell text itself means it qualifies. You don't target creatures in the area anyway, otherwise invisible creatures would be immune.

[LudicSavant]

When cast, the spell targets one creature. It doesn't matter what comes after.

Fireball when cast initially targets a point in space, and after it hits that point in space it expands to deal 8d6 damage to targets in its area of effect.

The foes hit by AoE spells (including Fireball) are referred to repeatedly as targets, both in the PHB (in the section on how multi-target attacks work in general) and in the DMG (in the section on adjudicating area of effect spells).

Likewise, any creature that makes a saving throw against your spell DC is referred to as a target of the spell (in the PHB general rules on spellcasting).

[claypigeons]

Fireball when cast initially targets a point in space, and after it hits that point in space it expands to deal 8d6 damage to targets in its area of effect.

The foes hit by AoE spells (including Fireball) are referred to repeatedly as targets, both in the PHB (in the section on how multi-target attacks work in general) and in the DMG (in the section on adjudicating area of effect spells).

Likewise, any creature that makes a saving throw against your spell DC is referred to as a target of the spell (in the PHB general rules on spellcasting).

You can't twin fireball anyway, because, as you stated, it initially targets a point, not a creature.

Dragon's Breath doesn't target anyone except upon initial cast. It simply states creatures in the area of effect are subject to a Dexterity save.

If we are using spell text to dictate how rulings are made, it should at least be consistent throughout.

[LudicSavant]

You can't twin fireball anyway, because, as you stated, it initially targets a point, not a creature.

Dragon's Breath doesn't target anyone except upon initial cast. It simply states creatures in the area of effect are subject to a Dexterity save.

With Dragon's Breath, the target is making a saving throw. Against what? A spell DC. Where do you go to find out what a Spell DC is?

You go here, to this section of the Player's Handbook:

The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure. The DC to resist one of your spells equals 8 +your
spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus + any special modifiers.

In short, like Zalabim said. You're hitting them with your own spell power.

Dragon's Breath is subject to all of the rules for hitting an enemy with an AoE spell. Like all AoE spells, creatures making a saving throw against the spell are targets of the spell.

The fact that the AoE is created by another creature's action is not relevant to any rule in the book.

[diplomancer]

I agree in general with your point but I think Dragons Breath is a touch spell not range: self so would be ineligible since the steed spells only duplicate range: self type magic Haste likewise I think it's 60' range or something. But RAW I think you could duplicate Shadow Blade, but not smites. Which is a similar situation, and leads to the hilarious mental image of a griffin flying around shanking people with a magical sword "you are proficient in" full stop

The Find Steed spell doubling feature does not care about Range, but about target, and it says "targets only you", not "can target only you". Cure Wounds, cast by the Paladin on himself, will heal his Steed as well.

[claypigeons]

With Dragon's Breath, the target is making a saving throw. Against what? A spell DC. Where do you go to find out what a Spell DC is?

You go here, to this section of the Player's Handbook:


In short, like Zalabim said. You're hitting them with your own spell power.

Dragon's Breath is subject to all of the rules for hitting an enemy with an AoE spell. Like all AoE spells, creatures making a saving throw against the spell are targets of the spell.

The fact that the AoE is created by another creature's action is not relevant to any rule in the book.

Inconsistency in the wording is the problem. I can repeat myself some more, if it will help.

[LudicSavant]

Inconsistency in the wording is the problem. I can repeat myself some more, if it will help.

Given the above rules from the PHB and DMG, what precisely is the inconsistency that you believe would permit you to use Dragon's Breath in the manner you desire?

Edit
Before you answer, let me remind you:
- The consistent language convention in D&D 5e is that when they say "the target" they mean "the target (at that step of resolution)" not "the (only) target." For instance, for Fireball, "the target" is initially a point in space. A bead travels to that point in space then explodes, and "the targets" take 8d6 fire damage. If you were to assume that 'the target' meant 'the ONLY target,' you would be assuming wrong.

- Per the general spellcasting rules, if you make a saving throw against a spell, you are a target of that spell.

- Per the DMG rules on adjudicating AoEs and the PHB rules on damaging multiple creatures simultaneously, creatures hit by an AoE spell are targets of that spell.

[diplomancer]

It's just weird to use the same word for the one who gets a special ability from a spell and for the ones that are attacked by that ability, but I'm not sure I have a better suggestion than "target" for both, to be honest.

[claypigeons]

Given the above rules from the PHB and DMG, what precisely is the inconsistency that you believe would permit you to use Dragon's Breath in the manner you desire?

Edit
Before you answer, let me remind you:
- The consistent language convention in D&D 5e is that when they say "the target" they mean "the target (at that step of resolution)" not "the (only) target." For instance, for Fireball, "the target" is initially a point in space. A bead travels to that point in space then explodes, and "the targets" take 8d6 fire damage. If you were to assume that 'the target' meant 'the ONLY target,' you would be assuming wrong.

- Per the general spellcasting rules, if you make a saving throw against a spell, you are a target of that spell.

- Per the DMG rules on adjudicating AoEs and the PHB rules on damaging multiple creatures simultaneously, creatures hit by an AoE spell are targets of that spell.

I'm not arguing for the use of Dragon's Breath. It was merely the example case.

If, on subsequent rounds, whatever creatures you effect with the breath become "targets", which disqualifies the use of the spell in conjunction with Twin, then so too, should whatever you attack with Haste.

Logically, the extra attack you make causes another creature to be effected by the mechanical effects of the spell.

---

I have spent the better part of two decades immersed in the exercise of pedantry that is 3.5e. As annoying as that is much of the time, I feel like 5e could use a little more of it. Instead of endless errata to fix wording, they could just do a bit of review and editing the first time. Leaving things unfinished with the outlook that whatever DM is running the game will fix it is lazy, especially when they go back later and make errata.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm not arguing for the use of Dragon's Breath. It was merely the example case.

If, on subsequent rounds, whatever creatures you effect with the breath become "targets", which disqualifies the use of the spell in conjunction with Twin, then so too, should whatever you attack with Haste.

Logically, the extra attack you make causes another creature to be effected by the mechanical effects of the spell.

All right... what, exactly, does Haste do to another target, according to you? It must be something caused by Haste, not something the original (and only) target of the spell could already do.

[LudicSavant]

I'm not arguing for the use of Dragon's Breath. It was merely the example case.

If, on subsequent rounds, whatever creatures you effect with the breath become "targets", which disqualifies the use of the spell in conjunction with Twin, then so too, should whatever you attack with Haste.

They don't just 'become targets' for no reason.


- Per the general spellcasting rules, if you make a saving throw against a spell, you are a target of that spell.

- Per the DMG rules on adjudicating AoEs and the PHB rules on damaging multiple creatures simultaneously, creatures hit by an AoE spell are targets of that spell.

These rules apply to Dragon's Breath. They do not apply to Haste, because Haste is neither an AoE nor does it inflict a saving throw against your spell DC.

[JonBeowulf]

Whole lotta back-and-forth.

In short, (American) English sucks.

“We are tied down to a language which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style.”
― Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

[LibraryOgre]

My knee-jerk response is that the next attack between the two of you has this effect.

So, I smite. My horse whiffs its attacks, and so I get an attack. If I hit, I get the bonus damage, and the spell dissipates. If I miss, my steed gets another go, until one of us hits, I cease concentration, or a minute has passed.

[ixrisor]

I think that twin spell and find steed use similar enough language that if you can’t share dragon’s breath, you also can’t twin it.

[nickl_2000]

Our table ruled that is applies to both, but only triggers once. So whoever hit first, the paladin or the horse, they caused the extra damage.

Not RAW, but it was a decent compromise.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's the same "logic" that disqualifies Dragon's Breath but allows Haste.

JC either doesn't know how his own rules work, or he's confused as to how plain English operates. Yes.


This has been explained a million times in very plain language. Just because someone says to you "you are a pecan pie" a million times doesn't make it true.

Our table ruled that is applies to both, but only triggers once. So whoever hit first, the paladin or the horse, they caused the extra damage.

Not RAW, but it was a decent compromise. Funnily enough, so did we (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/62330/22566) ... but there is a lot of good exploration of that synergy at the link.

[Zalabim]

Just because someone says to you "you are a pecan pie" a million times doesn't make it true.
So does that mean I shouldn't be fed up with hearing it? In this case "JC gives insane answers at random with no consistent logic to them" is the pecan pie.

Or I might say you are a pecan pie because you're sweet, Southern, and mostly nuts.

[diplomancer]

So does that mean I shouldn't be fed up with hearing it? In this case "JC gives insane answers at random with no consistent logic to them" is the pecan pie.

Or I might say you are a pecan pie because you're sweet, Southern, and mostly nuts.

For myself, my position to Crawford's tweets and rulings is this:

If it's on Sage Advice Compendium, I accept it as RAI, and pretty much always follow -and expect DMs to follow as well, but am alright if they don't.

If it's not on Sage Advice Compendium, it's an experienced player's opinion. Worth to listen to, but no more valid than the opinion of other experienced players.

[MrStabby]

It's just weird to use the same word for the one who gets a special ability from a spell and for the ones that are attacked by that ability, but I'm not sure I have a better suggestion than "target" for both, to be honest.

Yeah, some of the words get a bit overloaded. The question abou whether a word is being used as one meaning or another or if there is only one meaning but its all a bit strained is all too common.




For myself, my position to Crawford's tweets and rulings is this:

If it's on Sage Advice Compendium, I accept it as RAI, and pretty much always follow -and expect DMs to follow as well, but am alright if they don't.

If it's not on Sage Advice Compendium, it's an experienced player's opinion. Worth to listen to, but no more valid than the opinion of other experienced players.

I use the guide of: "if after due consideration and sobering up, they decide that a particular rulling was a good one and significant enough that, in the author's mind, other players should follow, then it will be added to the Errata. If upon clearing their hangover they decide not to add it to the errata then just ignore it."



I don't have an issue with the smite spells being twinned. From a design perspective it seems liike these are an iconic class of spell for the paladin and if anything should ineract with this ability it should be these spells. Also, the argument that they don't have another target seems the more sane one - if you are in an empty room and there is no one you could possibly want to attack and therefore the steed is the only target, then you can cast it... but if an enemy happens to be walking by at the time then suddenly you can't cast it?

I see this as an effect at the time of casting and it follows the restrictions at the time of casting. If when you cast wrathful smite it targets only you, then when you cast it you can twin it. If it later aquires other things it might "target" (though does the spell target that enemy or is it the steed targeting the enemy or is it the attack argetting the enemy?) then thats not really an issue to me.

[JackPhoenix]

I use the guide of: "if after due consideration and sobering up, they decide that a particular rulling was a good one and significant enough that, in the author's mind, other players should follow, then it will be added to the Errata. If upon clearing their hangover they decide not to add it to the errata then just ignore it."

That's pretty bad guide, considering errata is for the changes in the actual RULES, it has nothing to do with rulings. The best, most reasonable and fun ruling in the world has no place in erratas.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So does that mean I shouldn't be fed up with hearing it? In this case "JC gives insane answers at random with no consistent logic to them" is the pecan pie.

Or I might say you are a pecan pie because you're sweet, Southern, and mostly nuts.

He's doomed to that for all of eternity because of his mistake of making a tweet about Shield Master.

I'm only half joking here. Afaik it's the only ruling he's made and then reversed/reconsidered his opinion on that people felt so genuinely upset by that it soured his reputation in their eyes from then on.



I see this as an effect at the time of casting and it follows the restrictions at the time of casting. If when you cast wrathful smite it targets only you, then when you cast it you can twin it. If it later aquires other things it might "target" (though does the spell target that enemy or is it the steed targeting the enemy or is it the attack argetting the enemy?) then thats not really an issue to me.

How would you rule on Aura of Vitality then? Does the mount get its own aura that doubles the effective healing? Remember that Aura of Vitality doesn't do anything when cast, so by your reasoning this should work.

[diplomancer]

He's doomed to that for all of eternity because of his mistake of making a tweet about Shield Master.

I'm only half joking here. Afaik it's the only ruling he's made and then reversed/reconsidered his opinion on that people felt so genuinely upset by that it soured his reputation in their eyes from then on.



How would you rule on Aura of Vitality then? Does the mount get its own aura that doubles the effective healing? Remember that Aura of Vitality doesn't do anything when cast, so by your reasoning this should work.

Aura of Vitality is not twinned for the same reason Cone of Cold isn't. It's an AoE spell, with the point of origin being the caster. That's what "Range: Self (X' Cone/Radius/Square)" means

[ProsecutorGodot]

Aura of Vitality is not twinned for the same reason Cone of Cold isn't. It's an AoE spell, with the point of origin being the caster. That's what "Range: Self (X' Cone/Radius/Square)" means

I understand that, but that's not what MrStabby's reasoning would support. They've effectively attributed an aoe to the smite spells and suggested that so long as no target is within your striking distance it should be okay for it to twin to your steed.

And it fails for the same reason the most radial aoe spells do aside from the obvious in that they also target an area - your steed is in the aoe, your steed is a target.

[Witty Username]

That precedent is pretty flimsy. I mean that would put Armor of Agathys on the no go list also by the same logic but still allow crown of stars which seems... odd.

Someone should ask JC if you can cast shapechange while riding on your magic steed and transform from one idiot bard on a stolen magic pony into two ancient brass dragons and see if his head explodes because by RAW I think that would work.

Crown of stars would be disallowed as dealing radiant damage would qualify being targeted by the spell. Dragon Breath, Armor of Agathys, and even shapechage, haste, and divine favor get iffy. The short version I would say is do what feels right, RAW is not very helpful for what makes sense in this case.
But the general sense is things like haste modify the actions of the target, so those resulting actions aren't associated with the spell. But Dragon's breath is affected so the logic isn't perfect.
Guidelines
-does it add actions or modify actions, generally adding is targeting other creatures, modify is not
-does it use spell attacks or saves
- Is the effect part of the spell description or elsewhere, if it is part of the spell description it likely targets the effected


But this gets to inane arguments like "does fireball deal damage?" which at that point what RAW says has ceased being helpful.

[LudicSavant]

Guidelines
-does it add actions or modify actions, generally adding is targeting other creatures, modify is not
-does it use spell attacks or saves


Those guidelines sound about right.

[diplomancer]

Crown of stars would be disallowed as dealing radiant damage would qualify being targeted by the spell. Dragon Breath, Armor of Agathys, and even shapechage, haste, and divine favor get iffy. The short version I would say is do what feels right, RAW is not very helpful for what makes sense in this case.
But the general sense is things like haste modify the actions of the target, so those resulting actions aren't associated with the spell. But Dragon's breath is affected so the logic isn't perfect.
Guidelines
-does it add actions or modify actions, generally adding is targeting other creatures, modify is not
-does it use spell attacks or saves
- Is the effect part of the spell description or elsewhere, if it is part of the spell description it likely targets the effected


But this gets to inane arguments like "does fireball deal damage?" which at that point what RAW says has ceased being helpful.

Sage Advice Compendium, talking about twin spell metamagic, has similar guidelines, though obviously some of them don't apply here (like having a Range of Self disqualifies it). Still, I find it interesting how tentative it all is; they make it specially clear that what they are talking about is RAI. Since all of Sage Advice Compendium is RAI, I find it interesting that they thought it necessary to highlight this fact for this particular ruling, it's like they know that RAW doesn't really support it (not that there is anything wrong with that).


If you know this rule yet are still unsure whether a particular spell qualifies for Twinned Spell, consult with your DM, who has the final say. If the two of you are curious about our design intent, here is the list of things that disqualify a spell for us:

-The spell has a range of self.
-The spell can target an object.
-The spell allows you to choose more than one creature to be affected by it, particularly at the level you’re casting the spell. Some spells increase their number of potential targets when you cast them at a higher level.
-The spell can force more than one creature to make a saving throw before the spell’s duration expires.
-The spell lets you make a roll of any kind that can affect more than one creature before the spell’s duration expires.

What really surprises me on those guidelines is "can target an object" as a disqualifier for Twinned spells. No twinned fire bolt, even if you target two creatures? That's nonsense, and would actually give credence to the idea that Find Steed has to have a Range of Self (as it has the same writing; in the Twinned Spell's case, it says "targets only one creature", not "can target only one creature", in the same way that Find Steed says "targets only you" not "can only target you").

For reference, we are talking about these spells (for Paladins, Bards would have other options, obviously):
- The smite spells (which don't work, according to these guidelines)
- Divine Favor (does it work? Creatures take extra damage from your attacks, but they don't have to make a saving throw. Still, they are obviously being affected by the spell)
-Locate Object
- Spirit Shroud (like Divine Favor, it's iffy if it works)
- Locate Creature.
-Dispel Evil and Good

So, taking those Sage Advice Guidelines and applying them to Find Steed, those are the two Paladin spells that unambiguously work with it:
1- Locate Creature
2- Locate Object.

(And even that is generous. Isn't the creature/object being located by the spell affected by it?),

and:
3- Dispel Evil and Good. This particular spell is complicated ; it affects all celestials, fey, fiends, elementals and undead who try to attack you, by imposing disadvantage on them. So maybe it doesn't work. To add insult to injury, it gives you two special functions that can end the spell early if you decide to use them, and they both inequivocably have different targets. But, assuming that the DM does not disqualify the spell immediately for imposing disadvantage on those outsiders ( going with the interpretation that it's you that is protected, not the creatures who are affected), does the fact that you have an option to affect other targets at some point of the duration of the spell means that this spell affects other creatures, disqualifying it, even if you never exercise that option? What a mess!

Subclasses add a bit more; Armor of Agathys (maybe), Commune, Speak With Animals, Misty Step (awesome, specially before Find Greater Steed), Commune with Nature, Tree Stride (a lot from Ancient's Paladin!), See Invisibility, Scrying (doesn't work, has another target).

Meanwhile, Bards are Shapechanging their steeds into Ancient Dragons. Isn't that nice?