Find Steed and Smite

[Tasvel]

I'm DMing for a group that has a paladin that recently picked up Find Steed. Looking at the rules, it seems to me as if the paladin can cast one of his specialized smite spells and have it affect BOTH the next attack for the mount and his next weapon attack (due to the shared nature of spells). This seems... very, very powerful to me. I can't find anything online even talking about this, for or against.

I'm surprised. Is there a ruling I don't know about that everyone already knows?

[Flashy]

I'm DMing for a group that has a paladin that recently picked up Find Steed. Looking at the rules, it seems to me as if the paladin can cast one of his specialized smite spells and have it affect BOTH the next attack for the mount and his next weapon attack (due to the shared nature of spells). This seems... very, very powerful to me. I can't find anything online even talking about this, for or against.

I'm surprised. Is there a ruling I don't know about that everyone already knows?

It seems to me that it isn't an effect which targets you, it's an effect which targets the next enemy you hit. You're just maintaining it until you get the hit off.

[Talyn]

Flashy is correct. The "Smite" line of spells doesn't actually target yourself - it puts a magical effect "in the chamber", so to speak, which is then fired the next time you hit someone while the spell is active. Your steed does not also get that smite.

[Chronos]

You guys might want to check the actual rules. The smite spells are all listed as "Range: Self", so yes, they do target you, and yes, you can share them with your mount.

[Mandragola]

I have to say that, as much as I don't think it makes sense for smites from steeds to work, it's tricky to find a clear ruling that says they shouldn't.

The rules stipulate that it must be a spell you cast, which targets only you. Honestly, that does seem to be the case with the smite spells. They are like one-shot self-buffs. You power yourself up and then the next time you hit something a not-very-impressive spell goes off. Pop.

I honestly don't think it's likely to break the game to allow a warhorse to do a smite. If anything it makes the very sub-par smite spells start to look like you might actually prepare them... maybe. I never have so far myself while playing my paladin, who has just hit 5th and picked up his steed.

The rules for steeds are odd, and I don't understand them. I understand that it gets its own initiative score, but that seems absurd in practice. I think I'm able to tell it what to do telepathically, and it does what I want, so I should get to control it. But what happens exactly if I go before it in the order, so I have to just sit there - or if it goes first and trots up to a monster which then wanders off before I get a chance to stick it with my lance? Best plan appears to be for me to use misty step and teleport us both next to the monster again. At least the mounted combat feat is clear enough and I can have my horse dodge fireballs, though somehow I still get hit for the full effect while sat on its back!

[Mr.Moron]

I'm DMing for a group that has a paladin that recently picked up Find Steed. Looking at the rules, it seems to me as if the paladin can cast one of his specialized smite spells and have it affect BOTH the next attack for the mount and his next weapon attack (due to the shared nature of spells). This seems... very, very powerful to me. I can't find anything online even talking about this, for or against.

I'm surprised. Is there a ruling I don't know about that everyone already knows?

You're the GM a ruling is yours and yours alone to make. There is no ruling out there for you to find, because you haven't made it yet.

At any rate I wouldn't allow it. It seems clear that it isn't what the spell and sharing rules were meant to do and isn't particularly thematic to me. Ruling for it adds nothing to the game except more damage charOP, which isn't something I consider to be of much value.

[coredump]

The rules say nothing about a range of 'self', it says it must 'target only the paladin'.

I would rule that Smite spells do not 'target' the Paladin.

[Flashy]

You're the GM a ruling is yours and yours alone to make. There is no ruling out there for you to find, because you haven't made it yet.

At any rate I wouldn't allow it. It seems clear that it isn't what the spell and sharing rules were meant to do and isn't particularly thematic to me. Ruling for it adds nothing to the game except more damage charOP, which isn't something I consider to be of much value.

Agreed. I might be willing to let someone apply it to their mount's attack instead of their own attack, but the circumstances would have to be pretty compelling.

[numerek]

post removed

[Giant2005]

I'm DMing for a group that has a paladin that recently picked up Find Steed. Looking at the rules, it seems to me as if the paladin can cast one of his specialized smite spells and have it affect BOTH the next attack for the mount and his next weapon attack (due to the shared nature of spells). This seems... very, very powerful to me. I can't find anything online even talking about this, for or against.

I'm surprised. Is there a ruling I don't know about that everyone already knows?

It is true that the mount would benefit from the buff but the mount couldn't do anything with it.
The mount only gets the buff if you cast it when you are riding it and a controlled mount can't attack (having a direct line into the beast's brain is about as controlled as it gets). To actually make the tactic work, the Paladin would have to use the absurd technique of entering combat mounted, casting the spell, having his attack, waiting for the mount to attack, remounting, and repeating. Technically that tactic would work just fine without any real downsides and you would get the double smite every second turn but it is also insanely ridiculous and most DMs would probably fix it by houseruling that mounting and dismounting within melee range of an enemy provokes an Opportunity Attack.

[Daishain]

The target is not the paladin, therefore it doesn't work. "Range: self" is not the same as the spell targeting oneself, in this case it merely indicates that one cannot buff others with it. It is an offensive spell that is triggered along with a melee attack, the target in this case is the unlucky bastard at the other end of one's glaive. We've been over this before, although in previous discussions it was Cone of Cold, an even more abusable spell to double.

P.S. Giant, your scenario is indeed ridiculous, though not for the reasons you give. Nothing in the rules indicates that you must dismount for your mount to act.

Now, there is an issue of control. If one is actually directing a mount, then attention is taken away from other tasks. If one is not doing so, then a normal mount is likely to be somewhat less predictable, and a GM is perfectly within bounds to say that it decides to run away from the gnashing things with tentacles the rider was trying to attack. In the paladin's case, it is both intelligent and in near perfect sync with its rider thanks to the telepathic bond, Its actions are predictable enough that the player can dictate much of its actions without being considered in direct control, there would be some exceptions, but they'd be relatively rare.

[Giant2005]

The target is not the paladin, therefore it doesn't work. "Range: self" is not the same as the spell targeting oneself, in this case it merely indicates that one cannot buff others with it. It is an offensive spell that is triggered along with a melee attack, the target in this case is the unlucky bastard at the other end of one's glaive. We've been over this before, although in previous discussions it was Cone of Cold, an even more abusable spell to double.

The Paladin is the target - there doesn't even have to be an enemy in the vicinity that you could call a target. It is a self buff that makes your next attack do more damage and possibly trigger a rider effect. Ruling otherwise would have some far reaching ramifications well beyond the scope of any possible synergy with find steed. If it worked the way you suggest, then you couldn't cast the spell without an enemy around, you couldn't cast the spell if your enemy was behind cover, and you would have to pick your target upojn casting the spell which would make it useless if that target died prior to your attack or the circumstances changed in a manner that made something else the most opportune target. Your ruling makes an already sucky line of spells even suckier.

P.S. Giant, your scenario is indeed ridiculous, though not for the reasons you give. Nothing in the rules indicates that you must dismount for your mount to act.

Now, there is an issue of control. If one is actually directing a mount, then attention is taken away from other tasks. If one is not doing so, then a normal mount is likely to be somewhat less predictable, and a GM is perfectly within bounds to say that it decides to run away from the gnashing things with tentacles the rider was trying to attack. In the paladin's case, it is both intelligent and in near perfect sync with its rider thanks to the telepathic bond, Its actions are predictable enough that the player can dictate much of its actions without being considered in direct control, there would be some exceptions, but they'd be relatively rare.

It doesn't really matter if you consider the mount to be controlled or uncontrolled - both states share some hefty downsides. If you consider it controlled, then the mount can't attack and the entire conversation is moot. If you consider it uncontrolled then the Paladin is the one facing severe restrictions on his attacks (He would have to skip his turn and wait for the mount's initiative before they could move to their enemy), the Paladin could use the Ready Action each turn so he could strike on the mount's turn when it has moved them in range, but that means no Extra Attack feature, no bonus attack and no potential reactionary attack. It could work if you house-ruled yourself a mounted state where you essentially took all of the best bits from the controlled and uncontrolled states and threw out the negative aspects of both but people tend to frown on that level of munchkinery.

[Daishain]

If it worked the way you suggest, then you couldn't cast the spell without an enemy around, you couldn't cast the spell if your enemy was behind cover, and you would have to pick your target upojn casting the spell which would make it useless if that target died prior to your attack or the circumstances changed in a manner that made something else the most opportune target. Your ruling makes an already sucky line of spells even suckier.

no rules or reasonable rulings suggest, much less state this. Besides, developers have already confirmed that Range:self DOES NOT indicate that oneself is considered the target for such spells. Like I said, we've been over this crap before, the poor wording does not indicate a valid loophole.

It doesn't really matter if you consider the mount to be controlled or uncontrolled - both states share some hefty downsides. If you consider it controlled, then the mount can't attack and the entire conversation is moot. If you consider it uncontrolled then the Paladin is the one facing severe restrictions on his attacks (He would have to skip his turn and wait for the mount's initiative before they could move to their enemy), the Paladin could use the Ready Action each turn so he could strike on the mount's turn when it has moved them in range, but that means no Extra Attack feature, no bonus attack and no potential reactionary attack. It could work if you house-ruled yourself a mounted state where you essentially took all of the best bits from the controlled and uncontrolled states and threw out the negative aspects of both but people tend to frown on that level of munchkinery.

Funny, I've always considered it a violation to keep the ill considered RAW that controlled mounts can't attack, and/or that characters must always take their turns in discrete units even when the situation makes doing so ridiculous. That just leads to both the rules failing to cover a large number of scenarios and rules exploitation like one finds with the commoner railgun (which doesn't work for its intended purpose as a weapon, but still leads to near instant transportation of goods or even people over vast distances).

A trained mount acts in sync with its rider, with little overt input needed from the latter. That includes attacking in the case of a mount trained for war. You can choose to argue about whether or not a particular standard mount has the level of training required to act in that manner (most won't actually), but the conditions behind the paladin's mount make it extremely unrealistic that there would be anything approaching the problems you mention.

Call it a houserule if you will, it is more a matter of using rulings to fill in cases the standard rules do not cover.

[TheOOB]

You guys might want to check the actual rules. The smite spells are all listed as "Range: Self", so yes, they do target you, and yes, you can share them with your mount.

That's the range, not the target. The target of the damage dealing spell is the person who takes damage. This isn't 3e where spells have a specific rules-ese target, which means we have to use English. Saying you're the target is like saying the bow is an arrows target when fired. You(and by extension your weapon) are the means from which your spell reaches it's target. This whole thing was covered ages ago with the find steed+cone of cold discussions which even had word of god supporting it(though good luck finding a tweet that old).

The dictionary definitions that are not obviously referring to an archery target specifically:

anything fired at.


a goal to be reached.



an object of abuse, scorn, derision, etc.; butt.

All of which would imply that the target is the one who is affected by the spell, not the caster.

[Chronos]

Except that the rules do tell us what "range: self" means: It means that you're the target.

And if you're not the target, then what happens if you cast it with no enemies around?

As for whether you're controlling the mount: You don't. You command it, but it then carries out the commands, not you. Intelligent mounts are always independent, and paladin mounts are intelligent.

[MeeposFire]

This is funny because I consider the smite spells to be a buff to your attack and one of the classic and I thought generally intended ideas was to use self buffs to help your mount. So it seems to me this is the sort of spell that would not be a surprise assuming you had a mount that was going to attack anyway.

[DivisibleByZero]

When the spell effect goes off, who does it affect?
That is the target.
In the case of smite spells, the target is an enemy. It is therefore not the Paladin, and he can therefore not share it with his mount.

[PhantomRenegade]

Look guys, i dont see how this is even a discussion, the spell mechanics at play are abundantly clear from the text, the range of the spell is self, ergo you literally can only target yourself with it, anything that is not you is outside its range and thus cannot be a target for the spell.

You gather your mystical energies within yourself ready to be channeled through your weapon onto the next creature you hit, you are the target because that is where the maelstrom of power is stored waiting to be unleashed.


That said just as its clear the magical mechanics at play its also pretty obvious that they didn't notice this particular spell interaction and sharing smites with the steed would be extremely unbalanced.

[Giant2005]

no rules or reasonable rulings suggest, much less state this.

Actually the rules for targetting on page 201 do imply everything I said.

Besides, developers have already confirmed that Range:self DOES NOT indicate that oneself is considered the target for such spells.

I couldn't agree more. Spells like Cone of Cold have a range of self but clearly you aren't the target, you are just the point of origin.

Like I said, we've been over this crap before, the poor wording does not indicate a valid loophole.

There is no loophole, the Smite spells effecting the Steed summoned by Find Steed is working as intended. The Smite Spells are self buffs and if the shared magic aspect of Find Steed doesn't work on self buffs, then it doesn't exist at all - there mere fact that they chose to write in the statement that the spells effect your Steed suggest that they intended that yes, self buffs do in fact effect the steed. WotC aren't in the business of wasting ink - wasting ink is wasting money and they like money, they really, really like money.

[PhantomRenegade]

There is no loophole, the Smite spells effecting the Steed summoned by Find Steed is working as intended. The Smite Spells are self buffs and if the shared magic aspect of Find Steed doesn't work on self buffs, then it doesn't exist at all - there mere fact that they chose to write in the statement that the spells effect your Steed suggest that they intended that yes, self buffs do in fact effect the steed. WotC aren't in the business of wasting ink - wasting ink is wasting money and they like money, they really, really like money.

Eeeeeh, i would share your faith in them, except we've seen them have these kinds of oversights before, such as with the thief's fast hands and magic items, and ... y'know... the whole beastmaster archetype.

[Gwendol]

Except that the rules do tell us what "range: self" means: It means that you're the target.

And if you're not the target, then what happens if you cast it with no enemies around?

As for whether you're controlling the mount: You don't. You command it, but it then carries out the commands, not you. Intelligent mounts are always independent, and paladin mounts are intelligent.

Correct on the count of the mount being intelligent, but a range of "self" does not mean the same as Target: you. There is a separate heading for "Targeting Yourself" on page 204 of the PHB explaining what is meant by that and how it can be done.

[Gnomes2169]

I couldn't agree more. Spells like Cone of Cold have a range of self but clearly you aren't the target, you are just the point of origin.

Seems to me like the paladin is the point of origin for a smite spell, and that they unleash the spell on a target smacked with their weapon... Really, the only difference between a smite spell and cone of cold (beyond the whole, you know, cone bit) is that the smite spell can attempt to hit the target multiple times, and can delay its triggering for up to a minute before the enemy gets rekt by the bonus damage and secondary effect, at the cost of your concentration to contain the effect until it's expended.

[coredump]

Except that the rules do tell us what "range: self" means: It means that you're the target.

Not necessarily. It can also indicate that the effect originates from you.

And if you're not the target, then what happens if you cast it with no enemies around?

It does just what the spell says it does.... nothing until you hit something.

[Chronos]

OK, let's put it this way: Who is the target of a Bless spell? Is that a spell you cast on enemies, too?

[PhantomRenegade]

Not necessarily. It can also indicate that the effect originates from you.

That still means you're the target, spells like cone of cold simply have no discrimination, you target yourself with the spell but the spells effect is to spawn a cone of cold at the target hitting everyone around him.

[Gwendol]

OK, let's put it this way: Who is the target of a Bless spell? Is that a spell you cast on enemies, too?

Bless has a range of 30', and allows three creatures to be targeted (including you). Thanks to share spell, your steed will benefit from Bless without having to be targeted specifically.

[Gwendol]

That still means you're the target, spells like cone of cold simply have no discrimination, you target yourself with the spell but the spells effect is to spawn a cone of cold at the target hitting everyone around him.

That is not correct. A spell with a range of self has no target, therefore you can't share it with your steed. I direct you to page 202 of the PHB, under Range: Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self.

[Mandragola]

Bless has a range of 30', and allows three creatures to be targeted (including you). Thanks to share spell, your steed will benefit from Bless without having to be targeted specifically.

Actually no, because it's not a spell you cast that targets only you if you cast it on other people as well. A mount can be blessed, but it would count as one of the three. Same with aid and stuff.

[Gwendol]

Yes of course, sorry, forgot about the only you part of the target.

[Giant2005]

OK, let's put it this way: Who is the target of a Bless spell? Is that a spell you cast on enemies, too?

Or Armor of Agathys.