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

[AHF]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

As long as we're eliminating the outlying points of view, I'm cool. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[diplomancer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

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]

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.

Halfling or Gnome Ranger can ride their mount and direct it to attack.

Steeds can not be directed to attack.

[MThurston]

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]

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]

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: "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: "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]

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]

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]

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

[Malifice]

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]

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]

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]

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?