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

[JackPhoenix]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[AHF]

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.

[LudicSavant]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Because tripping objects is what cats do?

[Keltest]

Because tripping objects is what cats do?

Mastiffs are dogs though.

[Drakkoniss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It's a pretty good assumption

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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