D&D 5E Phantom Steed duration beyond damage.

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'd probably make it an athletics check. Fail by more than 5 or natural 1 and you are pinned. You can give advantage to those with mounted background or feats. The system is light enough to do on the fly.

Yes, just watch out for those players who will point to the PHB rules on what happens to the rider of a mount that falls and say, "But it only says you are prone, not restrained!" Adjudicating a new situation on the fly is one thing; altering on the fly the rules for a situation the players have reason to believe they already understand is another. ("If I'd known you weren't going to follow the rules in the PHB, I would have taken the Mobile feat instead of buying a horse." Etc.)

Just be careful to be fair to player expectations, that is all. Remember that your words are their only window into the game world, and that you can see 10x more in your imagination than you can ever put into your words; and be generous about reconciling their imaginations with yours.

 

[MarkB]

Just be careful to be fair to player expectations, that is all. Remember that your words are their only window into the game world, and that you can see 10x more in your imagination than you can ever put into your words; and be generous about reconciling their imaginations with yours.

This paragraph should be featured prominently in the DMG, and the equivalent rulebook for just about any RPG system.

 

[thethain]

Yes, just watch out for those players who will point to the PHB rules on what happens to the rider of a mount that falls and say, "But it only says you are prone, not restrained!" Adjudicating a new situation on the fly is one thing; altering on the fly the rules for a situation the players have reason to believe they already understand is another. ("If I'd known you weren't going to follow the rules in the PHB, I would have taken the Mobile feat instead of buying a horse." Etc.)

Just be careful to be fair to player expectations, that is all. Remember that your words are their only window into the game world, and that you can see 10x more in your imagination than you can ever put into your words; and be generous about reconciling their imaginations with yours.

Right. I am very hesitant to alter things that are so spelled out in the book. The book states "If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it." Falling prone is part of unconscious condition "The creature drops whatever it's holding and falls prone." Especially if you are making a change which works AGAINST the players.

They can read the book to their complete understanding, if you have various house rules, they don't have the benefit of reading them all.

 

[guachi]

dead fading horse.

My new band name.

 

[neogod22]

As DM I'd rule that:

(1) You are correct about the rules as written;
(2) The rules as written are dumb.

I would lobby the table to persuade them that it's better for an illusion that takes damage to vanish instantly, and that the "gradually fades" clause should apply only to a steed that runs out of duration. Ultimately though I don't really care, and I'd rule whichever way the table decided we were going to rule.

In other words, this is not one of those cases where I'd exercise my "I'm the DM right now and I refuse to run a game with any other ruling--you can either fire me or accept it" veto. I reserve that veto for monumentally stupid things like Greatberry (Disciple of Life + Goodberry).

Lol our cleric creates those on a daily basis. I would probably not allow that, but I'm not the DM.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[neogod22]

That's really not necessary. It's a ritual spell, and technically there's nothing preventing a spellcaster from re-casting the ritual spell while riding his phantom steed, so in effect it has an unlimited duration as long as you keep re-casting the spell every hour. (Ritual casting = no spell slot cost when you spend the extra ten minutes.)

I was going to say the same thing.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lol our cleric creates those on a daily basis. I would probably not allow that, but I'm not the DM.

As DM I'm happy to let you create Goodberries, but I'd point out to you a few things:

(1) The spell's duration is Instantaneous. It doesn't heal you; it just creates berries.

(2) The berries are permanent. They are not spells, they're just berries; berries which have a special effect when consumed within 24 hours of creation, but even after that they are still yummy berries.

(3) Disciple of Life only triggers off of restoring HP with a spell.

(4) If using a spell to create berries which eventually restore HP is treated as restoring HP with a spell, then using a spell to create skeletons which eventually kill things should likewise be considered killing things with a spell, in which case the Necromancer's Grim Harvest feature is the most brokenly strong HP restoration feature in the game. Should the Necromancer really regain 27 HP every time one of his his super-wights kills something? That's crazy. Contemplate a mad Necromancer creating superwights with Create Undead IX and then not bothering to keep them under control, just releasing them into the wild on the theory that if he creates enough super-wights, they will frequently kill things, and he'll gain what is essentially permanent regeneration. That's insane--just don't go there.

(5) If using a spell to create berries which can restore HP is treated as restoring HP with a spell, when is the Blessed Healer bonus HP regained? If it's recovered immediately, what happens if no one eats the Goodberry before the 24 hours elapses, and therefore the spell wasn't used to restore HP? (Same thing if the berries get eaten by a creature at full HP already.) Does the cleric retroactively lose those Blessed Healer HP? If the HP regain is deferred until someone actually eats a berry, you have different problems: "When you cast a spell of 1st level or higher that restores hit points to a creature other than you, you regain hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level." If you are dead when someone eats a berry, you've now healed someone with a spell and now regain 1 HP? Are you still dead but have positive HP, or do you come back to life? If you consider this scenario absurd, well, I do too. Don't go there. (It's absurd even in the milder case of someone eating Goodberries in order to revive the cleric from 0 HP. "Friar Tuck is down! Quick, eat this berry before he bleeds out!")

Therefore, as DM I'll happily let you cast Goodberry, and your Goodberry and your Disciple of Life will function exactly as advertised in the PHB, but not as advertised in Jeremy Crawford's ill-considered tweets. The features don't synergize with each other.

 

[neogod22]

As DM I'm happy to let you create Goodberries, but I'd point out to you a few things:

(1) The spell's duration is Instantaneous. It doesn't heal you; it just creates berries.

(2) The berries are permanent. They are not spells, they're just berries; berries which have a special effect when consumed within 24 hours of creation, but even after that they are still yummy berries.

(3) Disciple of Life only triggers off of restoring HP with a spell.

(4) If using a spell to create berries which eventually restore HP is treated as restoring HP with a spell, then using a spell to create skeletons which eventually kill things should likewise be considered killing things with a spell, in which case the Necromancer's Grim Harvest feature is the most brokenly strong HP restoration feature in the game. Should the Necromancer really regain 27 HP every time one of his his super-wights kills something? That's crazy. Contemplate a mad Necromancer creating superwights with Create Undead IX and then not bothering to keep them under control, just releasing them into the wild on the theory that if he creates enough super-wights, they will frequently kill things, and he'll gain what is essentially permanent regeneration. That's insane--just don't go there.

(5) If using a spell to create berries which can restore HP is treated as restoring HP with a spell, when is the Blessed Healer bonus HP regained? If it's recovered immediately, what happens if no one eats the Goodberry before the 24 hours elapses, and therefore the spell wasn't used to restore HP? (Same thing if the berries get eaten by a creature at full HP already.) Does the cleric retroactively lose those Blessed Healer HP? If the HP regain is deferred until someone actually eats a berry, you have different problems: "When you cast a spell of 1st level or higher that restores hit points to a creature other than you, you regain hit points equal to 2 + the spell’s level." If you are dead when someone eats a berry, you've now healed someone with a spell and now regain 1 HP? Are you still dead but have positive HP, or do you come back to life? If you consider this scenario absurd, well, I do too. Don't go there. (It's absurd even in the milder case of someone eating Goodberries in order to revive the cleric from 0 HP. "Friar Tuck is down! Quick, eat this berry before he bleeds out!")

Therefore, as DM I'll happily let you cast Goodberry, and your Goodberry and your Disciple of Life will function exactly as advertised in the PHB, but not as advertised in Jeremy Crawford's ill-considered tweets. The features don't synergize with each other.

That is another reason why when I run, I don't allow Sage Advice or Errata as an argument for the rules at my table. Whatever's written in the books are rules, if they are written poorly, then they are subject to interpretation by the DM only. Right now I'm not the DM and the current DM allowed him to do it, so I can't argue.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[FarBeyondC]

(5) If using a spell to create berries which can restore HP is treated as restoring HP with a spell, when is the Blessed Healer bonus HP regained?

Going by twinned spell logic, never. Otherwise, immediately upon casting.

If it's recovered immediately, what happens if no one eats the Goodberry before the 24 hours elapses, and therefore the spell wasn't used to restore HP? (Same thing if the berries get eaten by a creature at full HP already.)

Nothing. The spell is still one that restores hit points, even though no one actually regained hit points from a given use.

 

[Pauln6]

Right. I am very hesitant to alter things that are so spelled out in the book. The book states "If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it." Falling prone is part of unconscious condition "The creature drops whatever it's holding and falls prone." Especially if you are making a change which works AGAINST the players.

They can read the book to their complete understanding, if you have various house rules, they don't have the benefit of reading them all.

Yes, that's a fair point. I hadn't realised that they had been specific is stating you can automatically land on your feet by using your reaction. That's a bit meh from my perspective. Fighters get very few decent skill checks and athletics is one of them, so let's make it just as easy for the Str9 wizard with no training to land on their feet :-/.

I'd still prefer a low Dc athletics check but in 30 years this has only come up about twice and never in 5e so I'll worry about it when it does!