MarkB
Legend
It seems more like a case for a dexterity saving throw than an athletics check in any case. It's a reactive check to avoid something bad, and it's more reliant upon fast reflexes than physical strength.
D&D 5E Phantom Steed duration beyond damage.
It seems more like a case for a dexterity saving throw than an athletics check in any case. It's a reactive check to avoid something bad, and it's more reliant upon fast reflexes than physical strength.
Dexterity and acrobatics need a narrower focus to avoid favoring a class against type. If you make it a dex save, you make rogues good at at it, while professional horsemen, paladins with their class feature mounts, and cavalier fighters are poor. The result isn't logical. As an athletics check, it favours fighters, paladins and rangers, with high strength, while leaving space for non-strength classes to train in that skill. You can also allow animal handling as an alternative skill to favour non-strength classes.
A dex save would be too restrictive IMO and lead to counter-intuitive outcomes.
MarkB
Legend
All of which is based upon the assumption that only high-strength characters are professional horse riders. What about horse archers, or skirmishers, or couriers?
In any case, this isn't about general horsemanship, it's about the very specific instance of avoiding getting trapped under your horse when it falls over - which is all about how quickly you can react in the moment. Characters don't need to be good at that one specific thing just because they're good at riding.
If you want someone who's good with horses to do it better, just give them advantage on the save.
My approach is based on the trope of horse-riding warriors being skilled at riding horses. What is the simplest way to replicate that? A dexterity save fails that unless the warrior spends a feat to train that save - that's a very narrow path for something as basic as horse riding skill. A Rogue training athletics on the other hand fulfills it, since the Rogue can train and also specialise. Yes, it does discriminate against low strength characters a bit, but there are more ways around that than the dex save (animal handling as an alternative). Olympic long jumpers are nowhere near as strong as the world's strongest man but in D&D their skills are conflated after all. You can step away from the obvious and look at the best way to achieve the overall result.
Archers, skirmishers, or couriers still benefit from being trained in either athletics or animal handling. I won't weep if a high dexterity doesn't confer yet another benefit.
So our wizard riding a phantom steed would not likely be a skilled rider and is likely to land prone when their steed winks out of existence after taking damage but if they spent some resources on animal handling, they are more likely to land on their feet. Makes sense to me.
Vilemk0
Villager
Lol These comments I swear. I know this is a necro but I feel the need to express this for new and old DM's. Why feel the need to nerf a 3rd lvl spell? DM's that nerf spells to fulfill some kind of power trip fantasy are trash DM's. Rule of cool boyos, don't be a DM that shuts down your players fun and creativity. Now, RAW the spell says, "When the spell ends, the steed gradually fades, giving the rider 1 minute to dismount." How can this be interpreted in any way other than that you have one minute to use the horse once the spell ends? It doesn't say it dies, it doesn't say it vanishes, it doesn't say anything other than when it ends you have a minute left to dismount. The specific rule always beats general rules. "Specific Beats General" in the "Player's Handbook" (p. 7). Nerfing spells is counter to the rule of cool in my opinion, and shouldn't be done. Player wants Shadowfax? Give them Shadowfax. Games I instantly leave are games that crap on player agency for the sake of controlling the narrative. Share the narrative and promote agency with the group and your players will applaud your games for how interactive and fun they are.
Last edited:
I've found this to be true most of the time
UngeheuerLich
Legend
It explicitely calls out dismounting.
So I guess the magic lingers and is real enough to allow the rider not to fall immediately to the ground. The mount stays still and you can dismount it safely.
So I guess the magic lingers and is real enough to allow the rider not to fall immediately to the ground. The mount stays still and you can dismount it safely.
That is how I also would interpret RAW. Though I would house-rule it a bit:
- The mount starts fading as soon as it takes damage.
- If it takes a total of 13 damage, it vanishes instantly. (That way we don't have to worry about what exactly it means to have a fading dead illusionary horse on the battlefield.)
Quickleaf
Legend
See, if I were rewriting phantasmal steed from the ground up, I'd have made it so that once the steed starts to fade away – the rider desperately WANTS to dismount.
The rider of a fading phantasmal steed would have to make Charisma saves against their spell save DC at the end of each of their turns they remain mounted or be whisked away along with the steed, either being transported to the Ethereal or becoming a ghost or an illusory phantasm themself!
Shame that the few interesting "drawbacks" to certain spells were dropped in modern D&D. It gives the magic so much more flavor if those kinds of "drawbacks" are integrated into the spell description. IMHO.
The rider of a fading phantasmal steed would have to make Charisma saves against their spell save DC at the end of each of their turns they remain mounted or be whisked away along with the steed, either being transported to the Ethereal or becoming a ghost or an illusory phantasm themself!
Shame that the few interesting "drawbacks" to certain spells were dropped in modern D&D. It gives the magic so much more flavor if those kinds of "drawbacks" are integrated into the spell description. IMHO.
Similar Threads
