D&D 5E Can a Phantom Steed pull a wagon?

[Satyrn]

Alright DMs, your party’s next encounter is with a naked halfling, barreling down the road in a empty cart seemingly pulled by nothing. Roll initiative!

Challenge accepted.

 

[Oofta]

Challenge accepted.

Please tell me you have a podcast!

 

[Oofta]

I know it's not an actual horse, but it shares the stats of one, which means it capabilities of a horse, so if a horse can do it, so can your creature. Quasireal means it's got a physical substance to it, so it can interact with physical reality, the illusion part is the creatures appearance, its simular to the creation spell, but with animal level intelligence and horse like attributes.

Why give the Phantom Steed attributes at all if it can't to anything, but carry a single rider?

Why not make it more like Unseen Servant.

It's explicitly not a horse. It's a quasi-real creature that by default resembles a horse and uses the statistics of a horse. Those statistics include game-specific attributes such as AC 10, 13 HP, etc. Nowhere in the stat block does it discuss wagon pulling.

It's not a horse. It has a specified speed and the limitation that for the duration it can be ridden by the caster or a chosen creature. That's all.

In any case the OP asked how other DMs would rule it. I've given my answer and my logic. Feel free to rule differently.

 

[Mistwell]

It's explicitly not a horse. It's a quasi-real creature that by default resembles a horse and uses the statistics of a horse. Those statistics include game-specific attributes such as AC 10, 13 HP, etc. Nowhere in the stat block does it discuss wagon pulling.

Well it can carry you and your equipment, right? It has a strength score which can pull the wagon equipment based on that score, right? Why would it have to specify a "wagon" when it doesn't specify, for example, a sword the PC might be carrying either?

 

[Oofta]

Well it can carry you and your equipment, right? It has a strength score which can pull the wagon equipment based on that score, right? Why would it have to specify a "wagon" when it doesn't specify, for example, a sword the PC might be carrying either?

Specific overrides general. If it was just a quasi-real horse it wouldn't need to state that "for the duration, you or a creature you choose can ride the steed". If it was a regular horse (like a paladin's mount but with an expiration date) why not just say so?

That's my story, I'm sticking to it. At least until it actually comes up in a game and I'm not just playing devil's advocate. Or am I?

 

[jaelis]

Specific overrides general. If it was just a quasi-real horse it wouldn't need to state that "for the duration, you or a creature you choose can ride the steed". If it was a regular horse (like a paladin's mount but with an expiration date) why not just say so?

Because, certainly, it is unlike a regular horse in that only one creature can ride it.

 

[Arilyn]

I like my magic to be more varied and unpredictable, not "scientific formulas" that work the same every time. Maybe sometimes phantom steed will pull the wagon, do circus tricks, mooch apples...

Other times, it might only carry a passenger. Maybe there could be some kind of arcana roll required to see if spell caster can get it to pull a wagon. This is one of those spells where you can go past the spell description with no fears of unbalancing things. A good place to add some flavour to an otherwise very predictable set of spells.

 

[jgsugden]

It's not my job as a DM to make rulings so that anything my players try to do works. I have to make rulings that are consistent and as fair as I can make them...

I don't think players should be allowed to do anything, but - as a DM - we should encourage them to be creative and heroic.

D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Players and the DM come together to tell a great story. The DM creates the story and the setting, the players provide the protagonists... but it is a group effort.

While the DM is asked to be the final arbiter of the rules, they are primarily there to create the opportunities for the protagonists to be heroes (or villains if that is the story being told). You are master of the world - a Dungeon Master. You are not a mere arbiter of someone else's world.

There are often times in the game when the heroes want to do something that is not clearly covered in the rules. Maybe there are multiple ways the rules might cover it, or maybe there are no rules for it. When that happens, the DM has to make a ruling. In these situations, if the DM is focusing on being a neutral and dispassionate arbiter of fairness, they will run into situations in which they say "No" to their players where they could have said "Yes" without disrupting the game. While it will not be a fatal problem should they do so, it does shut the players down - and that is generally not as fun.

This goes hand in hand with an idea that comes from Improve Acting - never say "No". It shuts down the creative flow and isn't as much fun as building upon each other's ideas. It does the same thing in D&D, although it is inevitably necessary in some situations if players take being off leash too far.

Obviously, there will always be judgment calls as a DM, whether you are a permissive DM or a dismissive DM. You have to draw a line somewhere and that line is always going to be a bit fuzzy... but if you draw the line further in the area of permissiveness, it opens up more opportunities for the players to be creative and to tell a more interesting improvised story with you.

To that end, I often let players violate rules. Not only do I stretch fairness in their favor - I downright cheat in their favor.

For example, many damaging spells target creatures. Unless they deal psychic damage or otherwise require a biological body/mind for obvious reasons, I allow these spells to target objects. This is clearly against the rules - but the players have more fun with it. And it doesn't break anything.

Also, players sometimes want to use concentration requiring cantrips outside combat while they're concentrating on a long lasting spell like Hex (which sometimes lasts 8 hours). This is clearly against the rules... but it is so much more fun to let them do their minor illusions, move some Earth, etc... And it doesn't have any real negative impacts on the game at all.

 

[Harzel]

I don't think players should be allowed to do anything, but - as a DM - we should encourage them to be creative and heroic.

D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Players and the DM come together to tell a great story. The DM creates the story and the setting, the players provide the protagonists... but it is a group effort.

While the DM is asked to be the final arbiter of the rules, they are primarily there to create the opportunities for the protagonists to be heroes (or villains if that is the story being told). You are master of the world - a Dungeon Master. You are not a mere arbiter of someone else's world.

There are often times in the game when the heroes want to do something that is not clearly covered in the rules. Maybe there are multiple ways the rules might cover it, or maybe there are no rules for it. When that happens, the DM has to make a ruling. In these situations, if the DM is focusing on being a neutral and dispassionate arbiter of fairness, they will run into situations in which they say "No" to their players where they could have said "Yes" without disrupting the game. While it will not be a fatal problem should they do so, it does shut the players down - and that is generally not as fun.

It depends critically on what you consider to be a 'disruption' and what you consider to be 'fun'. What leads to a D&D game being fun is not the same for everyone. http://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

You seem to be referring to what is called 'expression' in the linked article. While your suggested approach probably would generally benefit expression seekers, for me, as a player (or a DM) it can mess with immersion ('fantasy' in the article); also, though perhaps to a lesser extent, challenge and narrative could suffer.

This goes hand in hand with an idea that comes from Improve Acting - never say "No". It shuts down the creative flow and isn't as much fun as building upon each other's ideas. It does the same thing in D&D, although it is inevitably necessary in some situations if players take being off leash too far.

Obviously, there will always be judgment calls as a DM, whether you are a permissive DM or a dismissive DM. You have to draw a line somewhere and that line is always going to be a bit fuzzy... but if you draw the line further in the area of permissiveness, it opens up more opportunities for the players to be creative and to tell a more interesting improvised story with you.

Again, it depends on what you feel makes a story 'interesting'. For me, rulings that condition the behavior of the world on its convenience for the PCs tend to make me just check out. For me, it makes the story silly, not interesting.

To that end, I often let players violate rules. Not only do I stretch fairness in their favor - I downright cheat in their favor.

For example, many damaging spells target creatures. Unless they deal psychic damage or otherwise require a biological body/mind for obvious reasons, I allow these spells to target objects. This is clearly against the rules - but the players have more fun with it. And it doesn't break anything.

That's an interesting example because I rule the same way, but not for the same reason. My reason is that that makes the world make more sense to me and my players. Often it will be more convenient for the PCs that the spells act that way, and occasionally it will create a problem for them, but for me that's irrelevant.

Also, players sometimes want to use concentration requiring cantrips outside combat while they're concentrating on a long lasting spell like Hex (which sometimes lasts 8 hours). This is clearly against the rules... but it is so much more fun to let them do their minor illusions, move some Earth, etc... And it doesn't have any real negative impacts on the game at all.

For me it is more fun to have to figure out a way to do what I want despite the restrictions. So it doesn't have a negative impact on your game, but it might on someone else's. There's definitely nothing categorically wrong with your approach, but other people may have more fun doing things differently. Also, I understand that you are not necessarily advocating an extreme position (absolutely anything goes), but even given that you are picking what you consider to be a good balance point, other balance points can be just as valid.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think players should be allowed to do anything, but - as a DM - we should encourage them to be creative and heroic.

D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Players and the DM come together to tell a great story. The DM creates the story and the setting, the players provide the protagonists... but it is a group effort.

While the DM is asked to be the final arbiter of the rules, they are primarily there to create the opportunities for the protagonists to be heroes (or villains if that is the story being told). You are master of the world - a Dungeon Master. You are not a mere arbiter of someone else's world.

I would say that I establish the scenery, create the actors (individuals and groups) and threats and the players work with me to tell a story. I set events in play, but they tell me how they react to those events, if they even do.

There are often times in the game when the heroes want to do something that is not clearly covered in the rules. Maybe there are multiple ways the rules might cover it, or maybe there are no rules for it. When that happens, the DM has to make a ruling. In these situations, if the DM is focusing on being a neutral and dispassionate arbiter of fairness, they will run into situations in which they say "No" to their players where they could have said "Yes" without disrupting the game. While it will not be a fatal problem should they do so, it does shut the players down - and that is generally not as fun.

I'm just going to disagree here. To me when I play, half the fun is trying to figure out how to overcome obstacles. Because that's what the game is all about, overcoming obstacles and winning the day. I don't want to cheapen the player's victory.

While I'm not a slave to the rules, I do try to be logical in my rulings and fair.

This goes hand in hand with an idea that comes from Improve Acting - never say "No". It shuts down the creative flow and isn't as much fun as building upon each other's ideas. It does the same thing in D&D, although it is inevitably necessary in some situations if players take being off leash too far.

Obviously, there will always be judgment calls as a DM, whether you are a permissive DM or a dismissive DM. You have to draw a line somewhere and that line is always going to be a bit fuzzy... but if you draw the line further in the area of permissiveness, it opens up more opportunities for the players to be creative and to tell a more interesting improvised story with you.

To that end, I often let players violate rules. Not only do I stretch fairness in their favor - I downright cheat in their favor.

Nope, not my style at all. The rules apply exactly the same to the good guys and the bad. The players don't get to use cheat codes.

For example, many damaging spells target creatures. Unless they deal psychic damage or otherwise require a biological body/mind for obvious reasons, I allow these spells to target objects. This is clearly against the rules - but the players have more fun with it. And it doesn't break anything.

Also, players sometimes want to use concentration requiring cantrips outside combat while they're concentrating on a long lasting spell like Hex (which sometimes lasts 8 hours). This is clearly against the rules... but it is so much more fun to let them do their minor illusions, move some Earth, etc... And it doesn't have any real negative impacts on the game at all.

Obviously, I want my players to win. I also want them to feel engaged, like there is something at stake, at times they feel like they really are risking it all. Sometimes failure is more fun than success. Got your *** handed to you by the BBEG last time? Finally coming up with and executing a plan to take the BBEG out is just that much sweeter. Limits are as important as abilities.

Games should be complex, messy, infuriating, rewarding, funny and sad. Ultimately if we do it right we come up with a story, with moments, we remember years later. Sometimes the moments we remember the most are the moments of our biggest flops, sometimes they're the moment of a hard won victory.

I do tweak some rules and flavor so that my world is consistent and logical, but never to give the characters an edge up. Some of the best encounters are the encounters that don't work - at least not the first time.

So yes, the players should feel like heroes. They just need to earn it.