Find Steed, Find Greater Steed, and Combat

[tglassy]

I'm still stuck on why bother having cool mounts if they can't do anything? If it is literally just a pack horse, why bother putting it in? Why bother making it cost a spell slot, or take up a spell choice?

I have no problem with "controlling the mount" being the exception because this is a special case. Normally, with a normal animal, you have to choose between controlling it so it does what you want, or letting it do what it wants but have more access to actions. But this is a Paladin, and basically a class feature. It's supposed to show that the Paladin has a strong bond with his mount, so he can get it to do things he wants AND let it attack. Because the steed is not an animal, but a celestial, fiend or fey. And it has a strong bond with its summoner. This is meant to be an upgrade, doing something others can't do. Otherwise, what is the point?

 

[Dausuul]

In this case, the PC summoned the steed but chose not to mount it, so in that case, there is no way the steed is controlled. So it does whatever it wants to do. I need to figure out a system for deciding whether and when the steed is willing to put itself in danger to attack a creature that is not obviously threatening its master. I think it's a given that the steed would come to its master's aid if it saw the PC actually engaged in melee combat, but would it move to take out an archer who was shooting arrows at the PC? Would it do so without being asked? What about a sea monster that's currently just minding its own business, but which the PC wants to attack for fun and profit? What about a spellcaster who is creating dangerous terrain but not actually harming the PC? Should some sort of persuasion roll or charisma save be involved?

I might base its behavior off the PC's paladin oath. A mount bound to a Devotion paladin would focus its efforts on protecting the PC and innocent bystanders--perhaps by picking them up and carrying them to safety, or shielding them with its body--while a mount bound to a Vengeance paladin would pick the most obviously aggressive enemy and go after that enemy with reckless fury.

I would allow the PC to tell the mount to "stand down," i.e., stay close and don't do anything, but if you let it engage in combat without riding and controlling it, it acts as a kind of physical manifestation of your oath.

Otherwise, what is the point?

Permanent fly speed of up to 90 feet any time you're in the open, and you can carry passengers.

 

[Hriston]

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out, but find greater steed includes the text, "You control the mount in combat." This would suggest to me that the player is allowed to play the mount as his/her own character in any combat.

 

[Dausuul]

Not sure if anyone has pointed this out, but find greater steed includes the text, "You control the mount in combat." This would suggest to me that the player is allowed to play the mount as his/her own character in any combat.

The mounted combat rules distinguish between "independent mounts" and "controlled mounts." A controlled mount can only Dash, Disengage, and Dodge.

 

[Hriston]

The mounted combat rules distinguish between "independent mounts" and "controlled mounts." A controlled mount can only Dash, Disengage, and Dodge.

I see where the confusion lies. The spell refers to the summoned spirit as a mount. When it says, "You control the mount in combat", it isn't saying the spirit acts like a controlled mount. You don't even need to mount it for it to be considered a mount. The spirit can be a mile away from you. It's still a mount. The spell is saying the spirit is yours to control in combat.

 

[jayoungr]

I might base its behavior off the PC's paladin oath. A mount bound to a Devotion paladin would focus its efforts on protecting the PC and innocent bystanders--perhaps by picking them up and carrying them to safety, or shielding them with its body--while a mount bound to a Vengeance paladin would pick the most obviously aggressive enemy and go after that enemy with reckless fury.

I would allow the PC to tell the mount to "stand down," i.e., stay close and don't do anything, but if you let it engage in combat without riding and controlling it, it acts as a kind of physical manifestation of your oath.

The PC in this case is a bard, so no oath.

 

[Dausuul]

I see where the confusion lies. The spell refers to the summoned spirit as a mount. When it says, "You control the mount in combat", it isn't saying the spirit acts like a controlled mount. You don't even need to mount it for it to be considered a mount. The spirit can be a mile away from you. It's still a mount. The spell is saying the spirit is yours to control in combat.

That is one interpretation. It is not consistent with other spells of this type, however.

Every other spell that summons a controlled creature is very explicit about how control works. They lay out in detail whether you need to take actions to give orders, when the summoned creature acts, what it does if not commanded, etc.

Find greater steed just says "you control the mount in combat." If read the way you read it, that leaves a host of questions open about how it's supposed to work. However, if read as a reference to the mounted combat rules, it provides the same level of precise detail as all the other summoning spells.

 

[tglassy]

Overthinking.

Just let the player control the freaking mount. Mounted or not. Give the player his toy. Make him feel special. Up the anti if it turns out he's found something you can't handle. And really, is allowing a player to have a Griffin going to hurt your campaign? No. It is not. And if it does, that's not on the player, it's on the GM for not knowing how to handle having one more party member, and one that is fairly weak.

The intent was that the steed becomes a creature the player can control, and he can ride him if he wants. That is the intent. That the Ranger is a crappy class does not eliminate the intent of this spell. Every other spell is explicit because it needs to be. This one is clear. The player controls the mount in combat. The end. And as said above, it does not say the player controls the mount when mounted. It says in combat. Let the player have his toy. Stop trying to nerf him. Or let someone else DM.

 

[jayoungr]

Let the player have his toy. Stop trying to nerf him. Or let someone else DM.

I don't appreciate the hostility. I'm trying to understand the rule. Why are you taking this so personally? This isn't your table.

 

[Dausuul]

Let the player have his toy. Stop trying to nerf him. Or let someone else DM.

Who died and made you King of D&D?

Also, the player in question is female.