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.

 

[Yunru]

The mounted combat rules only apply when you're... mounted in combat.
Thus a player controlled mount that is not mounted acts just like any other player controlled character.

 

[Hriston]

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.

What sort of questions does it raise that aren't already answered by the rules for playing the game and that you use, for example, for controlling your PC or, if you're the DM, a monster in combat?

 

[Blue]

I might base its behavior off the PC's paladin oath.

In terms of behavior, the spell description says that the mount is unusually intelligent, strong and loyal (1st sentence) and you have an instinctive bond that allos you to fight as a seamless unit (2nd paragraph). Also it's celestial, fey or fiend, not beast.

Since these are listed in the spell they might be a good basis for it's behavior.

 

[tglassy]

I always get upset when a DM suggests that a player is getting too powerful with a perfectly logical, legal combination of abilities. No. They are not too powerful. They are simply ready for more than you are giving them. I threw the freaking Demogorgan at my players at one point because I knew they were powerful. Up the anti. Make your monsters fight better. Rejoice that they have figured out something powerful, because now you can bring about something even more so. Let them shine, and then knock them down. If it becomes that big of a deal, have the baddies target the steed. Make a baddie who curses the steed so it becomes sickly and unusable, and force them on a quest to heal it.

I had a DM who allowed my Rogue get a hold of a Shield Guardian. Big mistake. Went through the entire Tomb of Horrors with only me, a partner, and Herman, my Shield Guardian who wore a Cap of Disguise to look like an Orc Bodyguard wearing a tuxedo and sunglasses. Killed the Lich by accident, because a room with a bunch of huge statues and a portal that apparently led to the Vault, we got stuck and in a rage I had Herman throw all the statues through the portal. Which went to the Vault and killed the lich for us. Didn't even realize it until we got there. It was awesome. We felt like kings. Especially since fighting the Lich with only the three of us would have been impossible at level 8. Totally unrealistic, but we had a blast. Took the money and built a castle, had a town grow out of it, and when we played another campaign later, that town became a base for our new characters.

I should NOT have had that Shield Guardian, it made things way too easy. But it was fun as hell. Especially since I, having a Rogue, always seemed to figure out a way out of the problems, usually without combat. And Herman is legendary in our group. My sword was a Frostbrand named "The Common Cold." "You have been killed by The Common Cold" was my tag line.

Let them play. Let them feel awesome. Don't worry if other characters don't feel as awesome, let them find their own way to be awesome. Help them along if you have to, but don't nerf someone else because they play better. I promise you it will be ok.

Edit: Oh I forgot, Herman died in the Tomb of Horrors. Getting to the last room, turning the key makes the floor rise up into the ceiling. You're supposed to get out of the room, and everyone made it but Herman. He got squished. My DM was so relieved. It was a fitting end.

 

[jayoungr]

I always get upset when a DM suggests that a player is getting too powerful with a perfectly logical, legal combination of abilities.

You're the one reading that into my question. I'm ASKING whether the combination is logical and legal, because I was surprised at how strong it appeared to be and I was unfamiliar with the spell. The length of this discussion is showing me that it's not obvious to everyone (a lot seems to center around the word "control").

I haven't decided yet how I'll handle it at the table, so just chill.

 

[Autumn Bask]

I always get upset when a DM suggests that a player is getting too powerful with a perfectly logical, legal combination of abilities. No. They are not too powerful. They are simply ready for more than you are giving them. I threw the freaking Demogorgan at my players at one point because I knew they were powerful. Up the anti. Make your monsters fight better. Rejoice that they have figured out something powerful, because now you can bring about something even more so. Let them shine, and then knock them down. If it becomes that big of a deal, have the baddies target the steed. Make a baddie who curses the steed so it becomes sickly and unusable, and force them on a quest to heal it.

As someone who has played with a couple DMs who take this approach, I can assure you it is not so universally beloved and foolproof as you make it out to be; for all of the reasons I listed in my previous post, which you ignored.

Advice like this for DMs (i.e. "how to handle imbalance" vs. the more simple question of "is this imbalanced") is highly situational. It depends on the dynamics at their table and the goals of the campaign. That's why a forum is a useful place to ask for it; so that a variety of voices can be heard. Some may say different things, but that's fine, because we all play at different tables.

 

[jayoungr]

I also feel like "just target their toys" can be kind of a dick move if not handled properly. It's a tool in the DM's toolbox, but not one for every situation.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It just seems like this one single spell makes any character who takes it into a better version of the beastmaster ranger. I know the beastmaster is universally considered to be poorly designed, but it doesn't seem like one spell should be able to outdo an entire class.

That's just indicative of how poorly designed it is. At low level a beastmaster who chooses an animal as his companion is typically worse off than the exact same character ignoring their class ability and simply buying the same trained animal.

 

[Russell1382]

I think we're overlooking the fact that Find Greater Steed has a casting time of 10 minutes. You wouldn't be able to cast it in combat anyway.

 

[Seramus]

Your average player can just get a horse of their own. The stronger steeds summoned by FGS are more campaign dependent, but a 10+ level party should be able to get one in most established settings (FR/Oerth/etc). The main benefit of the spell is making those mounts moderately death proof (costing a slot and some time), which is handy since mount death is a comedic trope at this point. In that sense, I have no problem with the summoned mounts doing whatever an ordinary version of the mount could do. Because they could just get the ordinary version.