Find Steed, Find Greater Steed, and Combat

[Oofta]

They were not already in combat when the spell was cast. They were hunting sea creatures, so the rest of the group just waited for the bard to finish his summons before attacking. (I didn't realize it took 10 minutes, though! That's useful to remember for future reference.)


Thanks, that's helpful! It doesn't say anything about what happens if the summoner chooses not to mount the steed, though.



The summoned steed is intelligent with a small "i," in the sense that it is much smarter than other creatures of its kind. A normal gryphon (or griffon, to use the MM spelling ) has an intelligence of 2. But it's not clear whether an intelligence score of 6 means it's smart enough to be considered a mount that always acts independently (expressed below as Intelligent with a capital "I").

The example of an Intelligent mount (i.e., one that always acts independently) is a dragon. Even wyrmling dragons have the same intelligence (10) as an average human. Is that, then, the minimum intelligence score needed to be considered an Intelligent mount? If not, what is the minimum--and more importantly, who decides what the minimum is?

Mounts that are not Intelligent can act independently if the rider chooses not to control them. But they can also be controlled; presumably an Intelligent mount cannot, since the PHB specifies that it always acts independently.

An intelligence of 6 is decent in D&D. Not Rhodes scholar bright, but smarter than your average ogre. Add in the fact that it can understand the language of the caster and I don't see why it would not be considered an intelligent mount. It's kind of the point.

At least that's how we've been running it and it has never caused an issue. I'm okay with people having toys that make their PC feel unique, it's part of the fun of the game for me.

 

[jayoungr]

An intelligence of 6 is decent in D&D. Not Rhodes scholar bright, but smarter than your average ogre. Add in the fact that it can understand the language of the caster and I don't see why it would not be considered an intelligent mount.

I see your point, but is there anything to back that up?

ETA: I mean, if an intelligence of 6 means that the mount always acts alone, then no mount summoned by this spell can be ridden as a controlled mount. That seems like a disadvantage in some situations.

 

[iserith]

When the player comes up with some combination that is game breaking, don’t shut them down and take their fun. Break the game right back and up the anti. He wants a pet Griffin that does what he wants and he can ride into battle? Cool. Now he’s ready for Mind Flayers.

^ This. Definitely be concerned that the player will slow down the game and address that with her directly. But as far as difficulty being impacted, you got infinite dragons, so you're good!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I play a paladin with a mount and it hardly ever matters. Mounts are too squishy. Sometimes I’ll use it in combat and let it attack but only in an emergency because I don’t like when it dies because I don’t have the slot to recast it and it’s usually carrying most of my gear. (And sometimes the group’s loot). Now all my equipment and saddle are on the ground (or in the water in your example). Saddles are inconvenient to haul around.

Less of an issue with a bard because they have lots of spell slots but there’s WAY better spells to choose for magical secrets. But if your Pegasus is flying around and all it’s gear falls too far, expect equipment to get broken.

As far as I whether it can attack on its own:

-It’s totally loyal and speaks your language telepathically
-It’s smart enough to read a situation and know how to deal with a combat. Especially if your pc has had the mount for a long time. Remember the spell conjures the same spirit every time so it’s like summoning a close buddy.

I play my mount with its own personality so I just play it like another character.

 

[Autumn Bask]

When the player comes up with some combination that is game breaking, don’t shut them down and take their fun. Break the game right back and up the anti. He wants a pet Griffin that does what he wants and he can ride into battle? Cool. Now he’s ready for Mind Flayers.

This is a rather campaign and party-dependent solution, though that doesn't mean it's bad, it's just more conditional and complicated then what your post is expressing. It's not that simple and it's not going to work for everyone. For one, that growth in difficulty can feel artificial in the context of certain campaigns; most notably the more linear or contained ones, where increasing difficulty just equates to throwing more things into an area the players were going anyway.

This isn't really any better than telling the player no. You're just punishing them for their decision, instead of telling them they can't do it. On top of that, encounters can only be weighted so much towards the highest common denominator before it starts becoming a detrimental experience for the weaker PCs, simply due to the way the DM has to alter combat in order to enforce a parity. Now, if everyone in the party is willing to accept and acknowledge, both IC and OOC, that one of their members is more powerful than the others and orient their group dynamics around that, it's a different story.

What's important is that it is the PCs who are most visibly adapting, so that the guiding hand of the GM doesn't start to feel too aggressive or antagonistic. That's the type of thing that creates a Player vs. DM mentality.

In campaigns that are open-world, on the other hand, this is fine, because, by definition, your players aren't going to break the game by advancing to more difficult areas or attempting more difficult feats ahead of schedule. They aren't being punished, because despite things being more difficult, that difficulty is a direct result of their new power expanding their options.

That's just been my experience. I'd rather my DM tell me "no" or work with me to balance whatever is game-breaking, than tell me yes and then increase my global aggro modifier.

 

[Oofta]

I see your point, but is there anything to back that up?

ETA: I mean, if an intelligence of 6 means that the mount always acts alone, then no mount summoned by this spell can be ridden as a controlled mount. That seems like a disadvantage in some situations.

Other than Crawford's tweet and a reference to another creature in the monster manual to give a guideline to how smart a 6 intelligence creature would be along with the fact that the creature understands a language? No. If that's not enough to establish that it's reasonably intelligent I don't know what would be.

As I said above, in our games we just let the caster and mount share initiative because it's easier. That is a house rule depending on what initiative rules you use. If you don't want to allow that it does mean one of the two is likely going to be readying actions to go on the other's turn.

Personally I think mounts (and animal companions for that matter) are stupidly under-powered in 5E anyway, so making it slightly more convenient has never caused an issue.

 

[jayoungr]

Other than Crawford's tweet

I just realized that Crawford's tweet implies that a 6 intelligence is not enough to be considered an Intelligent mount. It says:

"Find steed / find greater steed—when you ride the mount in combat, you decide whether it follows the rules for a controlled or an independent mount."

But the PHB says that Intelligent mounts are independent. Therefore, you cannot choose to ride an Intelligent mount as a controlled mount.

The minimum intelligence for a steed summoned with Find Greater Steed is 6. Crawford's tweet says that you can choose to ride it as a controlled mount. Therefore, its intelligence must not be high enough to qualify as an intelligent mount, or else there would be no choice in the matter (according to his thinking).

 

[Oofta]

I just realized that Crawford's tweet implies that a 6 intelligence is not enough to be considered an Intelligent mount. It says:

"Find steed / find greater steed—when you ride the mount in combat, you decide whether it follows the rules for a controlled or an independent mount."

But the PHB says that Intelligent mounts are independent. Therefore, you cannot choose to ride an Intelligent mount as a controlled mount.

The minimum intelligence for a steed summoned with Find Greater Steed is 6. Crawford's tweet says that you can choose to ride it as a controlled mount. Therefore, its intelligence must not be high enough to qualify as an intelligent mount, or else there would be no choice in the matter (according to his thinking).

Aren't you missing the "or" in that tweet?

In any case, I've explained how we run it. It works for us, YMMV.

 

[jayoungr]

Aren't you missing the "or" in that tweet?

I don't follow you--?

With any summoned steed, you can always choose for it to follow the rules for an independent mount, simply by not controlling it.

But if an intelligence of 6 means the mount is considered Intelligent, then you wouldn't have the option of having it follow the rules for a controlled mount, as I understand it, because an Intelligent mount is always independent.

What am I missing?

 

[tglassy]

I just realized that Crawford's tweet implies that a 6 intelligence is not enough to be considered an Intelligent mount. It says:

"Find steed / find greater steed—when you ride the mount in combat, you decide whether it follows the rules for a controlled or an independent mount."

But the PHB says that Intelligent mounts are independent. Therefore, you cannot choose to ride an Intelligent mount as a controlled mount.

The minimum intelligence for a steed summoned with Find Greater Steed is 6. Crawford's tweet says that you can choose to ride it as a controlled mount. Therefore, its intelligence must not be high enough to qualify as an intelligent mount, or else there would be no choice in the matter (according to his thinking).

Specific beats general. In this case, you are allowed to control the intelligent mount, if you so choose, but it can still act on its own.

If the intent was that a 6 is not intelligent enough to act on its own, then Crawford is just jumping up and down making animal noises, because his tweet no longer makes any sense or has any context in anything, because the argument is settled. But he is one of the developers who wrote the spell, so the intent is, by design, to be able to choose if you control this intelligent mount, or allow it to have its own turn.

Again. Specific beats general.