Hey, so I was wondering if there is a way to properly add a summoned creature to your D&D Beyond character sheet? With Find Steed they should have an Int stat of 6 (we're looking at Warhorse), but we can't seem to edit it to say so. The other thing is, is there a way to have inventory items affect them as well (example Horseshoes of Speed).
On the D&D Beyond character sheet you need to click the "extras" tab located in the same row as attack and description. Click extras and you will see manage extras. A drop down menu will appear and you just have to click familiars option. Then you can type in War horse or other official mounts names by type. Unless you are using something really out there you should be able to add the mount as a familiar as it's pretty much is a familiar. This way you can bring up the mounts information cards quickly. This of course works for familiars as well. My paladin is a Warlock also so I can use both find steed and find familiar. Having the cards up is convenient. Also if you tend to resummon the mounts in different species often then you can just go ahead and add the species to this list and just use them as needed without deleting and readding them. Same for familiars as well of course.
This is a bit of an old topic, but Blackmail, this actually doesn't work properly. Since the way Familiars work in the game is drastically different from how Find Steed works. Sadly, it looks like they haven't coded a proper option. Not only does the Familiar option not properly increase the stats of the creature, it also adds the "familiar" tag to its stat block, incorrectly limiting its options. While it does let you select "type" (celestial, fey, fiend) appropriately, literally nothing else matches the rules for what SHOULD be there for a Paladin mount.
It's really a bummer, because they got the Ranger's companion set up properly (or at least as properly as they can with limitations on the system). Even the "mount" option just has a bog standard creature template. Same for "summoned", "pet", and "misc". Really, there is no distinction between these last four options, aside from the name of the category itself. They really could stand to shore this up a bit better, either by reducing the number of extraneous categories that mean nothing, or adding proper stat block additions for each category. (I.E., for Summoned creatures, could add the stat block info that they disappear when their HP reaches 0, instead of dying like normal.)
I'm just a bit bummed is all. :-| Really, the only way to do it "right" currently is with a homebrew version of the mount, but that's obnoxious to do each time.
Theres almost really no reason that you have to create a homebrew though.
Yes it would be nice if D&D Beyond made a paladin mount options in the extra area but the only things that change with find steed/find greater Steed is Int gies to 6 and it's a celestial, fey, or fiend. Every other stat remains the same.
Hey, I had some questions about this spell, and didn't want to start a whole new thing for it. Basically my question is Does my steed have it's own initiative in combat if I'm not on it? I'm looking at the elk option. it has some pretty good combat options, and i was jut wondering if it goes on my turn, or on it's own turn. The spell does not specify that I need to use an action to command him to do anything (I'm guessing because of the telepathic bond). So would it be acceptable to have him running around charging things down?
@KhaldoDraigo: But they do it for Familiars (only difference is a bit of a paragraph in the stat block saying they can't use most of their normal actions), and Ranger Companions (which I believe DOES change the attributes to fit ranger, but also has a paragraph in the stat block indicating the bonuses to atk and dmg rolls based on Ranger's proficiency bonus).
There's no reason for it to NOT be done for Find Steed when it's already essentially the same things done for two other class summons. And yes, I do consider Find Steed to be a class summon because it's a Paladin-specific spell.
Your steed from find Steed would have it's own initiative. Either that or for convenience sack your DM let's you control it on your turn. Either way it acts independently of you.
You should probably read my response better.
Creating a homebrew is essentially irrelevant for find Steed. The only difference between the steed and the base animal is an int of 6 and it's a celestial, fey, or fiend.
I know they make it for the beast masters companion and familiars. For some reason though they do not for find steed. It would be nice if D&D Beyond created section for it. But unless you're homebrewing a creature theres no reason not to use a creature's base stats keeping in mind its int is 6.
Does my steed have it's own initiative in combat if I'm not on it? [...] i was jut wondering if it goes on my turn, or on it's own turn. The spell does not specify that I need to use an action to command him to do anything (I'm guessing because of the telepathic bond). So would it be acceptable to have him running around charging things down?
Yes and no.
Mounted, it uses your initiative and can only dash/dodge/disengage. No charging. So effectively (feats not withstanding), it only gives you extra movement.
Once you ride it to the mob and then dismount, it keeps your initiative, and you independently control it, you decide if it goes immediately before or after your turn, it can charge, flank, attack....
The mounted combat rules are complicated, not entirely clear from the rules text, and have been clarified in incompatible ways by various rules writers in various sources. So the way the rules are supposed to run are rather opaque and it's unlikely your DM follows those rules exactly either way.
There are two ways for mounted combat to work. "Controlled Mount" and "Uncontrolled Mount". Uncontrolled is the less typical but easier to describe so we'll start there.
With an uncontrolled mount, the rider and mount keep their own initiative counts and action pools, and each decides for itself what they do on their turns. The mount moves as it wishes and the rider is carried along whenever the mount moves, which counts as involuntary movement so the rider does not provoke opportunity attacks. However, the mount still does, and any attack that can be directed at the mount can instead be targeted at the rider at the attacker's discretion. The steed's actions are not in any way limited in this case, but operating on it's own initiative can cause problems - ie the mount charges up to an enemy and attacks it. But if the enemy's turn comes before the rider's turn, then it can just disengage and walk away before the rider ever gets a chance to attack.
Controlled mount requires a willing mount trained to work as a steed in stressful (ie combat) situations. A steed that can be controlled can be uncontrolled instead, the rider decides whether to treat the steed as controlled or not when they mount it or when initiative is rolled, though the steed can refuse to be controlled, particularly if intelligent or adversarial. While acting as a controlled steed, a mounts actions on its turn are controlled by the rider, and it may only take the following actions: dash, dodge, or disengage. It's initiative count is changed to match the rider as well.
This is where things get very complicated, because there is some indication that the mount was intended to share the same turn as the rider, and a lot of DMs run it that way. There's a quote 'the mount may move on on the turn it was mounted, even if it already moved earlier that round', which shouldn't be possible unless the mount and rider share the same turn, as otherwise the mount can't move during the riders turn at all, since it's *the rider's turn*.
However, according to Crawford that line is essentially nonsense and should be ignored altogether. Instead when the mounts initiative count is changed to match that of the PC, it is treated as any other initiative tie. IE, since the tie is between a PC and a PC-controlled NPC, the players determine the order, which is then by default set in stone for the rest of combat, though the DM can allow players to re-arrange the order of tied initiatives in subsequent rounds if they wish.
What this means is that the mount can not move or act on the rider's turn, not in the round they're mounted or any other, instead it will maintain its own entirely separate turn which will happen either immediately before or immediately after the riders turn as chosen by the rider.
So basically the down side is that the mounts actions are heavily constrained, but the up side is that the rider chooses those actions, and the mount and riders turns will be right next to each other, so that you don't have to worry about enemies activating between the mounts turn and that of the rider. You still have to deal with the awkwardness of mount and rider having separate turns, and you still can't do a "ride by attack" where the mount makes part of its move before the rider attacks, and then makes the rest of its move afterwards.
As of the most recent comments from the most authoritative source, that's how things are supposed to work. IME most tables instead DO have the mount and rider share their turns in the case of a controlled mount. This is much easier and more intuitive than otherwise, and is implied by the wording in the rulebook to be what was intended by the writers at the time of writing, even if Crawford at least seems to have changed his mind later. However, be aware that this interpretation makes mounted combat much stronger than it is under the quote-unquote official interpretation.
In particular, the 'shared turns' interpretation allows for the steed to take the disengage action, move up to one or more enemies with part of its move, the rider can full attack including any bonus attacks they might want to make, then the mount can move away with the rest of its move, and neither rider nor mount will provoke any attacks of opportunity along the way. This is already very strong with a warhorse, but gets even stronger with a flying steed such as those a paladin can access via the Xanathar's 'Improved Find Steed' spell. For example a pegasus with it's 90' fly move, which could use this maneuver to swoop the paladin into melee range to full attack (including bonus action attack if any), then rise 45' back into the air out of the reach of non-flying melee opponents.
Or take a conquest paladin, which, from the ground, could have the pegasus suddenly fly 90' into the air to bring the paladin within aura range of flying enemies, then the paladin can cast Fear or use their Conquering Presence. Enemies that fail their save would be immobilized while within the paladin's aura, falling until they are just beneath it where they will stop falling. The pegasus can then use the dash action to effectively 'escort' those enemies to the ground like a traffic cop pulling over speeding cars.
Without the shared turns interpretation a conqueror on a pegasus could still do this by treating the pegasus as an uncontrolled mount, but the pegasus would need to ready the dash action to trigger after the paladin cast their spell or channel divinity, and any enemies that act between the pegasus and paladin's turns can get out of the way.
Now, are these sorts of ride-by/fly-by/fly-down type maneuvers overpowered or unreasonable? I don't know. Maybe in your game they're not. An archer on a steed can already ride away from opponents while full attacking with all their arrows regardless, is it so unreasonable for a melee character to do so? Spellcasters can already stun flying enemies out of the sky with various spells many levels before a conqueror can do so, and enemies downed by 'hold' or whatever plumet from the sky with falling damage, the conqueror's maneuver described above sets them gently down like fragile tea cups. And maybe mounted combat should be good - after all it's pretty easily counterable by simply attacking the steed, which is almost always much more fragile than the rider. And ride-by attacks can be countered by readied actions even if the mount disengages.
I don't think the shared turns interpretation is unbalanced, but it isn't apparently intended, and it is much stronger than what apparently is intended, so if a DM is leery about it, that's fair enough.
Creating a homebrew is essentially irrelevant for find Steed. The only difference between the steed and the base animal is an int of 6 and it's a celestial, fey, or fiend.
The latter part you can also change in D&D Beyond through the “Customize” option for your Mount in Extras. For the 6 INT, I just left a note to remind me, so it looks like this in the end:
Hey, so I was wondering if there is a way to properly add a summoned creature to your D&D Beyond character sheet? With Find Steed they should have an Int stat of 6 (we're looking at Warhorse), but we can't seem to edit it to say so. The other thing is, is there a way to have inventory items affect them as well (example Horseshoes of Speed).
Thank you.
- Kiki
Only way to have stat or speed changes is to create a homebrew monster and use that. Can create a warhorse with 6 INT and 90ft movement that way.
Thanks! Creating a Homebrew never crossed my mind. That is very helpful.
On the D&D Beyond character sheet you need to click the "extras" tab located in the same row as attack and description. Click extras and you will see manage extras. A drop down menu will appear and you just have to click familiars option. Then you can type in War horse or other official mounts names by type. Unless you are using something really out there you should be able to add the mount as a familiar as it's pretty much is a familiar. This way you can bring up the mounts information cards quickly. This of course works for familiars as well. My paladin is a Warlock also so I can use both find steed and find familiar. Having the cards up is convenient. Also if you tend to resummon the mounts in different species often then you can just go ahead and add the species to this list and just use them as needed without deleting and readding them. Same for familiars as well of course.
Hope this helps you.
This is a bit of an old topic, but Blackmail, this actually doesn't work properly. Since the way Familiars work in the game is drastically different from how Find Steed works. Sadly, it looks like they haven't coded a proper option. Not only does the Familiar option not properly increase the stats of the creature, it also adds the "familiar" tag to its stat block, incorrectly limiting its options. While it does let you select "type" (celestial, fey, fiend) appropriately, literally nothing else matches the rules for what SHOULD be there for a Paladin mount.
It's really a bummer, because they got the Ranger's companion set up properly (or at least as properly as they can with limitations on the system). Even the "mount" option just has a bog standard creature template. Same for "summoned", "pet", and "misc". Really, there is no distinction between these last four options, aside from the name of the category itself. They really could stand to shore this up a bit better, either by reducing the number of extraneous categories that mean nothing, or adding proper stat block additions for each category. (I.E., for Summoned creatures, could add the stat block info that they disappear when their HP reaches 0, instead of dying like normal.)
I'm just a bit bummed is all. :-| Really, the only way to do it "right" currently is with a homebrew version of the mount, but that's obnoxious to do each time.
Theres almost really no reason that you have to create a homebrew though.
Yes it would be nice if D&D Beyond made a paladin mount options in the extra area but the only things that change with find steed/find greater Steed is Int gies to 6 and it's a celestial, fey, or fiend. Every other stat remains the same.
Hey, I had some questions about this spell, and didn't want to start a whole new thing for it. Basically my question is Does my steed have it's own initiative in combat if I'm not on it? I'm looking at the elk option. it has some pretty good combat options, and i was jut wondering if it goes on my turn, or on it's own turn. The spell does not specify that I need to use an action to command him to do anything (I'm guessing because of the telepathic bond). So would it be acceptable to have him running around charging things down?
@KhaldoDraigo: But they do it for Familiars (only difference is a bit of a paragraph in the stat block saying they can't use most of their normal actions), and Ranger Companions (which I believe DOES change the attributes to fit ranger, but also has a paragraph in the stat block indicating the bonuses to atk and dmg rolls based on Ranger's proficiency bonus).
There's no reason for it to NOT be done for Find Steed when it's already essentially the same things done for two other class summons. And yes, I do consider Find Steed to be a class summon because it's a Paladin-specific spell.
Your steed from find Steed would have it's own initiative. Either that or for convenience sack your DM let's you control it on your turn. Either way it acts independently of you.
You should probably read my response better.
Creating a homebrew is essentially irrelevant for find Steed. The only difference between the steed and the base animal is an int of 6 and it's a celestial, fey, or fiend.
I know they make it for the beast masters companion and familiars. For some reason though they do not for find steed. It would be nice if D&D Beyond created section for it. But unless you're homebrewing a creature theres no reason not to use a creature's base stats keeping in mind its int is 6.
Yes and no.
Mounted, it uses your initiative and can only dash/dodge/disengage. No charging. So effectively (feats not withstanding), it only gives you extra movement.
Once you ride it to the mob and then dismount, it keeps your initiative, and you independently control it, you decide if it goes immediately before or after your turn, it can charge, flank, attack....
Find Steed is fantastic.
The mounted combat rules are complicated, not entirely clear from the rules text, and have been clarified in incompatible ways by various rules writers in various sources. So the way the rules are supposed to run are rather opaque and it's unlikely your DM follows those rules exactly either way.
That said, according to the most authoritative and recent sources I could find (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/14/rider-on-controlled-mount-wants-to-attack-mid-move-do-rider-and-mount-share-one-turn/), which hilariously enough directly contradicts the interpretation seemingly put forward in the sage advice video these Q&As are directly following on, it's supposed to work like this:
There are two ways for mounted combat to work. "Controlled Mount" and "Uncontrolled Mount". Uncontrolled is the less typical but easier to describe so we'll start there.
With an uncontrolled mount, the rider and mount keep their own initiative counts and action pools, and each decides for itself what they do on their turns. The mount moves as it wishes and the rider is carried along whenever the mount moves, which counts as involuntary movement so the rider does not provoke opportunity attacks. However, the mount still does, and any attack that can be directed at the mount can instead be targeted at the rider at the attacker's discretion. The steed's actions are not in any way limited in this case, but operating on it's own initiative can cause problems - ie the mount charges up to an enemy and attacks it. But if the enemy's turn comes before the rider's turn, then it can just disengage and walk away before the rider ever gets a chance to attack.
Controlled mount requires a willing mount trained to work as a steed in stressful (ie combat) situations. A steed that can be controlled can be uncontrolled instead, the rider decides whether to treat the steed as controlled or not when they mount it or when initiative is rolled, though the steed can refuse to be controlled, particularly if intelligent or adversarial. While acting as a controlled steed, a mounts actions on its turn are controlled by the rider, and it may only take the following actions: dash, dodge, or disengage. It's initiative count is changed to match the rider as well.
This is where things get very complicated, because there is some indication that the mount was intended to share the same turn as the rider, and a lot of DMs run it that way. There's a quote 'the mount may move on on the turn it was mounted, even if it already moved earlier that round', which shouldn't be possible unless the mount and rider share the same turn, as otherwise the mount can't move during the riders turn at all, since it's *the rider's turn*.
However, according to Crawford that line is essentially nonsense and should be ignored altogether. Instead when the mounts initiative count is changed to match that of the PC, it is treated as any other initiative tie. IE, since the tie is between a PC and a PC-controlled NPC, the players determine the order, which is then by default set in stone for the rest of combat, though the DM can allow players to re-arrange the order of tied initiatives in subsequent rounds if they wish.
What this means is that the mount can not move or act on the rider's turn, not in the round they're mounted or any other, instead it will maintain its own entirely separate turn which will happen either immediately before or immediately after the riders turn as chosen by the rider.
So basically the down side is that the mounts actions are heavily constrained, but the up side is that the rider chooses those actions, and the mount and riders turns will be right next to each other, so that you don't have to worry about enemies activating between the mounts turn and that of the rider. You still have to deal with the awkwardness of mount and rider having separate turns, and you still can't do a "ride by attack" where the mount makes part of its move before the rider attacks, and then makes the rest of its move afterwards.
As of the most recent comments from the most authoritative source, that's how things are supposed to work. IME most tables instead DO have the mount and rider share their turns in the case of a controlled mount. This is much easier and more intuitive than otherwise, and is implied by the wording in the rulebook to be what was intended by the writers at the time of writing, even if Crawford at least seems to have changed his mind later. However, be aware that this interpretation makes mounted combat much stronger than it is under the quote-unquote official interpretation.
In particular, the 'shared turns' interpretation allows for the steed to take the disengage action, move up to one or more enemies with part of its move, the rider can full attack including any bonus attacks they might want to make, then the mount can move away with the rest of its move, and neither rider nor mount will provoke any attacks of opportunity along the way. This is already very strong with a warhorse, but gets even stronger with a flying steed such as those a paladin can access via the Xanathar's 'Improved Find Steed' spell. For example a pegasus with it's 90' fly move, which could use this maneuver to swoop the paladin into melee range to full attack (including bonus action attack if any), then rise 45' back into the air out of the reach of non-flying melee opponents.
Or take a conquest paladin, which, from the ground, could have the pegasus suddenly fly 90' into the air to bring the paladin within aura range of flying enemies, then the paladin can cast Fear or use their Conquering Presence. Enemies that fail their save would be immobilized while within the paladin's aura, falling until they are just beneath it where they will stop falling. The pegasus can then use the dash action to effectively 'escort' those enemies to the ground like a traffic cop pulling over speeding cars.
Without the shared turns interpretation a conqueror on a pegasus could still do this by treating the pegasus as an uncontrolled mount, but the pegasus would need to ready the dash action to trigger after the paladin cast their spell or channel divinity, and any enemies that act between the pegasus and paladin's turns can get out of the way.
Now, are these sorts of ride-by/fly-by/fly-down type maneuvers overpowered or unreasonable? I don't know. Maybe in your game they're not. An archer on a steed can already ride away from opponents while full attacking with all their arrows regardless, is it so unreasonable for a melee character to do so? Spellcasters can already stun flying enemies out of the sky with various spells many levels before a conqueror can do so, and enemies downed by 'hold' or whatever plumet from the sky with falling damage, the conqueror's maneuver described above sets them gently down like fragile tea cups. And maybe mounted combat should be good - after all it's pretty easily counterable by simply attacking the steed, which is almost always much more fragile than the rider. And ride-by attacks can be countered by readied actions even if the mount disengages.
I don't think the shared turns interpretation is unbalanced, but it isn't apparently intended, and it is much stronger than what apparently is intended, so if a DM is leery about it, that's fair enough.
The latter part you can also change in D&D Beyond through the “Customize” option for your Mount in Extras. For the 6 INT, I just left a note to remind me, so it looks like this in the end: