It disappears because of the effect of the spell, not the nature of the beast itself. Elementals don't generally disappear after 1 hour if they're present by virtue of some mechanic other than Conjure Elemental because their appearance and disappearance is due to the spell, not due to some inherent nature of the creature. The same with phantom steed.
This part feels really disingenuous.
Whether by RAW you can wild shape into a spell effect aside (does it break the game? probably not, so who cares), it seems like cherry picking to say that part of the spell's effect is "because of the effect of the spell" while other parts of the spell effect have to be treated differently for no good reason.
Notwithstanding the internal logic of the problem of saying that a conjured elemental is just an elemental with changes due to the spell whereas a phantom steed is not the riding horse described in the spell with changes due to the spell.
It disappears because of the effect of the spell, not the nature of the beast itself. Elementals don't generally disappear after 1 hour if they're present by virtue of some mechanic other than Conjure Elemental because their appearance and disappearance is due to the spell, not due to some inherent nature of the creature. The same with phantom steed.
This part feels really disingenuous.
Whether by RAW you can wild shape into a spell effect aside (does it break the game? probably not, so who cares), it seems like cherry picking to say that part of the spell's effect is "because of the effect of the spell" while other parts of the spell effect have to be treated differently for no good reason.
How?
An Enlarged Bear is not a distinct creature from the bear that was enlarged. It is no more a distinct creature than a human wearing armour is distinct from a human not wearing armour - which is to say, beyond their statblock being altered by circumstances, you're still looking at the same creature.
A phantom steed is not a riding horse. It is its own thing - they're as distinct from one another as a Polar Bear is from a Brown Bear. The effects of the spell on Enlarge is alter their size and strength, it's still a bear. The effect of Phantom Steed isn't to turn a Riding Horse into a Phantom Steed. A Phantom Steed is what it is. The effect of the spell is to make a Phantom Steed to appear beside you. That isn't a necessary effect for wildshape or maintain wildshape etc- you can see a bear, get its wildshape, then erase it from existence, and still become a bear. That the Phantom Steed disappears when the spell ends is neither here nor there when it comes to RAW wildshaping.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you aren't going to bother to address what I've said, then there's no need to quote me. I don't think I necessarily need to repeat myself, but you are right that the creature summoned by phantom steed is indeed different from a riding horse. The problem is the part that you didn't address: it is cherry picking to say that parts of the description of the spell -- such as how the creature disappears -- are "due to the spell's effect" and other parts of it -- such as those differences -- somehow aren't.
If you aren't going to bother to address what I've said, then there's no need to quote me. I don't think I necessarily need to repeat myself, but you are right that the creature summoned by phantom steed is indeed different from a riding horse. The problem is the part that you didn't address: it is cherry picking to say that parts of the description of the spell -- such as how the creature disappears -- are "due to the spell's effect" and other parts of it -- such as those differences -- somehow aren't.
If I'm not addressing your point,.it is because you are not being specific enough and therefore causing confusion. Be both explicit and clear in your intent, rather than throwing accusations around when I'm not being telepathic. What do you think is in common between the two that I'm cherry picking? All you've said so far is that I'm cherry picking something, somewhere, and gotten annoyed when I asked for details and expounded on my statements in attempt to be clear.
How the phantom disappears is due to the spell, not the nature of the phantom steed. The difference between the stats of a phantom steed and a riding horse is because they're fundamentally different creatures, albeit with similar enough stats that the writers chose to simply use the same stats but slightly modified rather than reprinting an entire new statblock that is identical to a riding horse apart fron a couple of numbers and this wasting paper. They're as different as a polar bear and a brown bear in terms of what creature they are.
That's basically repeating myself for the nth time, but I really don't know how to interpret your statements in a different way.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you aren't going to bother to address what I've said, then there's no need to quote me. I don't think I necessarily need to repeat myself, but you are right that the creature summoned by phantom steed is indeed different from a riding horse. The problem is the part that you didn't address: it is cherry picking to say that parts of the description of the spell -- such as how the creature disappears -- are "due to the spell's effect" and other parts of it -- such as those differences -- somehow aren't.
The difference is that the creature disappearing is something that happens in the game. The characters can observe it! It exists as part of the game's fiction. In contrast, the differences in stat block between riding horse and phantom steed are metatextual. There is no riding horse within the fiction of the game that is being changed. The differences are the game, speaking to the players, explaining how to model the fiction, which is just "phantom steed." That difference isn't "due to the spell" because spells aren't real.
If you aren't going to bother to address what I've said, then there's no need to quote me. I don't think I necessarily need to repeat myself, but you are right that the creature summoned by phantom steed is indeed different from a riding horse. The problem is the part that you didn't address: it is cherry picking to say that parts of the description of the spell -- such as how the creature disappears -- are "due to the spell's effect" and other parts of it -- such as those differences -- somehow aren't.
The difference is that the creature disappearing is something that happens in the game. The characters can observe it! It exists as part of the game's fiction. In contrast, the differences in stat block between riding horse and phantom steed are metatextual. There is no riding horse within the fiction of the game that is being changed. The differences are the game, speaking to the players, explaining how to model the fiction, which is just "phantom steed." That difference isn't "due to the spell" because spells aren't real.
So then anything that the characters could observe about the spell effect is part of the phantom steed? Such as it fading away when damaged and being only quasi-real? Or even the fact that the phantom steed is a spell effect?
If you aren't going to bother to address what I've said, then there's no need to quote me. I don't think I necessarily need to repeat myself, but you are right that the creature summoned by phantom steed is indeed different from a riding horse. The problem is the part that you didn't address: it is cherry picking to say that parts of the description of the spell -- such as how the creature disappears -- are "due to the spell's effect" and other parts of it -- such as those differences -- somehow aren't.
The difference is that the creature disappearing is something that happens in the game. The characters can observe it! It exists as part of the game's fiction. In contrast, the differences in stat block between riding horse and phantom steed are metatextual. There is no riding horse within the fiction of the game that is being changed. The differences are the game, speaking to the players, explaining how to model the fiction, which is just "phantom steed." That difference isn't "due to the spell" because spells aren't real.
So then anything that the characters could observe about the spell effect is part of the phantom steed? Such as it fading away when damaged and being only quasi-real?
I wouldn't say so? The fading away is an effect of the spell for sure; but it's not described as one of the ways in which the steed's statistics differ from those of a riding horse, so I wouldn't tend to describe it as being part of the steed itself.
I would like to add my 2 copper pieces. Phantom steeds do not have statblocks. The spell says that they use the statistics for a riding horse with some modifications, but it does not say that they have a statblock of their own that mimics that of a riding horse. It's borrowing the statistics because it has none of its own.
I would also add that, if what people are saying about this working is true (which it isn't), then the druid WOULD disappear after an hour or taking any damage. The argument, as I understand it (which admittedly isn't very well as it's been explained rather poorly), is that the phantom steed's 100 foot movement is a direct change to the statblock, whereas the additional addendums are exterior effects due to the spell. I would argue that, since it is also listed next to and in the same context as the revised movement speed, the steed being able to travel 10 miles per hour disproves this. NOWHERE in ANY statblock does it say how fast a creature can move in an hour, which means that this is not a part of the statblock of the phantom steed but rather a part of the spell. Since it is in the exact same context as the 100 feet movement, it can be extrapolated that it is also a part of the spell rather than the statblock. So there you have it. You either have a normal riding horse, or you become pure magic if you take any damage. That is, even if my first argument doesn't hold water, which it does.
Finally, no druid dumb enough to be in a party with so few braincells that they decide to cast phantom steed is going to be smart enough to replicate the creature created by it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The very existence of the Phantom Steed is "due to the spell"! That is what Wolf and I have been saying. You cannot say that it only disappears because of the spell but that the Phantom Steed exists in some other way other than the spell.
Phantom Steed is a creature. You even quote it saying such. Whether a creature exists before or after you see it (which is your interpretation, by the way, and not what it actually says,.whether I agree or not), is irrelevant - if a bear pops into existence, you see it, then some mighty god obliterates it out of existence, you don't lose the ability to wildshape into a bear because your ability to wildshape into it is not contingent upon it's continued existence. While the spell is in effect, it is a creature, and that's all that matters (beyond the other criteria for wildshaping, which it does meet according to RAW).
Phantom Steed has no stat block
Insomuch as any creature has a statblock, yes it does. It is not repeated for brevity. An Orc Commoner has no independent statblock, just like Dwarf Commoners but they exist and they have statblocks. In both cases, it is an editorial decision to rather than to have multiple near identical statblocks taking up page space.
, it IS a spell affect.It uses statistics of a Riding Horse, but it does not exist outside of being created by the spell.
Again, quite apart from that being your interpretation, that's irrelevant. Wildshaping is not contingent upon the continued existence of the creature. The difference between Phantom Steed is that a phantom steed is a phantom steed, nothing else. It is not a modified riding horse. A bear with Enlarge cast upon it still a bear.
The spell doesn't even classify it as a Beast, just a "quasi-real, horselike creature".
As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread,.this is not true. It tells you to use the statistics of a Riding Horse, and part of those statistics is the creature type, and since we haven't been told to modify it, the creature type is the same for both a riding horse and a phantom steed, which is "Beast".
Is that the problem? Sure. I think they overlooked that part when writing it up. Still, that is what is written, so that is the RAW answer.
Here is a quote about RAW by Crawford:
When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
RAW cannot be based on anything that isn't written in the text. Intent, when discussing RAW, is irrelevant (and also why I don't run RAW tables, I run RAI plus rule of cool). Do I agree that the writers intended for PS to not be a valid wildshape? Yes. If I can't wildshape an Owlbear (which, by RAW, you can't), then I don't see how PS could be. But RAW, there is nothing stopping you.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The very existence of the Phantom Steed is "due to the spell"! That is what Wolf and I have been saying. You cannot say that it only disappears because of the spell but that the Phantom Steed exists in some other way other than the spell.
Phantom Steed is a creature. You even quote it saying such. Whether a creature exists before or after you see it (which is your interpretation, by the way, and not what it actually says,.whether I agree or not), is irrelevant - if a bear pops into existence, you see it, then some mighty god obliterates it out of existence, you don't lose the ability to wildshape into a bear because your ability to wildshape into it is not contingent upon it's continued existence. While the spell is in effect, it is a creature, and that's all that matters (beyond the other criteria for wildshaping, which it does meet according to RAW).
Phantom Steed has no stat block
Insomuch as any creature has a statblock, yes it does. It is not repeated for brevity. An Orc Commoner has no independent statblock, just like Dwarf Commoners but they exist and they have statblocks. In both cases, it is an editorial decision to rather than to have multiple near identical statblocks taking up page space.
, it IS a spell affect.It uses statistics of a Riding Horse, but it does not exist outside of being created by the spell.
Again, quite apart from that being your interpretation, that's irrelevant. Wildshaping is not contingent upon the continued existence of the creature. The difference between Phantom Steed is that a phantom steed is a phantom steed, nothing else. It is not a modified riding horse. A bear with Enlarge cast upon it still a bear.
The spell doesn't even classify it as a Beast, just a "quasi-real, horselike creature".
As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread,.this is not true. It tells you to use the statistics of a Riding Horse, and part of those statistics is the creature type, and since we haven't been told to modify it, the creature type is the same for both a riding horse and a phantom steed, which is "Beast".
Is that the problem? Sure. I think they overlooked that part when writing it up. Still, that is what is written, so that is the RAW answer.
Here is a quote about RAW by Crawford:
When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
RAW cannot be based on anything that isn't written in the text. Intent, when discussing RAW, is irrelevant (and also why I don't run RAW tables, I run RAI plus rule of cool). Do I agree that the writers intended for PS to not be a valid wildshape? Yes. If I can't wildshape an Owlbear (which, by RAW, you can't), then I don't see how PS could be. But RAW, there is nothing stopping you.
Okay, if you can give me an example of a Phantom Steed existing anywhere outside of the spell, Phantom Steed, I will concede that a Druid can Wildshape into one. But you cannot say that only part of a spell is the affect of the spell while the other part of the spell totally-exists-outside-of-the-spell-trust-me-I've-done-my-research.
The only one who's made any claim as to the existence or lack thereof of the PS is yourself, so your comment is really ironic. Now, show me where in the rules of wildshaping it says that your condition is relevant. If you can't quote it (not "insert your own commentary" or "claim your opinion as the written rules", but an actual quote of the rules where it says you can't), then it isn't RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Okay, if you can give me an example of a Phantom Steed existing anywhere outside of the spell, Phantom Steed, I will concede that a Druid can Wildshape into one. But you cannot say that only part of a spell is the affect of the spell while the other part of the spell totally-exists-outside-of-the-spell-trust-me-I've-done-my-research.
Why? Do you even know the real reason a Druid can't Wild Shape into the Beast summoned by Summon Beast? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with the creature's nature as being the result of a spell.
Okay, if you can give me an example of a Phantom Steed existing anywhere outside of the spell, Phantom Steed, I will concede that a Druid can Wildshape into one. But you cannot say that only part of a spell is the affect of the spell while the other part of the spell totally-exists-outside-of-the-spell-trust-me-I've-done-my-research.
Why? Do you even know the real reason a Druid can't Wild Shape into the Beast summoned by Summon Beast? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with the creature's nature as being the result of a spell.
That is because it doesn't have a CR, and Wildshape is dependent on CR.
It absolutely has a CR. The spell explicitly tells you it uses the statistics of a riding horse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This part feels really disingenuous.
Whether by RAW you can wild shape into a spell effect aside (does it break the game? probably not, so who cares), it seems like cherry picking to say that part of the spell's effect is "because of the effect of the spell" while other parts of the spell effect have to be treated differently for no good reason.
Notwithstanding the internal logic of the problem of saying that a conjured elemental is just an elemental with changes due to the spell whereas a phantom steed is not the riding horse described in the spell with changes due to the spell.
How?
An Enlarged Bear is not a distinct creature from the bear that was enlarged. It is no more a distinct creature than a human wearing armour is distinct from a human not wearing armour - which is to say, beyond their statblock being altered by circumstances, you're still looking at the same creature.
A phantom steed is not a riding horse. It is its own thing - they're as distinct from one another as a Polar Bear is from a Brown Bear. The effects of the spell on Enlarge is alter their size and strength, it's still a bear. The effect of Phantom Steed isn't to turn a Riding Horse into a Phantom Steed. A Phantom Steed is what it is. The effect of the spell is to make a Phantom Steed to appear beside you. That isn't a necessary effect for wildshape or maintain wildshape etc- you can see a bear, get its wildshape, then erase it from existence, and still become a bear. That the Phantom Steed disappears when the spell ends is neither here nor there when it comes to RAW wildshaping.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you aren't going to bother to address what I've said, then there's no need to quote me. I don't think I necessarily need to repeat myself, but you are right that the creature summoned by phantom steed is indeed different from a riding horse. The problem is the part that you didn't address: it is cherry picking to say that parts of the description of the spell -- such as how the creature disappears -- are "due to the spell's effect" and other parts of it -- such as those differences -- somehow aren't.
If I'm not addressing your point,.it is because you are not being specific enough and therefore causing confusion. Be both explicit and clear in your intent, rather than throwing accusations around when I'm not being telepathic. What do you think is in common between the two that I'm cherry picking? All you've said so far is that I'm cherry picking something, somewhere, and gotten annoyed when I asked for details and expounded on my statements in attempt to be clear.
How the phantom disappears is due to the spell, not the nature of the phantom steed. The difference between the stats of a phantom steed and a riding horse is because they're fundamentally different creatures, albeit with similar enough stats that the writers chose to simply use the same stats but slightly modified rather than reprinting an entire new statblock that is identical to a riding horse apart fron a couple of numbers and this wasting paper. They're as different as a polar bear and a brown bear in terms of what creature they are.
That's basically repeating myself for the nth time, but I really don't know how to interpret your statements in a different way.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The difference is that the creature disappearing is something that happens in the game. The characters can observe it! It exists as part of the game's fiction. In contrast, the differences in stat block between riding horse and phantom steed are metatextual. There is no riding horse within the fiction of the game that is being changed. The differences are the game, speaking to the players, explaining how to model the fiction, which is just "phantom steed." That difference isn't "due to the spell" because spells aren't real.
So then anything that the characters could observe about the spell effect is part of the phantom steed? Such as it fading away when damaged and being only quasi-real? Or even the fact that the phantom steed is a spell effect?
I wouldn't say so? The fading away is an effect of the spell for sure; but it's not described as one of the ways in which the steed's statistics differ from those of a riding horse, so I wouldn't tend to describe it as being part of the steed itself.
I would like to add my 2 copper pieces. Phantom steeds do not have statblocks. The spell says that they use the statistics for a riding horse with some modifications, but it does not say that they have a statblock of their own that mimics that of a riding horse. It's borrowing the statistics because it has none of its own.
I would also add that, if what people are saying about this working is true (which it isn't), then the druid WOULD disappear after an hour or taking any damage. The argument, as I understand it (which admittedly isn't very well as it's been explained rather poorly), is that the phantom steed's 100 foot movement is a direct change to the statblock, whereas the additional addendums are exterior effects due to the spell. I would argue that, since it is also listed next to and in the same context as the revised movement speed, the steed being able to travel 10 miles per hour disproves this. NOWHERE in ANY statblock does it say how fast a creature can move in an hour, which means that this is not a part of the statblock of the phantom steed but rather a part of the spell. Since it is in the exact same context as the 100 feet movement, it can be extrapolated that it is also a part of the spell rather than the statblock. So there you have it. You either have a normal riding horse, or you become pure magic if you take any damage. That is, even if my first argument doesn't hold water, which it does.
Finally, no druid dumb enough to be in a party with so few braincells that they decide to cast phantom steed is going to be smart enough to replicate the creature created by it.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Phantom Steed is a creature. You even quote it saying such. Whether a creature exists before or after you see it (which is your interpretation, by the way, and not what it actually says,.whether I agree or not), is irrelevant - if a bear pops into existence, you see it, then some mighty god obliterates it out of existence, you don't lose the ability to wildshape into a bear because your ability to wildshape into it is not contingent upon it's continued existence. While the spell is in effect, it is a creature, and that's all that matters (beyond the other criteria for wildshaping, which it does meet according to RAW).
Insomuch as any creature has a statblock, yes it does. It is not repeated for brevity. An Orc Commoner has no independent statblock, just like Dwarf Commoners but they exist and they have statblocks. In both cases, it is an editorial decision to rather than to have multiple near identical statblocks taking up page space.
Again, quite apart from that being your interpretation, that's irrelevant. Wildshaping is not contingent upon the continued existence of the creature. The difference between Phantom Steed is that a phantom steed is a phantom steed, nothing else. It is not a modified riding horse. A bear with Enlarge cast upon it still a bear.
As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread,.this is not true. It tells you to use the statistics of a Riding Horse, and part of those statistics is the creature type, and since we haven't been told to modify it, the creature type is the same for both a riding horse and a phantom steed, which is "Beast".
Is that the problem? Sure. I think they overlooked that part when writing it up. Still, that is what is written, so that is the RAW answer.
Here is a quote about RAW by Crawford:
RAW cannot be based on anything that isn't written in the text. Intent, when discussing RAW, is irrelevant (and also why I don't run RAW tables, I run RAI plus rule of cool). Do I agree that the writers intended for PS to not be a valid wildshape? Yes. If I can't wildshape an Owlbear (which, by RAW, you can't), then I don't see how PS could be. But RAW, there is nothing stopping you.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The only one who's made any claim as to the existence or lack thereof of the PS is yourself, so your comment is really ironic. Now, show me where in the rules of wildshaping it says that your condition is relevant. If you can't quote it (not "insert your own commentary" or "claim your opinion as the written rules", but an actual quote of the rules where it says you can't), then it isn't RAW.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Why? Do you even know the real reason a Druid can't Wild Shape into the Beast summoned by Summon Beast? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with the creature's nature as being the result of a spell.
It absolutely has a CR. The spell explicitly tells you it uses the statistics of a riding horse.