Theres no written guidance suggesting that Find Steed is incapable of being independent, nor any language in the Mounted Combat section. Feel free to rule as you wish, but discarding JC’s non-RAW opinion does not mean that your own gets elevated in its place. Find a quote in the PHB that says Find Steed mounts can’t be independent.
First off, as everyone including JC knows, what JC says on Twitter is not an official rule, and is really no more valuable than the opinion of any other DM. Second, what a bunch of people say on the internet is also not a rule.
Ok I agree that what JC says does not overrule the DM at your table, nor is everything he says a substitute for the book itself. But he did write and design the rules. His opinion is inherently more valuable than your typical forum goer because it's literally the game he created. Furthermore as the game designer, he is the authority on RAI (rules as intended) since its essentially his intention that is referring to...
I'm referring primarily to the video I linked at the timestamps I provided. If you haven't watched it, do. It answers everything you need to know. If I thought that tweet made my entire point I would have linked it myself.
It simply says you can decide if you want the mount to be controlled or not. It does nothing to change the rules about mounted combat. It just says you can decide if you want to control your mount or not. It says nothing about allowing a controlled mount to act like an uncontrolled mount. And just because you are using the word “directing” instead of controlling doesn’t change anything. They are synonymous in this situation. If you tell the mount “go there” and it does, you have controlled it.
This is utter nonsense. You can also talk to your friends or ally npcs and say "charge on that position and attack", and if you have authority over them they'll comply of their own free will. Does this mean you're controlling them? Ofcourse not. Are they doing precisely what you say? Yes. The mount is no different. Mechanically it acts on its own initiative and is classed as uncontrolled mount. But that phrase "uncontrolled mount" is a rules distinction, not too be confused with more descriptive terms like "acting under orders" or "being communicated with". It doesn't suddenly become incapable of using it's attacks because you told it to move somewhere and your voice drained it's free will away. That only happens if you say "DM, I would like to take control of my mount and force it to move here", at which point it's initiative changes to your own and it switches to following the rules of a "controlled mount".
I reiterate, you should watch the video I linked, both at the 15 minute mark & the 33 minute mark where these things are covered. There JC goes in to how this is a "loyal mount which serves you" which you "can choose to control or act independently" and you can communicate with. There is no reason for it not to act as you order it, even when using the "uncontrolled mount" rules.
Overall it is the same as any ally with unrelenting loyalty to you. You can speak to it, you can give it orders, and it will follow those orders to the best of it's ability in almost all circumstances. It acts on its own initiative and has every action available to it. This is true whether mounted or not, and is only compromised if and only if you choose to treat it as a controlled mount while mounted. Afterall, why would it be *less* compliant when ridden than it is when you're not mounted. You can also command it to move and attack and just treat it like any summon and it will follow your orders when not sitting on its back.
Theres no written guidance suggesting that Find Steed is incapable of being independent, nor any language in the Mounted Combat section. Feel free to rule as you wish, but discarding JC’s non-RAW opinion does not mean that your own gets elevated in its place. Find a quote in the PHB that says Find Steed mounts can’t be independent.
The irony is ofcourse a perfectly sane reading of the controlling mounts rules alone may actually forbid you from treating the steed as a controlled mount, since it is "unusually intelligent" (most spells consider the cutoff of intelligent beasts as either 3 or 4, but there is no formal rule on this. The found steed has 6).
"Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently."
The rules on creature intelligence are left vague enough that this isn't the case and indeed the consensus is ofcourse you can choose to have your steed be a controlled mount. But it's funny that if you read them the rules contain at least some support that the opposite is true & these steeds have to act independently.
I think you're still misunderstanding when "spell you cast" takes place. You pick targets when you "cast" a spell, not on future rounds. Find Steed lets you pick an additional target when you "cast" the spell while mounted, not make a spell that is already cast effect additional creatures on future rounds while mounted.
No: who cares, the spell is already cast, and its effect is on the one or two creatures it was cast on last round, as long as you maintain concentration.
Yes: who cares, the spell is already cast and its effect is on the one or two creatures it was cast on last round, as long as you maintain concentration.
There is no such thing as "no longer targeted by the spell" in this context (other spells may have spell effects that pick new targets every round, like Telekinesis, but that's not what we're talking about here). A spell is targeted when it is cast, once. If its a spell with an ongoing effect for a duration, then it continues to effect you, not "target" you.
That's a lot of words that don't really matter. The specifics of FGS's "While..."trumps the general casting rules. The key here is that the spell you cast only affects the mount while you are on it. At least if we go by the actual rules of the spells. If you want to play it differently, fine by me.
Can you quote the part of FGS that says a spell only effects your mount while you're on it? Because poor dumb me, all I see printed are rules about you being able to target your mount while you cast a spell if you're mounted.
You summon a spirit that assumes the form of a loyal, majestic mount. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the spirit takes on a form you choose: a griffon, a pegasus, a peryton, a dire wolf, a rhinoceros, or a saber-toothed tiger. The creature has the statistics provided in the Monster Manual for the chosen form, though it is a celestial, a fey, or a fiend (your choice) instead of its normal creature type. Additionally, if it has an Intelligence score of 5 or lower, its Intelligence becomes 6, and it gains the ability to understand one language of your choice that you speak.
You control the mount in combat. While the mount is within 1 mile of you, you can communicate with it telepathically. While mounted on it, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target the mount.
The mount disappears temporarily when it drops to 0 hit points or when you dismiss it as an action. Casting this spell again re-summons the bonded mount, with all its hit points restored and any conditions removed.
You can’t have more than one mount bonded by this spell or find steed at the same time. As an action, you can release a mount from its bond, causing it to disappear permanently.
Whenever the mount disappears, it leaves behind any objects it was wearing or carrying.
You appear to understand the difference between a target of a spell you cast, and a creature effected by a spell. So it seems like you're just not actually reading FS and FGS, if you think they say anything at all about a spell "only affects the mount while you are on it." That literally is not the spell.
It simply says you can decide if you want the mount to be controlled or not. It does nothing to change the rules about mounted combat. It just says you can decide if you want to control your mount or not. It says nothing about allowing a controlled mount to act like an uncontrolled mount. And just because you are using the word “directing” instead of controlling doesn’t change anything. They are synonymous in this situation. If you tell the mount “go there” and it does, you have controlled it.
This is utter nonsense. You can also talk to your friends or ally npcs and say "charge on that position and attack", and if you have authority over them they'll comply of their own free will. Does this mean you're controlling them? Ofcourse not. Are they doing precisely what you say? Yes. The mount is no different. Mechanically it acts on its own initiative and is classed as uncontrolled mount. But that phrase "uncontrolled mount" is a rules distinction, not too be confused with more descriptive terms like "acting under orders" or "being communicated with". It doesn't suddenly become incapable of using it's attacks because you told it to move somewhere and your voice drained it's free will away. That only happens if you say "DM, I would like to take control of my mount and force it to move here", at which point it's initiative changes to your own and it switches to following the rules of a "controlled mount".
I reiterate, you should watch the video I linked, both at the 15 minute mark & the 33 minute mark where these things are covered. There JC goes in to how this is a "loyal mount which serves you" which you "can choose to control or act independently" and you can communicate with. There is no reason for it not to act as you order it, even when using the "uncontrolled mount" rules.
Overall it is the same as any ally with unrelenting loyalty to you. You can speak to it, you can give it orders, and it will follow those orders to the best of it's ability in almost all circumstances. It acts on its own initiative and has every action available to it. This is true whether mounted or not, and is only compromised if and only if you choose to treat it as a controlled mount while mounted. Afterall, why would it be *less* compliant when ridden than it is when you're not mounted. You can also command it to move and attack and just treat it like any summon and it will follow your orders when not sitting on its back.
The difference, and its a very big difference, is that there's a third party involved. If you tell the fighter to do something, then the player running that fighter does it, that player made the choice to perform the act. You suggested, and the player agreed and followed through, but it was not controlled. Someone else made the decision to agree with your suggestion. If you are running both the mount and the character on the mount, there's no buffer. You are controlling them both.
Now, if the DM was running the mount, and you said, I tell the mount to go over there, and then the DM who is running the mount agrees and does it, then I'd agree you are not controlling the mount. Practically, I agree that the mount would probably always end up doing what you say, and I realize this would be a hassle, and I'm always against making more work for the DM. So now I think of it, I'm being a bit pedantic, but that's still how I read the rules.
Theres no written guidance suggesting that Find Steed is incapable of being independent, nor any language in the Mounted Combat section. Feel free to rule as you wish, but discarding JC’s non-RAW opinion does not mean that your own gets elevated in its place. Find a quote in the PHB that says Find Steed mounts can’t be independent.
I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was. I've never once said the mount can't be independent. It can be controlled, or it can be independent. I'm saying it can't be both simultaneously. You can't control it and also get the benefits of being on an independent mount.
A controlled mount acts on your turn, allowing you to ride around and do attacks against different creatures etc.
An independent mount has its own turn, so you'll either be making ranged attacks, attacking what you're already next to, or readying an action for a charge on the horse's turn.
I agree that the independent mount advantages (horsey takes its own full turn, including being able to attack) and the controlled mount advantages (shares your turn so its movement is actually useful to you) can't be merged.
Theres no written guidance suggesting that Find Steed is incapable of being independent, nor any language in the Mounted Combat section. Feel free to rule as you wish, but discarding JC’s non-RAW opinion does not mean that your own gets elevated in its place. Find a quote in the PHB that says Find Steed mounts can’t be independent.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Let me take apart what you've just said for a second.
Ok I agree that what JC says does not overrule the DM at your table, nor is everything he says a substitute for the book itself. But he did write and design the rules. His opinion is inherently more valuable than your typical forum goer because it's literally the game he created. Furthermore as the game designer, he is the authority on RAI (rules as intended) since its essentially his intention that is referring to...
I'm referring primarily to the video I linked at the timestamps I provided. If you haven't watched it, do. It answers everything you need to know. If I thought that tweet made my entire point I would have linked it myself.
This is utter nonsense. You can also talk to your friends or ally npcs and say "charge on that position and attack", and if you have authority over them they'll comply of their own free will. Does this mean you're controlling them? Ofcourse not. Are they doing precisely what you say? Yes. The mount is no different. Mechanically it acts on its own initiative and is classed as uncontrolled mount. But that phrase "uncontrolled mount" is a rules distinction, not too be confused with more descriptive terms like "acting under orders" or "being communicated with". It doesn't suddenly become incapable of using it's attacks because you told it to move somewhere and your voice drained it's free will away. That only happens if you say "DM, I would like to take control of my mount and force it to move here", at which point it's initiative changes to your own and it switches to following the rules of a "controlled mount".
I reiterate, you should watch the video I linked, both at the 15 minute mark & the 33 minute mark where these things are covered. There JC goes in to how this is a "loyal mount which serves you" which you "can choose to control or act independently" and you can communicate with. There is no reason for it not to act as you order it, even when using the "uncontrolled mount" rules.
Overall it is the same as any ally with unrelenting loyalty to you. You can speak to it, you can give it orders, and it will follow those orders to the best of it's ability in almost all circumstances. It acts on its own initiative and has every action available to it. This is true whether mounted or not, and is only compromised if and only if you choose to treat it as a controlled mount while mounted. Afterall, why would it be *less* compliant when ridden than it is when you're not mounted. You can also command it to move and attack and just treat it like any summon and it will follow your orders when not sitting on its back.
The irony is ofcourse a perfectly sane reading of the controlling mounts rules alone may actually forbid you from treating the steed as a controlled mount, since it is "unusually intelligent" (most spells consider the cutoff of intelligent beasts as either 3 or 4, but there is no formal rule on this. The found steed has 6).
"Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently."
The rules on creature intelligence are left vague enough that this isn't the case and indeed the consensus is ofcourse you can choose to have your steed be a controlled mount. But it's funny that if you read them the rules contain at least some support that the opposite is true & these steeds have to act independently.
That's a lot of words that don't really matter. The specifics of FGS's "While..."trumps the general casting rules. The key here is that the spell you cast only affects the mount while you are on it. At least if we go by the actual rules of the spells. If you want to play it differently, fine by me.
Can you quote the part of FGS that says a spell only effects your mount while you're on it? Because poor dumb me, all I see printed are rules about you being able to target your mount while you cast a spell if you're mounted.
You appear to understand the difference between a target of a spell you cast, and a creature effected by a spell. So it seems like you're just not actually reading FS and FGS, if you think they say anything at all about a spell "only affects the mount while you are on it." That literally is not the spell.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The difference, and its a very big difference, is that there's a third party involved. If you tell the fighter to do something, then the player running that fighter does it, that player made the choice to perform the act. You suggested, and the player agreed and followed through, but it was not controlled. Someone else made the decision to agree with your suggestion. If you are running both the mount and the character on the mount, there's no buffer. You are controlling them both.
Now, if the DM was running the mount, and you said, I tell the mount to go over there, and then the DM who is running the mount agrees and does it, then I'd agree you are not controlling the mount. Practically, I agree that the mount would probably always end up doing what you say, and I realize this would be a hassle, and I'm always against making more work for the DM. So now I think of it, I'm being a bit pedantic, but that's still how I read the rules.
I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but if it was. I've never once said the mount can't be independent. It can be controlled, or it can be independent. I'm saying it can't be both simultaneously. You can't control it and also get the benefits of being on an independent mount.
A controlled mount acts on your turn, allowing you to ride around and do attacks against different creatures etc.
An independent mount has its own turn, so you'll either be making ranged attacks, attacking what you're already next to, or readying an action for a charge on the horse's turn.
I agree that the independent mount advantages (horsey takes its own full turn, including being able to attack) and the controlled mount advantages (shares your turn so its movement is actually useful to you) can't be merged.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.