I dislike how vague Find Steed is, so I'm going to suggest some house rules to make it more clear and better scale with levels.
Add the following:
Your steed may take the form of any beast with suitable anatomy that also meets the following restrictions:
- It has the same movement modes as you
- It is one size larger than you
- It must share your alignment or be unaligned
- Its CR is no greater 1/2
At higher levels: you may cast this spell using a 3rd-level or higher spell slot. For each spell level above 2nd, your mount may have additional qualities. You may select the each property more than once.
- Double the maximum CR (max: 2)
- Add an additional movement mode
- Increase the allowed size by one category
- Your steed may be of the celestial, dragon, elemental, fey, fiend, monstrosity, plant or undead type
I'd be fine with that, since it is a pretty vague skill. At the end of the day a lot of potential is down to the DM, but I'd already been thinking of suggesting to time that they considering increasing the potential summon by using a higher level spell slot.
At the end of day it's still up the DM but I'd say this is a pretty good set of general guidelines for it ^^
Sit on your steed and cast Cone of Cold.
The spell has a range of self, so it targets only you. The effect of which is a 60 foot cone blasting out from you.
Since the horsie is also is targeted, it also gets the effect of a blast of cold shooting out from it.
Same effects for many of the paladin auras and this double stacked radiant dice, double stacked healing bonus actions etc.
you are free to house rule it to not be broken, but in a rigid format like AL, house rules arent allowed.
Byakugan01 wrote:
I don't see a need for an alignment correlation, since the steed is *actually* a Celestial, Fiend, or Fey spirit.
Macv12 wrote:
BRJN wrote:
How does the maximum CR feature work? If I cast the spell at level 5 and give my mount a maximum CR of 2, does that mean I can summon a Pegasus (CR2), effectively getting the Pegasus's fly speed for free? Or does it mean that I use the monster manual's CR guidelines to adjust an existing monster's stats to that level?
RAW, Cone of Cold ONLY targets the caster.
Phb pg 204.
Targets
A typical spell requires you to pick 1 or more targets to be affected by the spells magic. A spells description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect.
Areas of effect
Every area of effect has a point of origin, a location from which the spells energy erupts.
Pg 202
Range
Spells that create cones or lines of effect from you also have a range of self, indicating that the point of origin of the spell's effect must be you.
Cone of Cold
Range: Self(60 foot cone)
the spell only has 1 target, and that target is the point of origin.
find steed lets you make your spell ALSO target your steed. Making it a point of origin.
It matters because if you cast an aura, your mount can move away from you and you both generate the aura.
Aura of vitality lets you and your mount each spend bonus actions healing creatures every turn.
Cure wounds heals you both.
And so on and so forth.
Dont get me wrong, i dont think they meant for horsie to be a wombo combo, but if they don't errata it, it is stuck.
Its easily fixed in home games, but once people are into tier 3 in AL things will get silly.
Since the spell sharing of Find Steed uses decriptive text "spells that target only you" rather than pre-defined rules text, i.e. "spells with a range of self" the RAW is a lot less clear than you make it out to be. I see more than enough reasonable doubt to allow a DM to say no within the AL boundaries.
AL judges are a lot less shackled than you seem to think. While the rules must be followed that does not mean the RAW as read and interpreted by a single player, a table or even a hoard of players needs to be followed. Up until the point where WotC or the AL admins remove it, any amount of ambiguity can be leveraged if need be, It is usually not worth the agravation of getting into a your RAW vs my RAW competition and I would think hard before taking candy away from the combo-smith, but I certainly could if need be.
If you have to start dissecting relative pronouns in order to find a way to rule the spell works differently, then the spell is clearly flawed as written.
-spell that target only you- is extremely clear in game terms. Bill ClInton couldn't win that argument.
What really blows your mind is that Cone of Cold says the cone comes from your hands...but the game doesn't define what hands are! And even if it did, you could still have 1 finger in your ear and the other hand in your component pouch and still make magic cold shoot away from you and your magic horse, because the game does define 'point of origin'.
I am pretty annoyed with AL right now though. Tons of rules which get completely ignored all the time. I am under no illusions that they are shackled. But just because they make a ruling does not mean they are not breaking the rules.
Our poor assasin rogue finally got his first magic item. An Ioun stone of Protection. Only to be told after he claimed it that the DM ruled it gives him disadvantage on all his stealth rolls, because the fluff text says it makes a slight sound. So now he has a magic item that he can't use and he can't trade away, that keeps him from taking anything else because theres always a new face at the table who can 'claim' it instead. There are characters with clearly illegal AL characters that have been at the tabe for 30ish sessions now that frequently use their spells improperly. But the wizard trys to cast shocking grasp on something and suddenly the puddle of water on the ground makes it so I would damage my allies too.
You have been replying to lots of my posts. Can you tell yet that I am annoyed by all the bugs that need errata/clarification?
I am not dissecting pronouns, I am assering a difference between text and rules-text. And I am fine with outdoing Bill Clinton when it comes to D&D rules debate.. I am also aware the stance is bordering on sophistry, but sometimes that can be what it takes. At least I did not start on checking the horse for "hands" yet. But I would if I had to 
I can tell you are annoyed, I can even totally understand your request for errata, clarification and stricter adherance to the literal text of the rules. I just don't believe that is the way. I would rather have both WotC and the AL spend their valuable time on DM education so DMs learn why it is not cool to do the things you describe. Why, even when it is within the rules, having an ioun stone hinder stealth breaks the unwritten contract between DM and player...
A DM that will so easily turn things that are meant to benefit the player/party into liabilities is not going to give you a better play experience through changed, tighter and more strict rules. They will just move on to other things and we'd end up not being able to use any descriptive text for fear of it being subverted. And every rules issue would likely spawn a debate or fight of epic proportions.
I believe that in the long term better play experience in D&D is achieved with better DMs, not with endless rules tinkering.
It is a question of triage also. the few idio..err creative souls looking to double-cone of their steed are for now mostly a theoretical problem. They are not ruining the AL at large, so right now it really doesn't warrant a clarification. Especially when for most people that clarification is likely to have big DUH! quotient. Its time that can be better spent elsewhere. I have faith that as soon as something comes up that absolutely requires, immediate, attention, the AL admins will try to take appropriate action. Granted that that kind of faith may come a little easier for me as I know quite a few of the people involved (and unfortunately I also know that even if they try, it might not work.. AL can be frustrating like that..).
(Every time I read examples like yours it places more things on my personal list of things to avoid and/or look out for as a DM. These forums may get..ehh.. challenging.. at times, but produice a lot of good stuff )
Byakugan01 wrote:
I'd look at the conjuration spells and make it something similar with a longer duration and the requirement that the creature can be ridden by your character.
Conjure Steed 1st Level Spell
Casting Time: 10 Minutes
Range: 30 feet
Component: V,S
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: You summon a beast steed of CR 1/2 or lower. The steed must be something you can physically ride. The steed is your choice of celestial, fey, or fiend in addition to its other types. If your steed's intelligence is 5 or less, it becomes 6 and can understand one language of your choice that you speak. While mounted on your steed, when you cast a spell that only targets yourself to also target your steed. When the steed drops to 0 hit points, it dissapears. You may also dismiss it as an action. In either case, casting the spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum. While your steed is within 1 mile of you, you may communicate telpathically. You cannot have more than one steed bound by this spell. You may realse the steed from its bond with an action. Your steed has additional hit points equal to your constitution modifier plus the level of the spell.
When you summon with higher level spell slots, you can choose additional creatures.
You can summon a creature with CR lower than the level of the spell cast (not equal to). Level 5 gives you CR 4, level 9 gives you CR 8, etc.
When you cast a level 4 or higher spell, you may summon fey or elemental creatures as your steed. You must still be physically able to ride the creature.
When you cast a level 7 or higher spell, you may summon celestial or fiend creatures as your steed. You must still be physically able to ride the creature.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Most of these examples i use are things that have happened in our game.
Find Steed is a theoretical discussion but not for very long because characters are now hitting 7th and 8th level.
The reason i mentioned hand placement was mostly for imaginary's benefit. The way i read the rules, to cast your spells you need 1 hand free, period. Because the book says you need 1 hand to handle material and somatic components. The rest is descriptive fluff. a lot of creatures can cast spells that don't have hands, for example. But they do have limbs which are more or less substitutable as hands. A front hoof on a quadruped seems reasonable to me.
I am not privy to all the AL tier limitations, but we were told that HotDQ was a tier 1 and 2 adventure. Meaning 1st-10th level characters adventure together. The new characters have to survive 1 night completely sucking at 1st level, then they quickly catch up after that.
Magic items are a whole different argument. But up through episode 5 the module has exactly 1 magic item. The other 3 items the party has are from expeditions. 2 of our regular 6 players still don't have magic items. New characters come and go frequently, meaning we gotta find another 3 or 4 magic items before the rogue will probably become eligible to go in on another item. Sucks to be him.
At this point i've seen spoilers, so i know whats coming up. There isn't anything i want till episode 8, so im passing on everything till then. So some folks might wind up with 2 or 3 items before i get my first. Price we pay for glory.
Byakugan01 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
RulesJD wrote:
Sure, the DM cannot alter the item. But the DM is the ultimate arbiter on the interaction of players and/or their items with the world. As such deciding that an ioun stone hampers stealth is just fine (from a rules lawjering point of view anyway), as Coredump stated. The rules are not a script that controls the actions of the DM. They provide limits, but in 5e and the AL the space between the fences is pretty wide. And thats a good thing......usually.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RulesJD wrote:
RulesJD wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RulesJD wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RulesJD wrote:
Always fun when I can pretty much cut and paste earlier replies and have them be just as relevant.
As many have stated (me, coredump, macv12, etc) the DM is not changing the item in any way. The interaction of the magic item with the rules is not changed. What the DM is changing is the interaction of the item with the game world. From a rules perspective that IS the DM's perogative even if it has mechanical concequences,
Now if you ask me wether I agree with that particular change, no, I do not and I have explained my reasons before (possibly elsewhere). But the DM is allowed to call it that way, and even while I disagree I will do my best to defend that right as I feel it generally leads to a lot more good than bad.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.