Sword of Spirit
Legend
The issue with the find steed spell is that it becomes undesirable (effectively obsolete) once the rest of the party is riding hippogriffs, griffons, pegasi, etc. Your beast (even with bonuses) doesn’t keep up with the more powerful and/or versatile monstrous steeds that you might acquire in the world.
Here’s what find steed gives you compared to simply riding a horse:
I’m going to interpret “fight as a seamless unit” to mean you get some sort of advantage compared to the normal mounted combat rules. What makes sense to me is that this would mean is that your mount is controlled (so it functions on your initiative) yet you can direct it to attack, as well as attacking yourself. You both have your full range of actions, but you act on the same initiative and you decide what those actions are. I’m not sure what better interpretation of “fight as a seamless unit” there is, other than to assume it is meaningless flavor text.
So we want to allow someone to have a better base mount in order to keep up with the party (if such party should acquire such mounts), but we don’t want to obsolete this spell. The paladin’s steed should, all things being equal, remain better than the rest of the party’s throughout their careers.
The solution that hit me relies on the way find familiar functions. Here’s what you get with a familiar compared to simply having a pet owl:
Different, yet very similar. (I’ll note that the familiar provided by Pact of the Chain follows the same rules (and uses the spell), except that it can take on additional forms, and you can give it one of your attacks.)
The Monster Manual speaks of additional familiars, and can be interpreted in about two different ways (variants might apply):
1) The monsters described do not actually become “familiars,” but rather simply form a contract with a spellcaster providing only the benefits listed in the monster entry and none of the benefits of the spell—which isn’t involved in the bond.
2) The monsters described form a bond involving the casting of find familiar which grants them the benefits of the spell in addition to the benefits in the monster entry.
Because I’m convinced that a much stronger argument can be made for position 2 based on the textual evidence, I’m not going to debate it, as it isn’t the point of this post (which relies on that interpretation). Instead I’m just going to summarize the arguments for and against each position. First though, here is the relevant additional material provided in the Monster Manual:
a) Monster Entry. The monster entries for imps, quasits, and pseudodragons call out that the creatures can voluntarily serve as familiars for spellcasters (and end their bond at any time). They explain that a bond is formed that lets them serve as a familiar and provides the following specific benefits:
Position 1: The argument for position 1 relies on the absence of any mention of the find familiar spell in the monster entries, and/or the absence of the traits within that spell called out. Due to that absence, it is asserted that this bond formed has no actual relation to familars as explained in the find familiar spell. The usage of the term “familiar” in both the spell and the monster entries is assumed to be coincidental, unrelated, and having no mechanical correlation. The notation in the NPC section is either assumed to be applying different rules to NPCs, or is disregarded as of unknown relevance since it is not referenced in the monster entries.
Position 2: The argument for position 2 interprets the text in the NPC section as compatible with the text in the monster entries. It is assumed that the term “familiar” is a technical, mechanically significant term that means the same thing in all three sources, and that it is inherently related to the find familiar spell. From this position the Monster Manual tells us a number of things. The first is that being a spellcaster is required to have a familiar. The second is that, for such a spellcaster, the find familiar spell is required and can apply to a non-exclusive list of additional creatures beyond those listed in the find familiar spell. The third is that such creatures are specific creatures, rather than summoned spirits. The fourth is that the creature must willingly become a familiar, and may end its familiar status at-will. The fifth is that some types of creatures provide additional specific benefits (three out of the four specifically listed creatures tell us what benefits they provide, which are the same in all three cases). While never specified, the various points support an assumption that casting the find familiar spell in the presence of the willing creature is involved in forming the bond.
The second position, which I hold, allows the familiar to also receive the benefits in the find familiar spell. The only points which would not apply are the obvious ones—since the familiar is a specific creature and is not a summoned spirit it retains its own creature type and cannot be resummoned into a different form (in contrast to the Pact of the Chain spirit-familiar). The first position would provide no such benefits.
The reason why the second position is superior in practice, rather than merely having a stronger argument, is that it allows the familiar to stay useful at higher levels. If we take position 1, when your familiar (that progressively becomes more vulnerable as threats become greater) dies that is the end, unless you can afford the inconvenience of having it raised. This means that in the long run forming a bond with a creature is actually inferior to simply using the spell, as you have to constantly worry about the squishy creature dying. It also means that such creatures would probably be unlikely to form such a bond. But if we take position 2, the familiar can be dismissed to a pocket dimension for safety, and can be brought back from the dead at the cost of a 10 gp ritual. This gives meaning to the pseudodragon entry’s statement that they make “superior familiars.” In practice, gaining one of these special, specific creature familiars, is an upgrade over the find familiar spell’s standard list, with the only “downside" being that your familiar’s employment is at-will. It also makes becoming a familiar a desirable thing for the creature (as hinted at in the descriptions of at least the imp and quasit) because they gain high survivability due to the way the spell allows them to be brought back from the dead cheaply and easily, as long as they can find a master they like (the “downside” from their perspective).
So from a textural interpretation standpoint, from a creature motivation believability standpoint, and from a practical game-play standpoint, I argue that position 2 is superior.
That out of the way, how would this apply to keeping the find steed spell relevant once the party has the ability to acquire better mounts? See below.
TL; DR Basically, I propose allowing the find steed spell to form a bond with a specific willing mount of an expanded list of creatures (DMs discretion), which allows it to benefit from all of the features of the find steed spell, in the same way that, according to one interpretation, the find familiar spell can allow a specific willing creature to bond with a master as a familiar and benefit from the features of the find familiar spell.
Here’s what find steed gives you compared to simply riding a horse:
- Spirit (celestial, fey, or fiend in “animal” (presumably beast) form)
- Minimum Intelligence of 6
- Fight as a seemless unit
- Share spells
- Re-summon (whether dead or dismissed) with max hp by casting spell again
- Communicate telepathically within 1 mile
I’m going to interpret “fight as a seamless unit” to mean you get some sort of advantage compared to the normal mounted combat rules. What makes sense to me is that this would mean is that your mount is controlled (so it functions on your initiative) yet you can direct it to attack, as well as attacking yourself. You both have your full range of actions, but you act on the same initiative and you decide what those actions are. I’m not sure what better interpretation of “fight as a seamless unit” there is, other than to assume it is meaningless flavor text.
So we want to allow someone to have a better base mount in order to keep up with the party (if such party should acquire such mounts), but we don’t want to obsolete this spell. The paladin’s steed should, all things being equal, remain better than the rest of the party’s throughout their careers.
The solution that hit me relies on the way find familiar functions. Here’s what you get with a familiar compared to simply having a pet owl:
- Spirit (celestial, fey, or fiend in beast form)
- Can’t attack (I outright ignore this because it is unnecessary and uncalled for)
- Deliver touch spells
- Resummon (whether dead or in pocket dimension) by casting spell again
- Can be changed to a different form
- Communication telepathically within 100 ft, and see and hear through familiar
Different, yet very similar. (I’ll note that the familiar provided by Pact of the Chain follows the same rules (and uses the spell), except that it can take on additional forms, and you can give it one of your attacks.)
The Monster Manual speaks of additional familiars, and can be interpreted in about two different ways (variants might apply):
1) The monsters described do not actually become “familiars,” but rather simply form a contract with a spellcaster providing only the benefits listed in the monster entry and none of the benefits of the spell—which isn’t involved in the bond.
2) The monsters described form a bond involving the casting of find familiar which grants them the benefits of the spell in addition to the benefits in the monster entry.
Because I’m convinced that a much stronger argument can be made for position 2 based on the textual evidence, I’m not going to debate it, as it isn’t the point of this post (which relies on that interpretation). Instead I’m just going to summarize the arguments for and against each position. First though, here is the relevant additional material provided in the Monster Manual:
a) Monster Entry. The monster entries for imps, quasits, and pseudodragons call out that the creatures can voluntarily serve as familiars for spellcasters (and end their bond at any time). They explain that a bond is formed that lets them serve as a familiar and provides the following specific benefits:
- Sense what the familiar senses within 1 mile (implied communication also)
- Master shares Magic Resistance trait when within 10 ft.
Position 1: The argument for position 1 relies on the absence of any mention of the find familiar spell in the monster entries, and/or the absence of the traits within that spell called out. Due to that absence, it is asserted that this bond formed has no actual relation to familars as explained in the find familiar spell. The usage of the term “familiar” in both the spell and the monster entries is assumed to be coincidental, unrelated, and having no mechanical correlation. The notation in the NPC section is either assumed to be applying different rules to NPCs, or is disregarded as of unknown relevance since it is not referenced in the monster entries.
Position 2: The argument for position 2 interprets the text in the NPC section as compatible with the text in the monster entries. It is assumed that the term “familiar” is a technical, mechanically significant term that means the same thing in all three sources, and that it is inherently related to the find familiar spell. From this position the Monster Manual tells us a number of things. The first is that being a spellcaster is required to have a familiar. The second is that, for such a spellcaster, the find familiar spell is required and can apply to a non-exclusive list of additional creatures beyond those listed in the find familiar spell. The third is that such creatures are specific creatures, rather than summoned spirits. The fourth is that the creature must willingly become a familiar, and may end its familiar status at-will. The fifth is that some types of creatures provide additional specific benefits (three out of the four specifically listed creatures tell us what benefits they provide, which are the same in all three cases). While never specified, the various points support an assumption that casting the find familiar spell in the presence of the willing creature is involved in forming the bond.
The second position, which I hold, allows the familiar to also receive the benefits in the find familiar spell. The only points which would not apply are the obvious ones—since the familiar is a specific creature and is not a summoned spirit it retains its own creature type and cannot be resummoned into a different form (in contrast to the Pact of the Chain spirit-familiar). The first position would provide no such benefits.
The reason why the second position is superior in practice, rather than merely having a stronger argument, is that it allows the familiar to stay useful at higher levels. If we take position 1, when your familiar (that progressively becomes more vulnerable as threats become greater) dies that is the end, unless you can afford the inconvenience of having it raised. This means that in the long run forming a bond with a creature is actually inferior to simply using the spell, as you have to constantly worry about the squishy creature dying. It also means that such creatures would probably be unlikely to form such a bond. But if we take position 2, the familiar can be dismissed to a pocket dimension for safety, and can be brought back from the dead at the cost of a 10 gp ritual. This gives meaning to the pseudodragon entry’s statement that they make “superior familiars.” In practice, gaining one of these special, specific creature familiars, is an upgrade over the find familiar spell’s standard list, with the only “downside" being that your familiar’s employment is at-will. It also makes becoming a familiar a desirable thing for the creature (as hinted at in the descriptions of at least the imp and quasit) because they gain high survivability due to the way the spell allows them to be brought back from the dead cheaply and easily, as long as they can find a master they like (the “downside” from their perspective).
So from a textural interpretation standpoint, from a creature motivation believability standpoint, and from a practical game-play standpoint, I argue that position 2 is superior.
That out of the way, how would this apply to keeping the find steed spell relevant once the party has the ability to acquire better mounts? See below.
TL; DR Basically, I propose allowing the find steed spell to form a bond with a specific willing mount of an expanded list of creatures (DMs discretion), which allows it to benefit from all of the features of the find steed spell, in the same way that, according to one interpretation, the find familiar spell can allow a specific willing creature to bond with a master as a familiar and benefit from the features of the find familiar spell.
