One of the paladin's signature spells is Find Steed, which creates an intelligent mount which is either fey, fiend, or celestial. Would the "Turn the Faithless" (targets all fey/fiends within 30ft) class feature cause his own steed to attempt to flee?
[RPG] Does Paladin’s “Turn the Faithless” class ability affect his “Find Steed” mount
class-featurednd-5epaladin
Related Solutions
Edit: This answer predates several rulings and clarifications made by WotC and Crawford in particular. I'm leaving it in place for historic purposes, but it's no longer a particularly useful answer.
Strictly speaking, there is no clear interpretation. All three cases are justifiable. Also note that 5e discourages literal "rules as written" meanings. As the designers have repeatedly said: "rulings, not rules." The rules were explicitly not written to be scrutinized as a lawyer scrutinizes the law, so we should not be surprised when the end result of "it's ambiguous" is what we find.
Firstly, "natural" melee weapons are, as far as I'm aware, considered melee weapon in 5e. [ See also.] There is no distinction between a mace and a hoof as far as "counts as a weapon" is concerned in 5e. I don't know if this is explicitly stated anywhere (I thought it was) but Unarmed Strike is explicitly listed as a weapon on the weapons table, and it's strongly implied since all monster stat blocks say things like "Bite Melee weapon attack: [...]". As far as I can tell, if you make an attack with it, it's considered a "weapon" in 5e. Something is a weapon if it's used to make an attack, then, not because it's got a weapon tag on it.
You could argue a Case 1 by saying that find steed only modifies the target of the spell. The spell still refers to "you," so even though it effects your mount, that extension does nothing. In other words, you argue that for Range: Self spells, "you" in the spell description means exactly, "you, the spell caster," and never, "you, the spell's target." This interpretation, however, also modifies spells like divine favor, detect evil and good, crusader's mantle (that one's a bit of a pickle to decode with a mount), and every other Range: Self spell. I'd argue it's all or nothing here. Either they all work on the mount (in some way), or none of them do. It doesn't matter how you rule here, but you should be consistent. Given the number and range of Paladin spells that are Range: Self I question an interpretation this narrow as being the design intent, but it's certainly supportable. About the only thing that reinforces this interpretation is the fact that the Smite class ability does not work on a find steed mount, but that's only because the class ability isn't a spell so it doesn't qualify for find steed's expansion.
The difference between Case 2 and Case 3 is deciding if find steed changes the wording of spells to "The first time both you and your mount hit with a melee weapon attack [...]" or changes to "The first time either you or your mount hit with a melee weapon attack [...]". Honestly, there's not enough information to decide either way. The spells are not written with find steed in mind, and find steed is not worded to make the end result clear.
You can argue Case 2 by saying, "The spell is intended to only affect a single melee attack; if it were intended to affect multiple targets, it would be higher level or otherwise deal less damage."
You can argue Case 3 by saying, "Find steed, like find familiar or hunter's mark, is a class ability masquerading as a 2nd level spell, and that wording was put there to have an intended effect. Furthermore, making a Paladin more deadly while mounted -- a fairly rare situation in most campaigns, IMX, and small Paladins are already less threatening -- is in-line with the desired result of the theme and flavor of the class. Given also the relative scarcity of spell slots, the additional power is probably not significant in most cases." This is not a particularly crunchy argument, but given that 5e does not separate crunch and fluff, it is legitimate.
If I were to rule conservatively, I would probably rule Case 2. If I were in a more liberal frame of mind, Case 3 would be reasonable. As it stands, I don't see any compelling justification for any one interpretation.
Rules as intended, it's the DM's choice. Jeremy Crawford, lead rules designer of D&D 5e, was asked this exact question, and said that it's up to the DM. Not what you wanted to hear, but you did say rules as intended was the best type of answer. Weirdly, he has since said that the steed leaves gear behind.
RAW, on the other hand, would suggest that your steed can't take anything with it.
When the steed drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. You can dismiss your steed at any time as an action, causing it to disappear. In either case, casting this spell again summons the same steed, restored to its hit point maximum.
"It" disappears, not "it and everything it's carrying". And when you cast the spell again, "the same steed" appears, not "the same steed and everything it was carrying last time it disappeared".
It's also worth considering that "you summon a spirit", which "assumes the form" of a steed. It's not a physical steed that you're summoning and dismissing, so it doesn't make all that much sense for you to be able to summon and dismiss physical objects along with it.
Related Topic
- [RPG] What exactly is a fey/fiend/celestial spirit
- [RPG] Is the “Find Greater Steed” Spell affected by Barovian Magic Alterations
- [RPG] Is this 9th-level spell Find Greatest Steed balanced with respect to other 9th-level spells
- [RPG] What happens when a bard riding a found steed casts Time Stop, or, does Time Stop target the entire universe
Best Answer
Only if it's not celestial.
The rules on Find Steed and Turn the faithless are clear, you don't get to choose which fey or fiends are turned when you Channel Divinity, but you can choose to summon a celestial as the mount, so do that in order to avoid friendly-turning.