Phantom Steed makes a horse that "only you (or another Medium or Small creature you choose can ride... The steed has a Speed of 40 feet and can hold its rider’s body weight, plus 20 Bulk."
So is "ride" defined as being carried by the horse or "driving" the horse? IE, it only responds to commands from its designated rider but can carry another living passenger, VS it can't carry another living passenger at all.
Most medium creatures weigh less than 20 bulk. There are a lot of spells that designate they can't carry another creature, like floating disc or teleportation spells. So there's certainly precedent for spells being able to distinguish between the matter of a living creature vs an inanimate object. On the other hand, one could also interpret this spell lacking that language as Phantom Steed lacking that restriction. But it does involve a pretty belabored definition of "ride."
This is a pretty significant matter for determining the value of the spell.
I had the same question, mainly wondering as to Paizo's intent/spell balance.
RAW, no, another creature cannot be a passenger, as passengers ride as well. Also RAW, they can be luggage as there's no distinction made that the PS only carries nonliving matter other than its rider.
So would we have to flop the other PC over the back, wrap them up, purchase a large enough chest? Even if they're unconscious? Oh boy.
Then the Bulk loopholes kick in and people start carrying people.
And that's why we have GMs to bring reason to the table. :) (Hopefully!)
I had the same question, mainly wondering as to Paizo's intent/spell balance.
RAW, no, another creature cannot be a passenger, as passengers ride as well. Also RAW, they can be luggage as there's no distinction made that the PS only carries nonliving matter other than its rider.
So would we have to flop the other PC over the back, wrap them up, purchase a large enough chest? Even if they're unconscious? Oh boy.
Then the Bulk loopholes kick in and people start carrying people.
And that's why we have GMs to bring reason to the table. :) (Hopefully!)
Yes, I had pretty similar thoughts on carrying people as luggage or having the rider carry people. It gets silly but there doesn't seem to be a persuasive reason why NONE of those options would work.
So I'm still not sure what the "reasonable" solution is. I'm kind of inclined to just go with the "ride = the driver" thing because the spell is a liability to rely on battle but has fun utility if you can use it to say, evacuate people from a flood zone with it. So it packs some narrative power but doesn't really impact combat balance.
Narrative > RAW, IMO. Rules idolatry irks me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Narrative > RAW, IMO. Rules idolatry irks me.
Totally. RAW can go suck a butt if it gets in the way of fun. But I do like to figure out what the intent of the rules is as a frame of reference for what to expect from the world.
Small creatures can just be stuffed into a backpack [with room to spare]. So if you buy a few 'horse' backpacks [saddlebags], it's no problem taking a bunch of small characters places. Or you can just tie 3 humans on behind the rider [6 bulk piece] in a pile. As a bonus, items carried on people doesn't seem to modify a bodies 'dead weight', so pack items on people then pack the people to save bulk. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Jason's Knights of Everflame Geek and Sundry actual play, he let 2 PCs ride on a phantom steed. If it's good enough for the lead designer, it's good enough for me :)
In Jason's Knights of Everflame Geek and Sundry actual play, he let 2 PCs ride on a phantom steed. If it's good enough for the lead designer, it's good enough for me :)
Good enough. While Jason isn't above making the occasional mistake I'd certainly take that as an indication he's fine with the idea which is enough for me.