Can a ring of spell storing and access to Find spells produce an endless menagerie?Can a caster that cast Polymorph on themselves stop concentrating at any point even if their Int is low?What is Rule Zero?Can beasts benefit from magic items?Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?Can an animal attune to a magic item?Paladin Smite Spells and the Steed: Can either or both trigger the damage?Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?Warlocks and the Ring of Spell Storing: how do you fill it up?Do I need to feed a mount summoned by Find Steed?How does Find Familiar work with a Ring of Spell Storing?Can Find Steed be used to replicate the effects of Find Greater Steed?Do steeds summoned with Find Greater Steed have other options than the usual control rules during mounted combat?What happens when you cast Wish while mounted on a Found Steed?Is a Medium-sized Paladin allowed to use a summoned Mastiff as their mount?Can I get a paladin's steed by True Polymorphing into a monster that can cast Find Steed?
Where is Jon going?
Finding all files with a given extension whose base name is the name of the parent directory
Grade-school elementary algebra presented in an abstract-algebra style?
Freedom of Speech and Assembly in China
Time complexity of an algorithm: Is it important to state the base of the logarithm?
Is it legal to have an abortion in another state or abroad?
How was Daenerys able to legitimise Gendry?
Where do I find 4-4-4-6 direct bury copper cable?
Looping over charts and names simultaneously
Burned out due to current job, Can I take a week of vacation between jobs?
One word for 'the thing that attracts me'?
How to respond to an e-mail asking me to suggest a doctoral research topic?
USPS Back Room - Trespassing?
Gravitational Force Between Numbers
Is there a simple example that empirical evidence is misleading?
How to determine if a hyphen (-) exists inside a column
Why did Jon Snow do this immoral act if he is so honorable?
What did the 'turbo' button actually do?
Need to read my home electrical Meter
Can we assume that a hash function with high collision resistance also means highly uniform distribution?
Python program for fibonacci sequence using a recursive function
What would prevent living skin from being a good conductor for magic?
Low voltage shutdown with regulator using microcontroller
...And they were stumped for a long time
Can a ring of spell storing and access to Find spells produce an endless menagerie?
Can a caster that cast Polymorph on themselves stop concentrating at any point even if their Int is low?What is Rule Zero?Can beasts benefit from magic items?Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?Can an animal attune to a magic item?Paladin Smite Spells and the Steed: Can either or both trigger the damage?Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?Warlocks and the Ring of Spell Storing: how do you fill it up?Do I need to feed a mount summoned by Find Steed?How does Find Familiar work with a Ring of Spell Storing?Can Find Steed be used to replicate the effects of Find Greater Steed?Do steeds summoned with Find Greater Steed have other options than the usual control rules during mounted combat?What happens when you cast Wish while mounted on a Found Steed?Is a Medium-sized Paladin allowed to use a summoned Mastiff as their mount?Can I get a paladin's steed by True Polymorphing into a monster that can cast Find Steed?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
This is looking at what appears to be a somewhat bizarre rules exploit, and attempting to determine if it is, in fact, viable under the rules.
Premise
We have a Bard who likes having friends - a lot of friends. He has Find Familiar. At level 10, he takes Find Steed and Find Greater Steed as his magical secrets and the DM has given him a ring of Spell storing.
Now, it's pretty clear that by himself, he can have one Familiar, one Greater Steed, and one Steed (perhaps a mastiff, because he wants a dog, and can't ride two things at once). We'll say that he chooses a hawk as his familiar.
Can the bard allow the creatures summoned by the spells to attune to and use the ring of spell storing containing Find/Familiar spells to summon Steeds/Familiars of their own?
A DM might adjudicate that a hawk/mastiff/griffin has no fingers and cannot use a ring, but Polymorph is available to a Bard of that level, and seems like it should be able to handle the issue for the Steed and Greater Steed. (I'm not sure if there are any beasts of low enough CR for the familiar that would have something appropriately finger-like.)
Is there a reason why the dog would not be able to have a perfectly loyal griffin of its own? Is there any real limit to the potential pyramid of perfect loyalty/obedience that would result?
This is in some ways similar to the linked question, and may have the same answer, but it is distinct on a couple of points.
- The first is that the linked question is about the Pact of the Chain
familiar, most of which have obvious fingers already, as compared to
the generic Familiar, Steed, and Greater Steed. The second is that this question is specifically about the three Find
spells, which seem like they might be a special case - it's not
merely about whether your dog (polymorphed into an
octopus/monkey/whatever) is able to cast the spell, but whether they
are able to permanently maintain the found creature afterwards.In particular, this seems to severely break the intended limit of one steed, greater steed, and familiar per PC, and it seemed like there might be some further limit in place preventing it from working out this way.
dnd-5e spells magic-items familiars
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
This is looking at what appears to be a somewhat bizarre rules exploit, and attempting to determine if it is, in fact, viable under the rules.
Premise
We have a Bard who likes having friends - a lot of friends. He has Find Familiar. At level 10, he takes Find Steed and Find Greater Steed as his magical secrets and the DM has given him a ring of Spell storing.
Now, it's pretty clear that by himself, he can have one Familiar, one Greater Steed, and one Steed (perhaps a mastiff, because he wants a dog, and can't ride two things at once). We'll say that he chooses a hawk as his familiar.
Can the bard allow the creatures summoned by the spells to attune to and use the ring of spell storing containing Find/Familiar spells to summon Steeds/Familiars of their own?
A DM might adjudicate that a hawk/mastiff/griffin has no fingers and cannot use a ring, but Polymorph is available to a Bard of that level, and seems like it should be able to handle the issue for the Steed and Greater Steed. (I'm not sure if there are any beasts of low enough CR for the familiar that would have something appropriately finger-like.)
Is there a reason why the dog would not be able to have a perfectly loyal griffin of its own? Is there any real limit to the potential pyramid of perfect loyalty/obedience that would result?
This is in some ways similar to the linked question, and may have the same answer, but it is distinct on a couple of points.
- The first is that the linked question is about the Pact of the Chain
familiar, most of which have obvious fingers already, as compared to
the generic Familiar, Steed, and Greater Steed. The second is that this question is specifically about the three Find
spells, which seem like they might be a special case - it's not
merely about whether your dog (polymorphed into an
octopus/monkey/whatever) is able to cast the spell, but whether they
are able to permanently maintain the found creature afterwards.In particular, this seems to severely break the intended limit of one steed, greater steed, and familiar per PC, and it seemed like there might be some further limit in place preventing it from working out this way.
dnd-5e spells magic-items familiars
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I'm a little confused with all the backstory bits. Are you asking if a creature brought by Find Familiar / Find Steed can use a ring of spell storing to cast those spells again for them?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
$endgroup$
– Szega
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
$endgroup$
– Destruktor
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Destruktor it is not. That is asking about the warlock Pact of Chain familiar, and addresses only one of the aspects of this question. It's pertinent (as Szega noted) but not duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
8 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Destruktor Identical answers don't make identical questions. This question may have the same answer, but it's a different question so not a dupe.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
This is looking at what appears to be a somewhat bizarre rules exploit, and attempting to determine if it is, in fact, viable under the rules.
Premise
We have a Bard who likes having friends - a lot of friends. He has Find Familiar. At level 10, he takes Find Steed and Find Greater Steed as his magical secrets and the DM has given him a ring of Spell storing.
Now, it's pretty clear that by himself, he can have one Familiar, one Greater Steed, and one Steed (perhaps a mastiff, because he wants a dog, and can't ride two things at once). We'll say that he chooses a hawk as his familiar.
Can the bard allow the creatures summoned by the spells to attune to and use the ring of spell storing containing Find/Familiar spells to summon Steeds/Familiars of their own?
A DM might adjudicate that a hawk/mastiff/griffin has no fingers and cannot use a ring, but Polymorph is available to a Bard of that level, and seems like it should be able to handle the issue for the Steed and Greater Steed. (I'm not sure if there are any beasts of low enough CR for the familiar that would have something appropriately finger-like.)
Is there a reason why the dog would not be able to have a perfectly loyal griffin of its own? Is there any real limit to the potential pyramid of perfect loyalty/obedience that would result?
This is in some ways similar to the linked question, and may have the same answer, but it is distinct on a couple of points.
- The first is that the linked question is about the Pact of the Chain
familiar, most of which have obvious fingers already, as compared to
the generic Familiar, Steed, and Greater Steed. The second is that this question is specifically about the three Find
spells, which seem like they might be a special case - it's not
merely about whether your dog (polymorphed into an
octopus/monkey/whatever) is able to cast the spell, but whether they
are able to permanently maintain the found creature afterwards.In particular, this seems to severely break the intended limit of one steed, greater steed, and familiar per PC, and it seemed like there might be some further limit in place preventing it from working out this way.
dnd-5e spells magic-items familiars
$endgroup$
This is looking at what appears to be a somewhat bizarre rules exploit, and attempting to determine if it is, in fact, viable under the rules.
Premise
We have a Bard who likes having friends - a lot of friends. He has Find Familiar. At level 10, he takes Find Steed and Find Greater Steed as his magical secrets and the DM has given him a ring of Spell storing.
Now, it's pretty clear that by himself, he can have one Familiar, one Greater Steed, and one Steed (perhaps a mastiff, because he wants a dog, and can't ride two things at once). We'll say that he chooses a hawk as his familiar.
Can the bard allow the creatures summoned by the spells to attune to and use the ring of spell storing containing Find/Familiar spells to summon Steeds/Familiars of their own?
A DM might adjudicate that a hawk/mastiff/griffin has no fingers and cannot use a ring, but Polymorph is available to a Bard of that level, and seems like it should be able to handle the issue for the Steed and Greater Steed. (I'm not sure if there are any beasts of low enough CR for the familiar that would have something appropriately finger-like.)
Is there a reason why the dog would not be able to have a perfectly loyal griffin of its own? Is there any real limit to the potential pyramid of perfect loyalty/obedience that would result?
This is in some ways similar to the linked question, and may have the same answer, but it is distinct on a couple of points.
- The first is that the linked question is about the Pact of the Chain
familiar, most of which have obvious fingers already, as compared to
the generic Familiar, Steed, and Greater Steed. The second is that this question is specifically about the three Find
spells, which seem like they might be a special case - it's not
merely about whether your dog (polymorphed into an
octopus/monkey/whatever) is able to cast the spell, but whether they
are able to permanently maintain the found creature afterwards.In particular, this seems to severely break the intended limit of one steed, greater steed, and familiar per PC, and it seemed like there might be some further limit in place preventing it from working out this way.
dnd-5e spells magic-items familiars
dnd-5e spells magic-items familiars
edited 5 hours ago
KorvinStarmast
86.5k22276463
86.5k22276463
asked 8 hours ago
Ben BardenBen Barden
13.2k23277
13.2k23277
1
$begingroup$
I'm a little confused with all the backstory bits. Are you asking if a creature brought by Find Familiar / Find Steed can use a ring of spell storing to cast those spells again for them?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
$endgroup$
– Szega
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
$endgroup$
– Destruktor
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Destruktor it is not. That is asking about the warlock Pact of Chain familiar, and addresses only one of the aspects of this question. It's pertinent (as Szega noted) but not duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
8 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Destruktor Identical answers don't make identical questions. This question may have the same answer, but it's a different question so not a dupe.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
I'm a little confused with all the backstory bits. Are you asking if a creature brought by Find Familiar / Find Steed can use a ring of spell storing to cast those spells again for them?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
$endgroup$
– Szega
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
$endgroup$
– Destruktor
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Destruktor it is not. That is asking about the warlock Pact of Chain familiar, and addresses only one of the aspects of this question. It's pertinent (as Szega noted) but not duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
8 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Destruktor Identical answers don't make identical questions. This question may have the same answer, but it's a different question so not a dupe.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm a little confused with all the backstory bits. Are you asking if a creature brought by Find Familiar / Find Steed can use a ring of spell storing to cast those spells again for them?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm a little confused with all the backstory bits. Are you asking if a creature brought by Find Familiar / Find Steed can use a ring of spell storing to cast those spells again for them?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
$endgroup$
– Szega
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
$endgroup$
– Szega
8 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
$endgroup$
– Destruktor
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
$endgroup$
– Destruktor
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@Destruktor it is not. That is asking about the warlock Pact of Chain familiar, and addresses only one of the aspects of this question. It's pertinent (as Szega noted) but not duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Destruktor it is not. That is asking about the warlock Pact of Chain familiar, and addresses only one of the aspects of this question. It's pertinent (as Szega noted) but not duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
8 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
@Destruktor Identical answers don't make identical questions. This question may have the same answer, but it's a different question so not a dupe.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Destruktor Identical answers don't make identical questions. This question may have the same answer, but it's a different question so not a dupe.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
All the way down (it works*)
As you've thought, there is nothing in this that creates any rules issues.
You've hit the pertinent points:
Any creature can attune to the Ring of Spell Storing
- They still need to spend the hour and be able to do so. But the 6 INT should allow for that for Steeds and commanding the familiar should work the same way.
Whomever is attuned, including beasts, to the Ring of Spell Storing can cast a spell from it:
While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it.
Find Familiar, Find Steed, and Find Greater Steed are all 5th level spells or below and viable to be stored in the ring.
Any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th level into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast.
This shows that your belief about this should working in fact does work.
There is one problem
You personally can't have Find Steed and Find Greater Steed going simultaneously. Find Greater Steed explicitly states:
You can’t have more than one mount bonded by this spell or find steed at the same time
However, that just limits your starting set to 2 creatures and they can do this again. You just don't start with three.
A DM's option
Having said that, the DM can still put the kaibosh on this if they feel it's taking away from the table or other players. One player having a huge array of creatures at their disposal may cause issues with other players to the point where it becomes unfun. That's going to be up to the table, the players, and the DM.
*The only issue to really consider is if the animals have the right appendage. It's important to note that if you do use polymorph to get around that, then the creatures will lose their intelligence and drop back down to whatever the new stat block says it is. A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to understand how to utilize the magic item or be able to maintain concentration for the casting durations.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Re: "A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to concentrate on attunement across the full hour required." See this related Q&A. While I don't disagree with the ability of a GM to rule as such, that question elaborates on the rules. Also see this Q&A for discussion of Concentration in general for low-Intelligence creatures.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenBarden Rings can be 'worn' through a nose or an ear...just sayin'. That's why I think this is really up to a DM.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidCoffron Yup - that's why I say it'll work, but that a DM may say no to the shenanigans. And I do link to that first quote already in my answer :)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think a steed would need to be polymorphed to attune to the ring: only to cast spells with it. According to the DMG (p. 138) "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it." While a horse cannot wear a ring, it can certainly be in contact with it. Casting a spell with the ring, however, requires you to be "wearing" it (as well as attuned to it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
And then there's all of the cleaning up afterwards, with this menagerie, so we doubtless turn to the Unseen Servant ...
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
5 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
In general, nothing in the rules prevent this, as NautArch's answer elaborates on, but the GM has quite a few points where he can overrule this method:
First, they have to agree that the companion can attune
Whether an animal can attune to a magic item is contingent on its ability to focus on the item, as discussed in this Q&A. Now as a familiar, you could command it to focus on the ring of spell storing, but its capacity to do so is up to the GM.
Second, the companion has to be able to cast the spell
Since all of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed require Concentration to cast (as described in the Longer Casting Time rules), your GM may rule that the animals of only 6 intelligence cannot maintain concentration for the required time to cast the spell from the ring of spell storing. This is discussed briefly in this answer to a different question, but a GM may not be persuaded by the example-based argument.
Third, the new creatures have to be considered bound to the companions
Since each of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed have a clause to the effect of...
You can't have more than one [companion] at a time.
... a GM could rule that any creatures created by one already bound to you is also bound to you by proxy and therefore would not take effect (so a familiar casting its own find familiar would just change form, and one casting find steed or find greater steed would simply fail.
One way a GM could handle it
While all of these are possible houserules a GM could employ to prevent such an exploit, if a GM were to allow it, there is an issue of bogging down gameplay for one player's companion army.
As a GM, I would instead group the collection of creatures into what amounts to a Swarm of Familiars, or a Swarm of Steeds. This homebrew monster could increase in size and power as the player dedicates more time to increasing the capacity for his army, but at least it wouldn't take too much IRL game time to handle the turns for the army.
I would also develop the majority of challenges so that vast quantities of companions is insufficient to succeed. Some of these include areas where a large number of creatures could not fit, and challenges that revolve around the quality of individual party members, rather than sheer numbers. Even still, I would allow for some challenges wherein an army of followers (however logistically challenged in the spreading of orders) is useful, so that the player doesn't feel that they've wasted their creativity and Magical Secrets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You make some really good points - might want to consider adding each of these as answers to the linked questions that do support the original argument.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I still fully support the idea that the rules corroborate my answers to those questions. My examples here are possible GM-objections outside of the rules-as-written.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, but each objection is related to each of those other questions. If you're adding those concerns here, why not there, too?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I generally don't see value in adding addenda to each answer that basically boils down to: "A GM might say no."
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay...but you do here. Is it just because it's taking several things and combining them? But individiually each one isn't worth it?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148416%2fcan-a-ring-of-spell-storing-and-access-to-find-spells-produce-an-endless-menager%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
All the way down (it works*)
As you've thought, there is nothing in this that creates any rules issues.
You've hit the pertinent points:
Any creature can attune to the Ring of Spell Storing
- They still need to spend the hour and be able to do so. But the 6 INT should allow for that for Steeds and commanding the familiar should work the same way.
Whomever is attuned, including beasts, to the Ring of Spell Storing can cast a spell from it:
While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it.
Find Familiar, Find Steed, and Find Greater Steed are all 5th level spells or below and viable to be stored in the ring.
Any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th level into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast.
This shows that your belief about this should working in fact does work.
There is one problem
You personally can't have Find Steed and Find Greater Steed going simultaneously. Find Greater Steed explicitly states:
You can’t have more than one mount bonded by this spell or find steed at the same time
However, that just limits your starting set to 2 creatures and they can do this again. You just don't start with three.
A DM's option
Having said that, the DM can still put the kaibosh on this if they feel it's taking away from the table or other players. One player having a huge array of creatures at their disposal may cause issues with other players to the point where it becomes unfun. That's going to be up to the table, the players, and the DM.
*The only issue to really consider is if the animals have the right appendage. It's important to note that if you do use polymorph to get around that, then the creatures will lose their intelligence and drop back down to whatever the new stat block says it is. A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to understand how to utilize the magic item or be able to maintain concentration for the casting durations.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Re: "A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to concentrate on attunement across the full hour required." See this related Q&A. While I don't disagree with the ability of a GM to rule as such, that question elaborates on the rules. Also see this Q&A for discussion of Concentration in general for low-Intelligence creatures.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenBarden Rings can be 'worn' through a nose or an ear...just sayin'. That's why I think this is really up to a DM.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidCoffron Yup - that's why I say it'll work, but that a DM may say no to the shenanigans. And I do link to that first quote already in my answer :)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think a steed would need to be polymorphed to attune to the ring: only to cast spells with it. According to the DMG (p. 138) "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it." While a horse cannot wear a ring, it can certainly be in contact with it. Casting a spell with the ring, however, requires you to be "wearing" it (as well as attuned to it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
And then there's all of the cleaning up afterwards, with this menagerie, so we doubtless turn to the Unseen Servant ...
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
5 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
All the way down (it works*)
As you've thought, there is nothing in this that creates any rules issues.
You've hit the pertinent points:
Any creature can attune to the Ring of Spell Storing
- They still need to spend the hour and be able to do so. But the 6 INT should allow for that for Steeds and commanding the familiar should work the same way.
Whomever is attuned, including beasts, to the Ring of Spell Storing can cast a spell from it:
While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it.
Find Familiar, Find Steed, and Find Greater Steed are all 5th level spells or below and viable to be stored in the ring.
Any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th level into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast.
This shows that your belief about this should working in fact does work.
There is one problem
You personally can't have Find Steed and Find Greater Steed going simultaneously. Find Greater Steed explicitly states:
You can’t have more than one mount bonded by this spell or find steed at the same time
However, that just limits your starting set to 2 creatures and they can do this again. You just don't start with three.
A DM's option
Having said that, the DM can still put the kaibosh on this if they feel it's taking away from the table or other players. One player having a huge array of creatures at their disposal may cause issues with other players to the point where it becomes unfun. That's going to be up to the table, the players, and the DM.
*The only issue to really consider is if the animals have the right appendage. It's important to note that if you do use polymorph to get around that, then the creatures will lose their intelligence and drop back down to whatever the new stat block says it is. A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to understand how to utilize the magic item or be able to maintain concentration for the casting durations.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Re: "A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to concentrate on attunement across the full hour required." See this related Q&A. While I don't disagree with the ability of a GM to rule as such, that question elaborates on the rules. Also see this Q&A for discussion of Concentration in general for low-Intelligence creatures.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenBarden Rings can be 'worn' through a nose or an ear...just sayin'. That's why I think this is really up to a DM.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidCoffron Yup - that's why I say it'll work, but that a DM may say no to the shenanigans. And I do link to that first quote already in my answer :)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think a steed would need to be polymorphed to attune to the ring: only to cast spells with it. According to the DMG (p. 138) "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it." While a horse cannot wear a ring, it can certainly be in contact with it. Casting a spell with the ring, however, requires you to be "wearing" it (as well as attuned to it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
And then there's all of the cleaning up afterwards, with this menagerie, so we doubtless turn to the Unseen Servant ...
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
5 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
All the way down (it works*)
As you've thought, there is nothing in this that creates any rules issues.
You've hit the pertinent points:
Any creature can attune to the Ring of Spell Storing
- They still need to spend the hour and be able to do so. But the 6 INT should allow for that for Steeds and commanding the familiar should work the same way.
Whomever is attuned, including beasts, to the Ring of Spell Storing can cast a spell from it:
While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it.
Find Familiar, Find Steed, and Find Greater Steed are all 5th level spells or below and viable to be stored in the ring.
Any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th level into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast.
This shows that your belief about this should working in fact does work.
There is one problem
You personally can't have Find Steed and Find Greater Steed going simultaneously. Find Greater Steed explicitly states:
You can’t have more than one mount bonded by this spell or find steed at the same time
However, that just limits your starting set to 2 creatures and they can do this again. You just don't start with three.
A DM's option
Having said that, the DM can still put the kaibosh on this if they feel it's taking away from the table or other players. One player having a huge array of creatures at their disposal may cause issues with other players to the point where it becomes unfun. That's going to be up to the table, the players, and the DM.
*The only issue to really consider is if the animals have the right appendage. It's important to note that if you do use polymorph to get around that, then the creatures will lose their intelligence and drop back down to whatever the new stat block says it is. A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to understand how to utilize the magic item or be able to maintain concentration for the casting durations.
$endgroup$
All the way down (it works*)
As you've thought, there is nothing in this that creates any rules issues.
You've hit the pertinent points:
Any creature can attune to the Ring of Spell Storing
- They still need to spend the hour and be able to do so. But the 6 INT should allow for that for Steeds and commanding the familiar should work the same way.
Whomever is attuned, including beasts, to the Ring of Spell Storing can cast a spell from it:
While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it.
Find Familiar, Find Steed, and Find Greater Steed are all 5th level spells or below and viable to be stored in the ring.
Any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th level into the ring by touching the ring as the spell is cast.
This shows that your belief about this should working in fact does work.
There is one problem
You personally can't have Find Steed and Find Greater Steed going simultaneously. Find Greater Steed explicitly states:
You can’t have more than one mount bonded by this spell or find steed at the same time
However, that just limits your starting set to 2 creatures and they can do this again. You just don't start with three.
A DM's option
Having said that, the DM can still put the kaibosh on this if they feel it's taking away from the table or other players. One player having a huge array of creatures at their disposal may cause issues with other players to the point where it becomes unfun. That's going to be up to the table, the players, and the DM.
*The only issue to really consider is if the animals have the right appendage. It's important to note that if you do use polymorph to get around that, then the creatures will lose their intelligence and drop back down to whatever the new stat block says it is. A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to understand how to utilize the magic item or be able to maintain concentration for the casting durations.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
NautArchNautArch
66.5k10247443
66.5k10247443
2
$begingroup$
Re: "A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to concentrate on attunement across the full hour required." See this related Q&A. While I don't disagree with the ability of a GM to rule as such, that question elaborates on the rules. Also see this Q&A for discussion of Concentration in general for low-Intelligence creatures.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenBarden Rings can be 'worn' through a nose or an ear...just sayin'. That's why I think this is really up to a DM.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidCoffron Yup - that's why I say it'll work, but that a DM may say no to the shenanigans. And I do link to that first quote already in my answer :)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think a steed would need to be polymorphed to attune to the ring: only to cast spells with it. According to the DMG (p. 138) "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it." While a horse cannot wear a ring, it can certainly be in contact with it. Casting a spell with the ring, however, requires you to be "wearing" it (as well as attuned to it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
And then there's all of the cleaning up afterwards, with this menagerie, so we doubtless turn to the Unseen Servant ...
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
5 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
2
$begingroup$
Re: "A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to concentrate on attunement across the full hour required." See this related Q&A. While I don't disagree with the ability of a GM to rule as such, that question elaborates on the rules. Also see this Q&A for discussion of Concentration in general for low-Intelligence creatures.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenBarden Rings can be 'worn' through a nose or an ear...just sayin'. That's why I think this is really up to a DM.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@DavidCoffron Yup - that's why I say it'll work, but that a DM may say no to the shenanigans. And I do link to that first quote already in my answer :)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think a steed would need to be polymorphed to attune to the ring: only to cast spells with it. According to the DMG (p. 138) "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it." While a horse cannot wear a ring, it can certainly be in contact with it. Casting a spell with the ring, however, requires you to be "wearing" it (as well as attuned to it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
And then there's all of the cleaning up afterwards, with this menagerie, so we doubtless turn to the Unseen Servant ...
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
5 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Re: "A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to concentrate on attunement across the full hour required." See this related Q&A. While I don't disagree with the ability of a GM to rule as such, that question elaborates on the rules. Also see this Q&A for discussion of Concentration in general for low-Intelligence creatures.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Re: "A DM can rule that creatures of low enough intelligence aren't able to concentrate on attunement across the full hour required." See this related Q&A. While I don't disagree with the ability of a GM to rule as such, that question elaborates on the rules. Also see this Q&A for discussion of Concentration in general for low-Intelligence creatures.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenBarden Rings can be 'worn' through a nose or an ear...just sayin'. That's why I think this is really up to a DM.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenBarden Rings can be 'worn' through a nose or an ear...just sayin'. That's why I think this is really up to a DM.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@DavidCoffron Yup - that's why I say it'll work, but that a DM may say no to the shenanigans. And I do link to that first quote already in my answer :)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DavidCoffron Yup - that's why I say it'll work, but that a DM may say no to the shenanigans. And I do link to that first quote already in my answer :)
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think a steed would need to be polymorphed to attune to the ring: only to cast spells with it. According to the DMG (p. 138) "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it." While a horse cannot wear a ring, it can certainly be in contact with it. Casting a spell with the ring, however, requires you to be "wearing" it (as well as attuned to it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I don't think a steed would need to be polymorphed to attune to the ring: only to cast spells with it. According to the DMG (p. 138) "Attuning to an item requires a creature to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it." While a horse cannot wear a ring, it can certainly be in contact with it. Casting a spell with the ring, however, requires you to be "wearing" it (as well as attuned to it).
$endgroup$
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
And then there's all of the cleaning up afterwards, with this menagerie, so we doubtless turn to the Unseen Servant ...
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
And then there's all of the cleaning up afterwards, with this menagerie, so we doubtless turn to the Unseen Servant ...
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
5 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
In general, nothing in the rules prevent this, as NautArch's answer elaborates on, but the GM has quite a few points where he can overrule this method:
First, they have to agree that the companion can attune
Whether an animal can attune to a magic item is contingent on its ability to focus on the item, as discussed in this Q&A. Now as a familiar, you could command it to focus on the ring of spell storing, but its capacity to do so is up to the GM.
Second, the companion has to be able to cast the spell
Since all of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed require Concentration to cast (as described in the Longer Casting Time rules), your GM may rule that the animals of only 6 intelligence cannot maintain concentration for the required time to cast the spell from the ring of spell storing. This is discussed briefly in this answer to a different question, but a GM may not be persuaded by the example-based argument.
Third, the new creatures have to be considered bound to the companions
Since each of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed have a clause to the effect of...
You can't have more than one [companion] at a time.
... a GM could rule that any creatures created by one already bound to you is also bound to you by proxy and therefore would not take effect (so a familiar casting its own find familiar would just change form, and one casting find steed or find greater steed would simply fail.
One way a GM could handle it
While all of these are possible houserules a GM could employ to prevent such an exploit, if a GM were to allow it, there is an issue of bogging down gameplay for one player's companion army.
As a GM, I would instead group the collection of creatures into what amounts to a Swarm of Familiars, or a Swarm of Steeds. This homebrew monster could increase in size and power as the player dedicates more time to increasing the capacity for his army, but at least it wouldn't take too much IRL game time to handle the turns for the army.
I would also develop the majority of challenges so that vast quantities of companions is insufficient to succeed. Some of these include areas where a large number of creatures could not fit, and challenges that revolve around the quality of individual party members, rather than sheer numbers. Even still, I would allow for some challenges wherein an army of followers (however logistically challenged in the spreading of orders) is useful, so that the player doesn't feel that they've wasted their creativity and Magical Secrets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You make some really good points - might want to consider adding each of these as answers to the linked questions that do support the original argument.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I still fully support the idea that the rules corroborate my answers to those questions. My examples here are possible GM-objections outside of the rules-as-written.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, but each objection is related to each of those other questions. If you're adding those concerns here, why not there, too?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I generally don't see value in adding addenda to each answer that basically boils down to: "A GM might say no."
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay...but you do here. Is it just because it's taking several things and combining them? But individiually each one isn't worth it?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In general, nothing in the rules prevent this, as NautArch's answer elaborates on, but the GM has quite a few points where he can overrule this method:
First, they have to agree that the companion can attune
Whether an animal can attune to a magic item is contingent on its ability to focus on the item, as discussed in this Q&A. Now as a familiar, you could command it to focus on the ring of spell storing, but its capacity to do so is up to the GM.
Second, the companion has to be able to cast the spell
Since all of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed require Concentration to cast (as described in the Longer Casting Time rules), your GM may rule that the animals of only 6 intelligence cannot maintain concentration for the required time to cast the spell from the ring of spell storing. This is discussed briefly in this answer to a different question, but a GM may not be persuaded by the example-based argument.
Third, the new creatures have to be considered bound to the companions
Since each of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed have a clause to the effect of...
You can't have more than one [companion] at a time.
... a GM could rule that any creatures created by one already bound to you is also bound to you by proxy and therefore would not take effect (so a familiar casting its own find familiar would just change form, and one casting find steed or find greater steed would simply fail.
One way a GM could handle it
While all of these are possible houserules a GM could employ to prevent such an exploit, if a GM were to allow it, there is an issue of bogging down gameplay for one player's companion army.
As a GM, I would instead group the collection of creatures into what amounts to a Swarm of Familiars, or a Swarm of Steeds. This homebrew monster could increase in size and power as the player dedicates more time to increasing the capacity for his army, but at least it wouldn't take too much IRL game time to handle the turns for the army.
I would also develop the majority of challenges so that vast quantities of companions is insufficient to succeed. Some of these include areas where a large number of creatures could not fit, and challenges that revolve around the quality of individual party members, rather than sheer numbers. Even still, I would allow for some challenges wherein an army of followers (however logistically challenged in the spreading of orders) is useful, so that the player doesn't feel that they've wasted their creativity and Magical Secrets.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You make some really good points - might want to consider adding each of these as answers to the linked questions that do support the original argument.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I still fully support the idea that the rules corroborate my answers to those questions. My examples here are possible GM-objections outside of the rules-as-written.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, but each objection is related to each of those other questions. If you're adding those concerns here, why not there, too?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I generally don't see value in adding addenda to each answer that basically boils down to: "A GM might say no."
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay...but you do here. Is it just because it's taking several things and combining them? But individiually each one isn't worth it?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
In general, nothing in the rules prevent this, as NautArch's answer elaborates on, but the GM has quite a few points where he can overrule this method:
First, they have to agree that the companion can attune
Whether an animal can attune to a magic item is contingent on its ability to focus on the item, as discussed in this Q&A. Now as a familiar, you could command it to focus on the ring of spell storing, but its capacity to do so is up to the GM.
Second, the companion has to be able to cast the spell
Since all of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed require Concentration to cast (as described in the Longer Casting Time rules), your GM may rule that the animals of only 6 intelligence cannot maintain concentration for the required time to cast the spell from the ring of spell storing. This is discussed briefly in this answer to a different question, but a GM may not be persuaded by the example-based argument.
Third, the new creatures have to be considered bound to the companions
Since each of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed have a clause to the effect of...
You can't have more than one [companion] at a time.
... a GM could rule that any creatures created by one already bound to you is also bound to you by proxy and therefore would not take effect (so a familiar casting its own find familiar would just change form, and one casting find steed or find greater steed would simply fail.
One way a GM could handle it
While all of these are possible houserules a GM could employ to prevent such an exploit, if a GM were to allow it, there is an issue of bogging down gameplay for one player's companion army.
As a GM, I would instead group the collection of creatures into what amounts to a Swarm of Familiars, or a Swarm of Steeds. This homebrew monster could increase in size and power as the player dedicates more time to increasing the capacity for his army, but at least it wouldn't take too much IRL game time to handle the turns for the army.
I would also develop the majority of challenges so that vast quantities of companions is insufficient to succeed. Some of these include areas where a large number of creatures could not fit, and challenges that revolve around the quality of individual party members, rather than sheer numbers. Even still, I would allow for some challenges wherein an army of followers (however logistically challenged in the spreading of orders) is useful, so that the player doesn't feel that they've wasted their creativity and Magical Secrets.
$endgroup$
In general, nothing in the rules prevent this, as NautArch's answer elaborates on, but the GM has quite a few points where he can overrule this method:
First, they have to agree that the companion can attune
Whether an animal can attune to a magic item is contingent on its ability to focus on the item, as discussed in this Q&A. Now as a familiar, you could command it to focus on the ring of spell storing, but its capacity to do so is up to the GM.
Second, the companion has to be able to cast the spell
Since all of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed require Concentration to cast (as described in the Longer Casting Time rules), your GM may rule that the animals of only 6 intelligence cannot maintain concentration for the required time to cast the spell from the ring of spell storing. This is discussed briefly in this answer to a different question, but a GM may not be persuaded by the example-based argument.
Third, the new creatures have to be considered bound to the companions
Since each of find familiar, find steed, and find greater steed have a clause to the effect of...
You can't have more than one [companion] at a time.
... a GM could rule that any creatures created by one already bound to you is also bound to you by proxy and therefore would not take effect (so a familiar casting its own find familiar would just change form, and one casting find steed or find greater steed would simply fail.
One way a GM could handle it
While all of these are possible houserules a GM could employ to prevent such an exploit, if a GM were to allow it, there is an issue of bogging down gameplay for one player's companion army.
As a GM, I would instead group the collection of creatures into what amounts to a Swarm of Familiars, or a Swarm of Steeds. This homebrew monster could increase in size and power as the player dedicates more time to increasing the capacity for his army, but at least it wouldn't take too much IRL game time to handle the turns for the army.
I would also develop the majority of challenges so that vast quantities of companions is insufficient to succeed. Some of these include areas where a large number of creatures could not fit, and challenges that revolve around the quality of individual party members, rather than sheer numbers. Even still, I would allow for some challenges wherein an army of followers (however logistically challenged in the spreading of orders) is useful, so that the player doesn't feel that they've wasted their creativity and Magical Secrets.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
David CoffronDavid Coffron
42.9k5149305
42.9k5149305
$begingroup$
You make some really good points - might want to consider adding each of these as answers to the linked questions that do support the original argument.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I still fully support the idea that the rules corroborate my answers to those questions. My examples here are possible GM-objections outside of the rules-as-written.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, but each objection is related to each of those other questions. If you're adding those concerns here, why not there, too?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I generally don't see value in adding addenda to each answer that basically boils down to: "A GM might say no."
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay...but you do here. Is it just because it's taking several things and combining them? But individiually each one isn't worth it?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
You make some really good points - might want to consider adding each of these as answers to the linked questions that do support the original argument.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I still fully support the idea that the rules corroborate my answers to those questions. My examples here are possible GM-objections outside of the rules-as-written.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, but each objection is related to each of those other questions. If you're adding those concerns here, why not there, too?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I generally don't see value in adding addenda to each answer that basically boils down to: "A GM might say no."
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay...but you do here. Is it just because it's taking several things and combining them? But individiually each one isn't worth it?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
You make some really good points - might want to consider adding each of these as answers to the linked questions that do support the original argument.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
You make some really good points - might want to consider adding each of these as answers to the linked questions that do support the original argument.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I still fully support the idea that the rules corroborate my answers to those questions. My examples here are possible GM-objections outside of the rules-as-written.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I still fully support the idea that the rules corroborate my answers to those questions. My examples here are possible GM-objections outside of the rules-as-written.
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, but each objection is related to each of those other questions. If you're adding those concerns here, why not there, too?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Right, but each objection is related to each of those other questions. If you're adding those concerns here, why not there, too?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I generally don't see value in adding addenda to each answer that basically boils down to: "A GM might say no."
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NautArch I generally don't see value in adding addenda to each answer that basically boils down to: "A GM might say no."
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay...but you do here. Is it just because it's taking several things and combining them? But individiually each one isn't worth it?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Okay...but you do here. Is it just because it's taking several things and combining them? But individiually each one isn't worth it?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f148416%2fcan-a-ring-of-spell-storing-and-access-to-find-spells-produce-an-endless-menager%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
I'm a little confused with all the backstory bits. Are you asking if a creature brought by Find Familiar / Find Steed can use a ring of spell storing to cast those spells again for them?
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
$endgroup$
– Szega
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
$endgroup$
– Destruktor
8 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@Destruktor it is not. That is asking about the warlock Pact of Chain familiar, and addresses only one of the aspects of this question. It's pertinent (as Szega noted) but not duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Ben Barden
8 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
@Destruktor Identical answers don't make identical questions. This question may have the same answer, but it's a different question so not a dupe.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
8 hours ago