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?

Universal hash functions with homomorphic XOR property

Recommended tools for graphs and charts

What do abbreviations in movie scripts stand for?

Second (easy access) account in case my bank screws up

Generate a Graeco-Latin square

Déjà vu, again?

Share calendar details request from manager's manager

What ways have you found to get edits from non-LaTeX users?

Why was the Sega Genesis marketed as a 16-bit console?

Watts vs. volts amperes

Frame failure sudden death?

What to do when surprise and a high initiative roll conflict with the narrative?

How does an ordinary object become radioactive?

What is wrong with this proof that symmetric matrices commute?

How come the nude protesters were not arrested?

C++ Arduino IDE receiving garbled `char` from function

Compiling C files on Ubuntu and using the executable on Windows

Are there any important biographies of nobodies?

Were Alexander the Great and Hephaestion lovers?

SQL counting distinct over partition

How to construct an hbox with negative height?

How can electric fields be used to detect cracks in metals?

Overlapping String-Blocks

Character descriptions



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;








10












$begingroup$


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.











share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 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
    May 21 at 15:14










  • $begingroup$
    Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
    $endgroup$
    – Szega
    May 21 at 15:17






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
    $endgroup$
    – Destruktor
    May 21 at 15:18






  • 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
    May 21 at 15:20






  • 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
    May 21 at 15:24

















10












$begingroup$


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.











share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 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
    May 21 at 15:14










  • $begingroup$
    Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
    $endgroup$
    – Szega
    May 21 at 15:17






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
    $endgroup$
    – Destruktor
    May 21 at 15:18






  • 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
    May 21 at 15:20






  • 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
    May 21 at 15:24













10












10








10





$begingroup$


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.











share|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 21 at 18:51









KorvinStarmast

87.2k22283468




87.2k22283468










asked May 21 at 15:09









Ben BardenBen Barden

13.6k23279




13.6k23279







  • 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
    May 21 at 15:14










  • $begingroup$
    Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
    $endgroup$
    – Szega
    May 21 at 15:17






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
    $endgroup$
    – Destruktor
    May 21 at 15:18






  • 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
    May 21 at 15:20






  • 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
    May 21 at 15:24












  • 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
    May 21 at 15:14










  • $begingroup$
    Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
    $endgroup$
    – Szega
    May 21 at 15:17






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
    $endgroup$
    – Destruktor
    May 21 at 15:18






  • 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
    May 21 at 15:20






  • 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
    May 21 at 15:24







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
May 21 at 15:14




$begingroup$
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
May 21 at 15:14












$begingroup$
Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
$endgroup$
– Szega
May 21 at 15:17




$begingroup$
Related: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/70692/…
$endgroup$
– Szega
May 21 at 15:17




4




4




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
$endgroup$
– Destruktor
May 21 at 15:18




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Can my familiar use a Ring of Spell Storing?
$endgroup$
– Destruktor
May 21 at 15:18




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
May 21 at 15:20




$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 15:20




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
May 21 at 15:24




$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 15:24










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

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:




  1. 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.



  2. 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.





  3. 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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 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
    May 21 at 16:00










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:01






  • 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
    May 21 at 16:01











  • $begingroup$
    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
    May 21 at 18:13






  • 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
    May 21 at 18:53


















5












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:18











  • $begingroup$
    @NautArch Only in cases where it is more apparent that an exploit in the rules is being employed, do I posit possible objections
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    May 21 at 16:22












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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















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









11












$begingroup$

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:




  1. 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.



  2. 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.





  3. 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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 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
    May 21 at 16:00










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:01






  • 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
    May 21 at 16:01











  • $begingroup$
    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
    May 21 at 18:13






  • 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
    May 21 at 18:53















11












$begingroup$

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:




  1. 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.



  2. 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.





  3. 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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 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
    May 21 at 16:00










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:01






  • 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
    May 21 at 16:01











  • $begingroup$
    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
    May 21 at 18:13






  • 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
    May 21 at 18:53













11












11








11





$begingroup$

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:




  1. 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.



  2. 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.





  3. 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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



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:




  1. 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.



  2. 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.





  3. 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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 21 at 18:17

























answered May 21 at 15:35









NautArchNautArch

68.3k11261459




68.3k11261459







  • 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
    May 21 at 16:00










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:01






  • 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
    May 21 at 16:01











  • $begingroup$
    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
    May 21 at 18:13






  • 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
    May 21 at 18:53












  • 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
    May 21 at 16:00










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:01






  • 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
    May 21 at 16:01











  • $begingroup$
    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
    May 21 at 18:13






  • 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
    May 21 at 18:53







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
May 21 at 16:00




$begingroup$
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
May 21 at 16:00












$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 16:01




$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 16:01




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
May 21 at 16:01





$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 16:01













$begingroup$
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
May 21 at 18:13




$begingroup$
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
May 21 at 18:13




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
May 21 at 18:53




$begingroup$
And then there's all of the cleaning up afterwards, with this menagerie, so we doubtless turn to the Unseen Servant ...
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
May 21 at 18:53













5












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:18











  • $begingroup$
    @NautArch Only in cases where it is more apparent that an exploit in the rules is being employed, do I posit possible objections
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    May 21 at 16:22
















5












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:18











  • $begingroup$
    @NautArch Only in cases where it is more apparent that an exploit in the rules is being employed, do I posit possible objections
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    May 21 at 16:22














5












5








5





$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 21 at 16:18

























answered May 21 at 15:59









David CoffronDavid Coffron

43.3k5153309




43.3k5153309











  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:18











  • $begingroup$
    @NautArch Only in cases where it is more apparent that an exploit in the rules is being employed, do I posit possible objections
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    May 21 at 16:22

















  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:17










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    May 21 at 16:18











  • $begingroup$
    @NautArch Only in cases where it is more apparent that an exploit in the rules is being employed, do I posit possible objections
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    May 21 at 16:22
















$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 16:17




$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 16:17












$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 16:18





$begingroup$
@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
May 21 at 16:18













$begingroup$
@NautArch Only in cases where it is more apparent that an exploit in the rules is being employed, do I posit possible objections
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
May 21 at 16:22





$begingroup$
@NautArch Only in cases where it is more apparent that an exploit in the rules is being employed, do I posit possible objections
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
May 21 at 16:22


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

Bruxelas-Capital Índice Historia | Composición | Situación lingüística | Clima | Cidades irmandadas | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióneO uso das linguas en Bruxelas e a situación do neerlandés"Rexión de Bruxelas Capital"o orixinalSitio da rexiónPáxina de Bruselas no sitio da Oficina de Promoción Turística de Valonia e BruxelasMapa Interactivo da Rexión de Bruxelas-CapitaleeWorldCat332144929079854441105155190212ID28008674080552-90000 0001 0666 3698n94104302ID540940339365017018237

What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company