The spell Phantom Steed, summons a creature that "uses the statistics for a riding horse". The Phantom Steed does have the extra benefit that it has a base speed of 100 feet, and that it does not tire (the latter is not in the spell, but can found in the DMG on p. 243, "Similarly, a phantom steed spell creates a magical mount with a speed of 100 feet that doesn't tire like a real horse.")

Under normal encumberance rules, a riding horse can carry 480 pounds, easily enough for two medium-sized creatures with clothing. So, if needed two medium creatures could ride it, at least for a short time, for example one in the saddle, the other sitting behind or slung over. This also has been confirmed by the Q&A: Are there any rules or rule clarifications regarding multiple characters riding a single mount?. There possibly could be even more (if smaller or lighter) riders.

However the spell also says: "For the duration, you or a creature you choose can ride the steed." You or a creature would only be a single rider. So the spell states the steed behaves like a normal horse, meaning multiple riders are possible, and that only one creature (you or another creature) can ride it.

How many creatures can ride on the steed?

  • \$\begingroup\$ I don’t think I understand what your confusion is here. You seem to answer the question…and then ask the question. Voting to close for “needs details”, it isn’t clear what you’re asking since it seems like you answered it already. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 28, 2022 at 3:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ Dupe seems like a good target too. But explaining the confusion you’re having here might explain why that target doesn’t answer your question. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 28, 2022 at 3:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov I think it's a dupe if the question is "how many riders can a steed carry assuming the only relevant feature is the riding horse stat block" and it is not a dupe if the question is "it seems like phantom steed says only one person can ride it, does that supersede the riding horse stat block"? \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Nov 28, 2022 at 4:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ One cannot ride a mount shotgun (beside the driver), at least a mount whose girth is narrow enough to be straddled by the width of one's legs. One rides shotgun on the front seat of a wagon, or the driver's box of a coach. On a horse, one person would be in the saddle, and the second behind the saddle or, if small enough, in front of the saddle. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Nov 28, 2022 at 5:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @GroodytheHobgoblin Indeed, you might have a prisoner (or an unconscious ally) slung over the horse; if there is a more specific word for it, I don't know what it is. The term 'shotgun' quite literally comes from the shotgun (or coach gun) carried by the person sitting on the seat next to the driver of the coach or wagon. Since the driver handled the reins, the person 'sitting shotgun' was in charge of defending the wagon or coach, but this term would not be used for a second rider on a horse. \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Nov 28, 2022 at 6:47

2 Answers 2


Just the one you designate

Phantom Steed says (emphasis mine):

The creature uses the statistics for a riding horse, except it has a speed of 100 feet and can travel 10 miles in an hour, or 13 miles at a fast pace.

Spells do what they say they do - except when they don't. It surely would be convenient if we could take this spell as written, where the only difference between a riding horse and a phantom steed was its speed. But in fact, most of the rest of the description of the spell is a list of exceptions, even if they are not so called.

A riding horse has 13hp, and so does the steed - except that it disappears after taking a single point of damage.

A riding horse's equipment exists independent of the horse itself, and so does the steed's - except that it disappears if it is carried more than 10 feet away from the steed.

A riding horse is a creature, and can tire if ridden hard, for example in a Chase. A phantom steed is a creature - except that it cannot tire.

A riding horse yields 50xp if defeated, and so does the phantom steed - except that as a cast creature, it might just be reflected in the xp awarded for its caster.

Within this context, we understand that the steed has many differences from a real mount, even if only its speed is explicitly called out as an exception. When the spell says:

For the duration, you or a creature you choose can ride the steed.

we then understand that this is yet another way it differs from a real animal. As an Illusion spell, you are in effect targeting a single creature, choosing for whom the steed will be real enough that it can be ridden. On the other hand, the creature you choose could conceivably be one that could not actually ride a real horse, such as your war dog or even another mount.

  • \$\begingroup\$ What about another creature put as "baggage" (slung over and such)? Riding normally means directing the mount, so maybe they would not technically be riding, and you could transport another creature, even though only one creature can be the one riding? \$\endgroup\$ Nov 28, 2022 at 7:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @GroodytheHobgoblin I assume this would go into DM ruling territory, especially for such specific scenarios, and which definition of "riding" you want to use. After a quick online search, the word "ride" seems to have definitions both for controling and simply being a passenger. But as written, it seems you can only have one creature "riding" the steed at a time, either you or a creature you choose. \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthieu
    Nov 28, 2022 at 7:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If you are using raw so strictly then you need to cover all cases such as people slung over the back wrapped in a carpet, a weasel around your neck etc, and if raw doesn't cover it (hint; it doesn't) then we shouldn't be answering as "raw says" because clearly raw isn't enough. This creates a horse which works like a horse, you really don't need to lawyer all the bits that don't and our experience should tell us that much. The bits that are different are the bits that a normal horse doesn't have to deal with. \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Nov 28, 2022 at 12:49

Only one rider can direct the steed, but you can carry others

We are to use the normal English defintion for words that are not defined game terms. The first definition for ride in Merriam-Webster is (emphasis mine):

to sit and travel on the back of an animal that one directs

I think we can resolve the apparent contradiction by adoption this first, and main, meaning of the term.

The spell allows you to select one creature that "can ride the steed", and the selected creature will be the only one from which the steed will take direction. Other creatures can be carried along as "baggage".

This is actually not that differnt from a normal horse: also on a normal riding horse, only one rider directs the horse, even if a second person sits behind them, or in front of them, or is carried along slung over.

  • \$\begingroup\$ If I understand it right, you mean to assert that if someone is carried by the horse that someone else is directing, they are not "riding" the horse, and thus can be carried while respecting the spell's condition. Is that correct? \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthieu
    Dec 1, 2022 at 9:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Matthieu Yes. There are wider definitions of what riding is that would not work, but this one is the main one and it works in that way. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 1, 2022 at 9:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ To bounce back on the definition you give in your answer, doesn't the "one" given for "one directs" apply to anyone, and not just the target of the word? You could be at the back of a horse and have someone else direct it, and in this situation you'd still be "sitting and traveling on the back of an animal that one directs", the "one" here being the conductor. \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthieu
    Dec 1, 2022 at 9:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ To push it even further, you could be riding a horse alone even if you're not directing it, as long as someone is doing the directing, for example with a leash. \$\endgroup\$
    – Matthieu
    Dec 1, 2022 at 9:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Matthieu Maybe. Tbh, I think it is a stretch - one here probably refers to the subject. More importantly I am not looking for an interpretation that does not work. You can use wider defintions if you are after that. I am looking for one that helps to reconcile the apparent contradiction is a way that is within the rules. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 1, 2022 at 9:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .