So, I created a Battle Smith, and there's an option to add the Steel Defender as an Extra -- in particular, I want it there as a Mount for the Rock Gnome Artificer. But, obviously, it won't add it, because you have to select a creature from the sourcebooks, which the Steel Defender is not. It's really annoying. I've read something about Extras only being creatures from sourcebooks and thus with static stat blocks, where the SD has a dynamic stat block, hence why it's under the Actions tab. But it's not rollable. So, you have to track it manually in an otherwise automated system.
Why not, if adding a dynamic stat block to Extras is too challenging, add the Steel Defender to the Inventory of the Artificer so it's to hit shows up with the Artificer's weapons? The SD is part of the Bonus Action anyway, those stats scale already with level and skill changes.
Problem solved, yeah?
Now, about Infusions and adding items.
Enhanced Defense allows you to apply that infusion to the Steel Defender. But, you can't make that selection in the current set up -- only armour that the Artificer may wear. Another lost ability to track the Steel Defender adequately.
Mind Sharpener allows you to apply that infusion to armour or robes, but robes are not equippable inventory and don't show up as an option from the choose item selector. Why not? It says it right there: armour or robes.
Enhanced Arcane Focus is similar, allowing you to apply that infusion to rod, staff, or wand. But, rods and wands, while listed as arcane foci, are not equippable, so cannot be chosen, and staves, while both arcane foci and equippable, still do not show up as option from the choose item selector. Why not? It says it right there: rod, staff, or wand.
Additionally, EAF violates the Artificer's arcane focus criterion, which are artisan's tools, not rods, staves, or wands. What's up with that? Moreover, EAF allows, by its text, that an Artificer may turn any non-magical item into an EAF by using their actual arcane focus (tools) to craft the now *magical* arcane focus. So, for example, a pair of Tinker's goggles could easily serve as an EAF, and that's certainly more in keeping with the class aesthetic than rod, staff, or wand. So, why not?
Has anyone else noticed this? Are these going to be addressed?
Enhanced Defense does not allow applying the infusion to the Steel Defender; only armor or shields are allowed.
Enhanced Arcane Focus does not allow turning any non-magical item into an Enhanced Arcane Focus; only rods, staffs, and wands are allowed.
While you're correct that Artificers do not have the ability to use a Rod, Staff, or Wand as a spellcasting focus, the intent of many of the infusion options is that you give them to other characters in your party to use.
As for the rest...this sort of half-working implementation of things is unfortunately kind of par for the course for D&D Beyond, and since this class was published six years ago and a new version is coming later this year, I would not expect any further development to occur on the old version at this point.
"Enhanced Defense does not allow applying the infusion to the Steel Defender; only armor or shields are allowed"
I think if my DM tried to enforce such a strict interpretation of the rules, i might start looking for a different DM.
Is it that strict? There’s nothing in the rules about putting an infusion directly in a creature; it has to be a non-magical object. It wouldn’t be a terrible house rule, but it seems weird to expect it to be allowed automatically.
+1 ac means the dmg per round the target takes from attack rolls is reduced by 5%. Thats miniscule.
Before infusion, the monster did 20dmg per round.on average. After the infusion the monster does 19dmg per round.
If the dm wont allow such a miniscule deviation from the strict interpretation, they strike me as the kind of dm who sees the rule of cool as breaking the game. And the rule of cool often give players things they talk abouy for years.
+1 ac means the dmg per round the target takes from attack rolls is reduced by 5%. Thats miniscule.
Before infusion, the monster did 20dmg per round.on average. After the infusion the monster does 19dmg per round.
If the dm wont allow such a miniscule deviation from the strict interpretation, they strike me as the kind of dm who sees the rule of cool as breaking the game. And the rule of cool often give players things they talk abouy for years.
To be clear, I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it as a house rule if you think it’s cool. The original post claimed that the rules allow it, and I was pointing out that they don’t, which is why D&D Beyond doesn’t have support for it built in. That’s all.
Ok but youre picking one rule to interpret and ignoring other rules. Theres the rule of cool. Theres the rule that says the dm has final say on all rules. Homebrew is also a rule.
There are also rules for things like barding. And Barding is defined as armor for a mount. And a small pc can use a medium steel defender as a mount. And artificers are all about crafting stuff. So they craft some nonmagical custom barding that fits the steel defender and add the +1 ac infusion to the barding.
It doesnt take much to think of ways to apply the +1 armor infusion to a steel defender.
"Enhanced Defense does not allow applying the infusion to the Steel Defender; only armor or shields are allowed"
I think if my DM tried to enforce such a strict interpretation of the rules, i might start looking for a different DM.
Is it that strict? There’s nothing in the rules about putting an infusion directly in a creature; it has to be a non-magical object. It wouldn’t be a terrible house rule, but it seems weird to expect it to be allowed automatically.
It's not strict, but you could try to make the case for infusing Barding for the Steel Defender. I don't think there is anything restricting the Steel Defender (or your Wizard pal's corgi familiar) from wearing armor or barding. Whether it is proficient in armor is another matter.
"Enhanced Defense does not allow applying the infusion to the Steel Defender; only armor or shields are allowed"
I think if my DM tried to enforce such a strict interpretation of the rules, i might start looking for a different DM.
Is it that strict? There’s nothing in the rules about putting an infusion directly in a creature; it has to be a non-magical object. It wouldn’t be a terrible house rule, but it seems weird to expect it to be allowed automatically.
It's not strict, but you could try to make the case for infusing Barding for the Steel Defender. I don't think there is anything restricting the Steel Defender (or your Wizard pal's corgi familiar) from wearing armor or barding. Whether it is proficient in armor is another matter.
I think you could absolutely use an infusion (or Replicate Magic Item, in the new version) to make armor and put that armor on the Steel Defender. Since you get to decide what form the Steel Defender takes, I think you could choose to make it a form that can wear armor.
There's nothing in the Steel Defender's stats to indicate it has armor training of any kind, but there's nothing about that in any other monster/NPC stat block either. Monster stat blocks generally just assume that the monster has training in whatever armor they're wearing, if any; the whole concept of armor training is really only applicable to player characters.
In practice, I'd be inclined to rule it like this: you can create an infusion/RMI armor for your Steel Defender and it can wear it, but this represents a new base AC calculation, replacing the one it already has (12 + your Intelligence modifier) rather than augmenting it. If the armor is custom-built for the Steel Defender, then I'd consider it to have training with that armor, but no one else would be able to put it on because it's a bespoke thing.
In practice, I'd be inclined to rule it like this: you can create an infusion/RMI armor for your Steel Defender and it can wear it, but this represents a new base AC calculation, replacing the one it already has (12 + your Intelligence modifier) rather than augmenting it. If the armor is custom-built for the Steel Defender, then I'd consider it to have training with that armor, but no one else would be able to put it on because it's a bespoke thing.
Same. A strict take would be that since no form of armor was included in the stat block, the Steel Defender is not trained in any armor. I am generally lenient in this regard and would give it proficiency. Steel Defender in replicated Adamantine Plate Armor. :D
"A strict take would be that since no form of armor was included in the stat block, the Steel Defender is not trained in any armor."
Even in a strict interpretation, it should qualify for barding, even if its not in the stat block. Warhorse stat block doesnt mention armor proficiencies or whether it qualifies for barding.
Barding is defined in phb as "Barding is armor designed for a mount. Any type of armor on the Armor table in this chapter can be purchased as barding. The cost is four times the normal cost, and it weighs twice as much."
And if you play a small species, you can use a medium steel defender as a mount. Therefore steel defender qualifies for barding.
This shouldnt be something a DM portrays as "i will let you have it, but Im doing you a favor"
And again, its +1 ac, people. We are talking about a 5% reduction in incoming damage. Not a big deal
"A strict take would be that since no form of armor was included in the stat block, the Steel Defender is not trained in any armor."
Even in a strict interpretation, it should qualify for barding, even if its not in the stat block. Warhorse stat block doesnt mention armor proficiencies or whether it qualifies for barding.
Barding is defined in phb as "Barding is armor designed for a mount. Any type of armor on the Armor table in this chapter can be purchased as barding. The cost is four times the normal cost, and it weighs twice as much."
A steel defender is not normally a mount. It would be a DM's call if it "has appropriate anatomy". Even so, I don't think that a "creature that can be used as a mount" is the same as "being a mount" in terms of whether barding is normally available. For example, a Centaur may "have appropriate anatomy" but does not wear barding.
So, I created a Battle Smith, and there's an option to add the Steel Defender as an Extra -- in particular, I want it there as a Mount for the Rock Gnome Artificer. But, obviously, it won't add it, because you have to select a creature from the sourcebooks, which the Steel Defender is not. It's really annoying. I've read something about Extras only being creatures from sourcebooks and thus with static stat blocks, where the SD has a dynamic stat block, hence why it's under the Actions tab. But it's not rollable. So, you have to track it manually in an otherwise automated system.
Why not, if adding a dynamic stat block to Extras is too challenging, add the Steel Defender to the Inventory of the Artificer so it's to hit shows up with the Artificer's weapons? The SD is part of the Bonus Action anyway, those stats scale already with level and skill changes.
Problem solved, yeah?
Now, about Infusions and adding items.
Enhanced Defense allows you to apply that infusion to the Steel Defender. But, you can't make that selection in the current set up -- only armour that the Artificer may wear. Another lost ability to track the Steel Defender adequately.
Mind Sharpener allows you to apply that infusion to armour or robes, but robes are not equippable inventory and don't show up as an option from the choose item selector. Why not? It says it right there: armour or robes.
Enhanced Arcane Focus is similar, allowing you to apply that infusion to rod, staff, or wand. But, rods and wands, while listed as arcane foci, are not equippable, so cannot be chosen, and staves, while both arcane foci and equippable, still do not show up as option from the choose item selector. Why not? It says it right there: rod, staff, or wand.
Additionally, EAF violates the Artificer's arcane focus criterion, which are artisan's tools, not rods, staves, or wands. What's up with that? Moreover, EAF allows, by its text, that an Artificer may turn any non-magical item into an EAF by using their actual arcane focus (tools) to craft the now *magical* arcane focus. So, for example, a pair of Tinker's goggles could easily serve as an EAF, and that's certainly more in keeping with the class aesthetic than rod, staff, or wand. So, why not?
Has anyone else noticed this? Are these going to be addressed?
A couple things to note:
As for the rest...this sort of half-working implementation of things is unfortunately kind of par for the course for D&D Beyond, and since this class was published six years ago and a new version is coming later this year, I would not expect any further development to occur on the old version at this point.
pronouns: he/she/they
"Enhanced Defense does not allow applying the infusion to the Steel Defender; only armor or shields are allowed"
I think if my DM tried to enforce such a strict interpretation of the rules, i might start looking for a different DM.
Is it that strict? There’s nothing in the rules about putting an infusion directly in a creature; it has to be a non-magical object. It wouldn’t be a terrible house rule, but it seems weird to expect it to be allowed automatically.
pronouns: he/she/they
+1 ac means the dmg per round the target takes from attack rolls is reduced by 5%. Thats miniscule.
Before infusion, the monster did 20dmg per round.on average. After the infusion the monster does 19dmg per round.
If the dm wont allow such a miniscule deviation from the strict interpretation, they strike me as the kind of dm who sees the rule of cool as breaking the game. And the rule of cool often give players things they talk abouy for years.
To be clear, I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it as a house rule if you think it’s cool. The original post claimed that the rules allow it, and I was pointing out that they don’t, which is why D&D Beyond doesn’t have support for it built in. That’s all.
pronouns: he/she/they
Ok but youre picking one rule to interpret and ignoring other rules. Theres the rule of cool. Theres the rule that says the dm has final say on all rules. Homebrew is also a rule.
There are also rules for things like barding. And Barding is defined as armor for a mount. And a small pc can use a medium steel defender as a mount. And artificers are all about crafting stuff. So they craft some nonmagical custom barding that fits the steel defender and add the +1 ac infusion to the barding.
It doesnt take much to think of ways to apply the +1 armor infusion to a steel defender.
It's not strict, but you could try to make the case for infusing Barding for the Steel Defender. I don't think there is anything restricting the Steel Defender (or your Wizard pal's corgi familiar) from wearing armor or barding. Whether it is proficient in armor is another matter.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I think you could absolutely use an infusion (or Replicate Magic Item, in the new version) to make armor and put that armor on the Steel Defender. Since you get to decide what form the Steel Defender takes, I think you could choose to make it a form that can wear armor.
There's nothing in the Steel Defender's stats to indicate it has armor training of any kind, but there's nothing about that in any other monster/NPC stat block either. Monster stat blocks generally just assume that the monster has training in whatever armor they're wearing, if any; the whole concept of armor training is really only applicable to player characters.
In practice, I'd be inclined to rule it like this: you can create an infusion/RMI armor for your Steel Defender and it can wear it, but this represents a new base AC calculation, replacing the one it already has (12 + your Intelligence modifier) rather than augmenting it. If the armor is custom-built for the Steel Defender, then I'd consider it to have training with that armor, but no one else would be able to put it on because it's a bespoke thing.
pronouns: he/she/they
Same. A strict take would be that since no form of armor was included in the stat block, the Steel Defender is not trained in any armor. I am generally lenient in this regard and would give it proficiency. Steel Defender in replicated Adamantine Plate Armor. :D
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
"A strict take would be that since no form of armor was included in the stat block, the Steel Defender is not trained in any armor."
Even in a strict interpretation, it should qualify for barding, even if its not in the stat block. Warhorse stat block doesnt mention armor proficiencies or whether it qualifies for barding.
Barding is defined in phb as "Barding is armor designed for a mount. Any type of armor on the Armor table in this chapter can be purchased as barding. The cost is four times the normal cost, and it weighs twice as much."
And if you play a small species, you can use a medium steel defender as a mount. Therefore steel defender qualifies for barding.
This shouldnt be something a DM portrays as "i will let you have it, but Im doing you a favor"
And again, its +1 ac, people. We are talking about a 5% reduction in incoming damage. Not a big deal
A steel defender is not normally a mount. It would be a DM's call if it "has appropriate anatomy". Even so, I don't think that a "creature that can be used as a mount" is the same as "being a mount" in terms of whether barding is normally available. For example, a Centaur may "have appropriate anatomy" but does not wear barding.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.