I am creating a Small-size Harengon Artificer and would like to go down the Battle Smith subclass tree, as long as I am able to ride the Steel Defender.
From what I've read and tried to find, simply using the Steel Defender as a mount isn't an issue and is widely accepted as doable since I'm a small-size character.
The question that I am having getting a clear answer on is what parts of the Steel Defenders abilities can be used while it's also acting as a mount.
The #1 ability I'd like the Steel Defender to retain is it's Reaction ability to Deflect Attack and cause Disadvantage. But knowing if it can still attack while being mounted would be fantastic as well.
So what is the community consensus on this topic? Is the Steel Defender still able to do any of its actions/ reactions while being ridden as a mount?
I feel bad asking because I know the question has probably been asked before, but I just can't find the right question to search to get the right answer here. Thanks in advance!
If you mount the steel defender, it'll need to be a controlled mount as it doesn't have enough intelligence to be an independent mount. This means as mount it is limited to three actions (Dash, Dodge, Disengage) on it's turn. However, no restriction is given to your reaction.
I see, interesting, didn't know that there was an intelligence factor that had to be considered!
So the actions of the mount are limited, but does that mean I can use *my* bonus action still to command it to take an attack? Or is that considered a use of the mounts action, which are restricted to the 3 D's?
Basically, just trying to get a clearcut set of generally accepted rules on what functionalities of the Steel Defender are lost when used as a mount.
Apologies, I misunderstood the rules. It's not that dumb mounts can't be independent, it's that smart ones are always independent. In which case you have a choice:
Controlled: Initiative count is shared with yours (i.e. can move it and then you do your attacks), can only Dash, Disengage, and Dodge as an action (i.e. can't attack)
Independent: Takes its turn immediately after yours, can attack (i.e. you are simply on its back)
Personally, I would rather use it as a controlled mount so that I can move into position and then use my action. If you have it act independently, you'd likely have to ready an action (loosing multiattack) and then wait for your steel defender to move into position after your turn.
The Independent Mount concept is interesting, because normally when you take that option then whatever creature you're mounted on functions as an NPC under the DM's control, and the DM decides where they go in combat and what they do on their turn. However, a Steel Defender is 100% loyal to you and will always obey your exact commands, so even when treating them as "independent", you have just as much... in fact, more control over them than you would if you treated them as a controlled mount.
But, like Rossiter said, the main problem is that, by RAW, the Independent mount always moves on its turn, not yours, and by default a Steel Defender will always take its turn after yours. This can make it hard to get into a good position to really take advantage of the ability to team up with your Steel Defender. I think one thing I might recommend is taking the Returning Weapon infusion and use it on a Javelin... that way you can still use your extra attack feature without needing to rely on held actions and you'll have a weapon that you can still reliably use in melee combat and at range.
The difference in Independent vs Controlled is definitely interesting, something I've never really bothered learning about. There seems to be pros and cons to both options.
I was originally planning to use it as a mount for my Harengon Artificer that also had the Polearm Master feat and wields a Glaive, which is one of their infusions. Paired with being on a mount, I was thinking that this character would be charging into the thickets of the fight, and then kind've controlling the battlefield with the expanded opportunity attack range, and the ability to move around with my mount without having to move with my character (if that makes sense).
To address the issues of the first turn where I'd have to do an action before my independent mount can take their action and carry me into melee range, I would simply be using my infused Glaive to cast a buff or just use a cantrip like Firebolt for damage before I get into Glaive range, I can see how it's not ideal or optimized maybe but I didn't see something horrendous about that option either.
(Now, something else I've learned newly in the last week or so is that heavy weapons give disadvantage to small characters, like my Harengon. This adds a bit of a wrench into my overall idea but I think I'm willing to suffer some pain of disadvantage for the flavor, but I digress) - hoping to address this with another feat later maybe, or find a party that has other characters can help me get advantage.
Atrificers are really overly complicated and adding mounted combat just compounds things so see if this helps a bit.
OK so here are the issues of what you are trying to do:
-STR score of a steel defender would technically mean that they wouldn't be able to carry you and the gear you have on. Talk to your DM because this could considered as not "having the appropriate anatomy" part of the mount rules.
-Independent mounts and steel defender both says they take their turn after yours. This mean you could only move after your PCs turn was over unless you use it as a controlled mount.
-Force empowered rend, requires your bonus action to allow it to make that action. If it is a controlled mount that is no longer a action it can take.
-Good news is that if you have Pole arm master you can just use that for a bonus action attack. -Use returning weapon infusion and use a spear so you now have a ranged option, RaW you can still throw a bonus action attack. -Throwing and staying out of melee means that you will get to use your reaction PaM attack when something does come in melee. -Like you said, heavy weapons are kind of a bad idea for a small creature. -A lance however is not heavy, a d12 and is a 1 hand weapon when mounted. (if you get dismounted you are pretty screwed if you have a shield on and cant remount)
-Another option is to use a homunculus as your bonus action attack instead of your steel defender. If you wanted to make something using PAM, like if you wanted to use a lance.
I appreciate this write up, it does help clarify some things, or at least get all written down in one place where I can see the differences.
Am I reading it correctly that; the main benefit of a controlled mount over an independant one, is that you can use the mounts movement during your characters turn? And only independent mounts can use their full economy of actions, bonus actions, and reactions?
If my Artificer knows Firebolt, could I not choose to allow my Steel Defender to be independent (assuming DM allows me to use the mount bending the mount rules), cast firebolt on my turn through my Lance/Glaive (it's infused so it's a spellcasting focus, from my understanding) from the back of the Defender, and then use the independent mount rules, to have my Defender move on their turn, directly after mine, to charge into melee range and use its attack action, setting my character up to take opportunity attacks with the lance on the following enemies turns, while also stilll having the Reaction from the Defender to impose disadvantage because it's independent?
I appreciate this write up, it does help clarify some things, or at least get all written down in one place where I can see the differences.
Am I reading it correctly that; the main benefit of a controlled mount over an independant one, is that you can use the mounts movement during your characters turn? And only independent mounts can use their full economy of actions, bonus actions, and reactions?
If my Artificer knows Firebolt, could I not choose to allow my Steel Defender to be independent (assuming DM allows me to use the mount bending the mount rules), cast firebolt on my turn through my Lance/Glaive (it's infused so it's a spellcasting focus, from my understanding) from the back of the Defender, and then use the independent mount rules, to have my Defender move on their turn, directly after mine, to charge into melee range and use its attack action, setting my character up to take opportunity attacks with the lance on the following enemies turns, while also stilll having the Reaction from the Defender to impose disadvantage because it's independent?
One thing you are missing is that a controlled mount can still use dodge, dash, disengage which makes it extremely good. Doubling move speed, disengage to hit and run, and dodging make this option way more powerful that you might have first thought.
Using firebolt, then running into melee after to use your steel defenders attack is actually a bad option. You have pole arm master, use a spear and shield(lance isn't a polearm), and you get a bonus action attack to replace the steel defender bonus action. The spear bonus action adds your int bonus, and your weapon infusion +1 to attack and damage. You will do more damage, and have waaay more mobility options
firebolt + rend is 5.5+4.5 +pb = around 12 damage (goes a a little with PB)
Spear +BA PaM = 1d6+1d4 + 2xint +2x infusion = 16 to 20 damage (depending on int) -And you will have a +1 to attack on these. - And you will have the controlled mount options to dash, dodge, dis. - And you can take the returning weapon infusion and make this a ranged attack by throwing the spear
Yea you're right, looking at your math it does make more sense just to use a spear instead from a pure damage-output outlook. But I feel like half the fun of Polearm Master is getting the increase in Opportunity Attack range, and I want to be able to use my mounts reactions as well to impose disadvantage on attacks (am I right to assume that I can use both the opportunity attack, and the Deflect Attack from my Steel defender in the same round? We both get a reaction right, the Deflect Attack doesn't take my characters reaction?).
I was trying to be more of a battlefield controller, rather than a pure damage build. I think if I was going full damage, I would give up on the mount idea altogether and try to optimize a different way. I do appreciate the idea, I might do that as well in another future campaign anyway, sounds fun to be the Cavalry on a mechanical hound!
Yes, your mount would and you still get separate reactions.
The thing is, PaM doesn't do anything for control, it's just pure damage on it's own. You'd need to pair it with Sentinel feat for it to be more of a control thing. The control really comes from your steel defender causing disadvantage.
If you want to do more control, then your best option is to use Web (when you can get it).
What you can do is ride in, attack, then have your controlled mount take the disengage action to back out, and position yourself where you can get a PaM opportunity attack when the enemy moves in.
*The extra reach on a glaive is a good and bad thing, enemies can move around inside that 10ft bubble without triggering an attack, which gives them a lot more room to maneuver and reach other targets.
*Another issue with trying for reaction attacks all the time is that battle smiths really rely on shield and absorb elements reactions to be tanky, so when you can't cast those at the wrong time sometimes you get dunked on pretty hard.
My solution to this problem is a goblin artificer that uses a pistol, Repeating Shot, and a shield. Lots of discussion on whether or not RS fully negates the Ammo property or not, but Ammo property says you need a free hand to load, and RS says if you don't load Ammo it produces its own which seems to bypass that requirement of the Ammo property.
Anyway, on my Artificer's turn I shoot, then bonus action the SD to run in and attack. If I want to move in to position then Cast a spell, such as Web or Tasha's Caustic Brew, I just state I ready the spell and shoot once I'm in position, and if I know I will have enough move, I could've still BA ordered the defender to run in and attack.
I think many DM's would allow that, as it simplifies the combat, and at worst, you lose your reaction for a turn. Personally, if I were the DM, I would just allow a hybrid between the independent and controlled mounts so that the player and their construct could move and take a turn as one unit. It's simple, saves time on declarations of what actions happen when, and it is fluff that makes a good story.
I just don't think that letting an artificer ride their SD and still being able to BA attack with it, especially if you take the Mounted Combatant feat, will be game breaking. The max damage the SD will ever be able to do will be 1d8 +6, and an average of 11 extra points of damage a turn is not going to make that much difference at level 17. Plus the character had to use a feat for it so passed on better stats, so I would give em leeway.
It really feels like you guys are overcomplicating this. I simply let my players use their mount on the same turn as the player. So if they want to use their mount's movement as their own, then attack from the back, sure! Sounds completely reasonable and realistic. And if the Artificer wants to use their BA to have the Steel Defender attack, go for it! And if they want to mount/dismount, it costs half their movement, else they can't.
There's no reason mounted combat should be this hard.
It really feels like you guys are overcomplicating this. I simply let my players use their mount on the same turn as the player. So if they want to use their mount's movement as their own, then attack from the back, sure! Sounds completely reasonable and realistic. And if the Artificer wants to use their BA to have the Steel Defender attack, go for it! And if they want to mount/dismount, it costs half their movement, else they can't.
There's no reason mounted combat should be this hard.
This was my thought. But......
What about a steel defender with a balista mounted to its back? Repeating Shot infusion? Broken, or super duper fun?
What about a steel defender with a balista mounted to its back? Repeating Shot infusion? Broken, or super duper fun?
A ballista is not a simple or martial weapon; can't be infused. If your defender is lugging around a 200-pound siege engine, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not also your mount.
HiroSoga. Ignore everything Bodanger and the other nay sayers are saying. Why? Yes, they make several good points, however those points are MOOT because they are forgetting the biggest rule of them all that completely negates their naysaying.
Specific Beats General.
In this particular case, The general rule is the "mounted combat rules". The specific that overides it is the Steel Defenders description AND stat block.
So, what does this mean? 1: The SD has an intelligence of 4, which is higher than all horses in DND, even a war horse, by 2. It also seems to be the key breakpoint for the reference to "intelligent creature". How so? Simple, look at spells such as "animal friendship". That spell in particular says "If the beast's Intelligence is 4 or higher, the spell fails." which seems to indicate that its smarter than a beast. There are other spells that do the exact same, such as "Beast Bond", and "Awaken" (which only works on creatures with 3 or less int to 'awaken them' and make them 'smart'). Since there is no clear cut official "int requirement" to the mounted combat rules definition of "intelligent creature", we have to surmise that this limit is 4 int due to the various clues in the game. SO the SD meets the requirement. Not that the "intelligent creature" requirement even matters, since specific beats general, and bonus actions still give the SD orders.
2: Yes, a controlled mount can only use the listed actions. Mounted combat rules do not specifically say bonus actions cannot be used to order your mount to take an action. SO, specific overrides here, meaning, as a bonus action you can still give your steel defender a command, AND the steel defender can move and take reactions without your command.
3: In regards to the "The SD's Strength isnt high enough to carry you and your equipment". There is truth here. The SD has 14 str and is of medium size, which means it can carry 210 pounds. In order to ride it you have to be a small race, so right off the bat you arnt going to be too heavy, however, if you have a total of 211 pounds between your body weight and your gear, then yes, it wont be able to carry you. But, odds are pretty good that you wont.
4: the "your SD moves after your turn" part is true. So, i recommend not playing as a melee artificer, since you wont be able to close the distance on your turn to actually melee. There are work arounds, such as "I ready my action to attack the first enemy within my range", which would work, but takes your reaction AND would not trigger extra attack. So, you are better off, RAW, using ranged weapons, or spells as a SD riding battle smith. Especially if you have a DM that likes to say No to the rule of cool. (enforcing the "its not ur mounts turn, it cant move" rule is pretty crappy dming)
So, In the end, you ABSOLUTELY can ride, control, and bonus action order your SD to take actions in its stat block. JUST LIKE YOU CAN WITH A RANGER BEAST MASTER OR DRAKEWARDEN. It isnt like artificer is the only class that gets a 'pet'.
P.S. Bodanger's math is wrong on this, and is deceptive. "firebolt + rend is 5.5+4.5 +pb = around 12 damage (goes a a little with PB)
Spear +BA PaM = 1d6+1d4 + 2xint +2x infusion = 16 to 20 damage (depending on int) -And you will have a +1 to attack on these. - And you will have the controlled mount options to dash, dodge, dis. - And you can take the returning weapon infusion and make this a ranged attack by throwing the spear"
1: Firebolt + Rend+PB is 1d10+1d4+2, which is an average of 10, which is not that good, for a level 3, admittedly. But, That is assuming u cast firebolt. You have access to 1st level spell slots...and one of, if not the most powerful, spell in the game, dps wise. "Tasha's Caustic Brew" a 1st level spell, If a creature fails 1 dex save, it does 2d4 acid damage at the start of that creatures turn, EVERY TURN, for 10 turns without your action or bonus or anything. THATS 20d4 acid damage for the cost of 1 action and 1 spell slot. If the creature wants, it can use ITS ACTION to scrap the acid off. The spell is also an AOE so it can hit multiple targets, and its concentration. If that doesnt tickle your fancy, then go with the spell Catapult and deal 3d8 bludgeoning dmg to a target. OH, and also, you will have +1 to attack on your SPELLS to, from the Enhanced Arcane Focus infusion.
So here is the new math: Turn 1: Tashas + Rend + PB, 3d4+2 or 9.5 average dmg, turn 2: Tashas + catapult + Rend + PB =or 3d4+3d8+2 for 23 dmg ave. Or if you are trying to be a little more efficient, Turn 2: Tashas + firebolt + Rend + PB or 3d4+1d10+2 for 15 ave.
OR if you dont like Caustic Brew and want instant damage, Turn 1: Catapult + Rend + PB + Alchemist Fire (50gp investment, catapult breaks it on impact, weights 1 pound, ignites when exposed to air, so this works) for 3d8+2d4+2, or 20.5 ave dmg, and the target is on fire, taking 1d4 dmg per turn.
2: His dmg calc of "Spear +BA PaM = 1d6+1d4 + 2xint +2x infusion = 16 to 20 damage (depending on int)" is off. Assuming +3 to int at level 3, it would be an average of 14 dmg.
IF you rolled for stats and managed to get 18 int, or a +4, congrats, it would be an average of 16. It would NEVER be an average of 20 damage at level 3 unless your dm was giving you very rare+ magic items...at level 3....Cause if THAT is the case. If we are factoring MAGIC ITEMS, then my damage calculations are going to ALSO go up. Fair is fair.
Point is, you can be just as effective in combat, if not more, with a bit of imagination and know how.
The difference in Independent vs Controlled is definitely interesting, something I've never really bothered learning about. There seems to be pros and cons to both options.
I was originally planning to use it as a mount for my Harengon Artificer that also had the Polearm Master feat and wields a Glaive, which is one of their infusions. Paired with being on a mount, I was thinking that this character would be charging into the thickets of the fight, and then kind've controlling the battlefield with the expanded opportunity attack range, and the ability to move around with my mount without having to move with my character (if that makes sense).
To address the issues of the first turn where I'd have to do an action before my independent mount can take their action and carry me into melee range, I would simply be using my infused Glaive to cast a buff or just use a cantrip like Firebolt for damage before I get into Glaive range, I can see how it's not ideal or optimized maybe but I didn't see something horrendous about that option either.
(Now, something else I've learned newly in the last week or so is that heavy weapons give disadvantage to small characters, like my Harengon. This adds a bit of a wrench into my overall idea but I think I'm willing to suffer some pain of disadvantage for the flavor, but I digress) - hoping to address this with another feat later maybe, or find a party that has other characters can help me get advantage.
You know they are swinging disadvantage every time?
“Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.”
Oh saw you addressed that, there is no feat or buff save enlarge, but then you have mount problems.
It really feels like you guys are overcomplicating this. I simply let my players use their mount on the same turn as the player. So if they want to use their mount's movement as their own, then attack from the back, sure! Sounds completely reasonable and realistic. And if the Artificer wants to use their BA to have the Steel Defender attack, go for it! And if they want to mount/dismount, it costs half their movement, else they can't.
There's no reason mounted combat should be this hard.
I 100% agree, and that is how I do mounted combat within my campaign. The downside is that most DMs run mounted combat RAW; as a player, I argue the DMG is meant to be a guideline, not just a book of rules... I digress. It doesn't work most of the time.
So in the name of Rule of Cool this is how I do mounted combat. It is fun and my players enjoy the freedoms of simplified mounted combat. I let them ride in using the mount and dismount to use their movement to get extra distance. I allow dismounting only to not cost movement. If they use all of the mount's movement, that turn and dismount to use their movement. The point of the mount is to share the player's turn, not take an extra initiative spot
im a little lost on this. so say you wanted it just for a mount and for its reaction you could use the normal mounted combat rules. if you wanted to use its attack or heal youd have to use its Steel defender rules?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am creating a Small-size Harengon Artificer and would like to go down the Battle Smith subclass tree, as long as I am able to ride the Steel Defender.
From what I've read and tried to find, simply using the Steel Defender as a mount isn't an issue and is widely accepted as doable since I'm a small-size character.
The question that I am having getting a clear answer on is what parts of the Steel Defenders abilities can be used while it's also acting as a mount.
The #1 ability I'd like the Steel Defender to retain is it's Reaction ability to Deflect Attack and cause Disadvantage. But knowing if it can still attack while being mounted would be fantastic as well.
So what is the community consensus on this topic? Is the Steel Defender still able to do any of its actions/ reactions while being ridden as a mount?
I feel bad asking because I know the question has probably been asked before, but I just can't find the right question to search to get the right answer here. Thanks in advance!
My understanding is yes.
If you mount the steel defender, it'll need to be a controlled mount as it doesn't have enough intelligence to be an independent mount. This means as mount it is limited to three actions (Dash, Dodge, Disengage) on it's turn. However, no restriction is given to your reaction.
I see, interesting, didn't know that there was an intelligence factor that had to be considered!
So the actions of the mount are limited, but does that mean I can use *my* bonus action still to command it to take an attack? Or is that considered a use of the mounts action, which are restricted to the 3 D's?
Basically, just trying to get a clearcut set of generally accepted rules on what functionalities of the Steel Defender are lost when used as a mount.
Apologies, I misunderstood the rules. It's not that dumb mounts can't be independent, it's that smart ones are always independent. In which case you have a choice:
Personally, I would rather use it as a controlled mount so that I can move into position and then use my action. If you have it act independently, you'd likely have to ready an action (loosing multiattack) and then wait for your steel defender to move into position after your turn.
The Independent Mount concept is interesting, because normally when you take that option then whatever creature you're mounted on functions as an NPC under the DM's control, and the DM decides where they go in combat and what they do on their turn. However, a Steel Defender is 100% loyal to you and will always obey your exact commands, so even when treating them as "independent", you have just as much... in fact, more control over them than you would if you treated them as a controlled mount.
But, like Rossiter said, the main problem is that, by RAW, the Independent mount always moves on its turn, not yours, and by default a Steel Defender will always take its turn after yours. This can make it hard to get into a good position to really take advantage of the ability to team up with your Steel Defender. I think one thing I might recommend is taking the Returning Weapon infusion and use it on a Javelin... that way you can still use your extra attack feature without needing to rely on held actions and you'll have a weapon that you can still reliably use in melee combat and at range.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
The difference in Independent vs Controlled is definitely interesting, something I've never really bothered learning about. There seems to be pros and cons to both options.
I was originally planning to use it as a mount for my Harengon Artificer that also had the Polearm Master feat and wields a Glaive, which is one of their infusions. Paired with being on a mount, I was thinking that this character would be charging into the thickets of the fight, and then kind've controlling the battlefield with the expanded opportunity attack range, and the ability to move around with my mount without having to move with my character (if that makes sense).
To address the issues of the first turn where I'd have to do an action before my independent mount can take their action and carry me into melee range, I would simply be using my infused Glaive to cast a buff or just use a cantrip like Firebolt for damage before I get into Glaive range, I can see how it's not ideal or optimized maybe but I didn't see something horrendous about that option either.
(Now, something else I've learned newly in the last week or so is that heavy weapons give disadvantage to small characters, like my Harengon. This adds a bit of a wrench into my overall idea but I think I'm willing to suffer some pain of disadvantage for the flavor, but I digress) - hoping to address this with another feat later maybe, or find a party that has other characters can help me get advantage.
Atrificers are really overly complicated and adding mounted combat just compounds things so see if this helps a bit.
OK so here are the issues of what you are trying to do:
-STR score of a steel defender would technically mean that they wouldn't be able to carry you and the gear you have on. Talk to your DM because this could considered as not "having the appropriate anatomy" part of the mount rules.
-Independent mounts and steel defender both says they take their turn after yours. This mean you could only move after your PCs turn was over unless you use it as a controlled mount.
-Force empowered rend, requires your bonus action to allow it to make that action. If it is a controlled mount that is no longer a action it can take.
-Good news is that if you have Pole arm master you can just use that for a bonus action attack.
-Use returning weapon infusion and use a spear so you now have a ranged option, RaW you can still throw a bonus action attack.
-Throwing and staying out of melee means that you will get to use your reaction PaM attack when something does come in melee.
-Like you said, heavy weapons are kind of a bad idea for a small creature.
-A lance however is not heavy, a d12 and is a 1 hand weapon when mounted. (if you get dismounted you are pretty screwed if you have a shield on and cant remount)
-Another option is to use a homunculus as your bonus action attack instead of your steel defender. If you wanted to make something using PAM, like if you wanted to use a lance.
I appreciate this write up, it does help clarify some things, or at least get all written down in one place where I can see the differences.
Am I reading it correctly that; the main benefit of a controlled mount over an independant one, is that you can use the mounts movement during your characters turn? And only independent mounts can use their full economy of actions, bonus actions, and reactions?
If my Artificer knows Firebolt, could I not choose to allow my Steel Defender to be independent (assuming DM allows me to use the mount bending the mount rules), cast firebolt on my turn through my Lance/Glaive (it's infused so it's a spellcasting focus, from my understanding) from the back of the Defender, and then use the independent mount rules, to have my Defender move on their turn, directly after mine, to charge into melee range and use its attack action, setting my character up to take opportunity attacks with the lance on the following enemies turns, while also stilll having the Reaction from the Defender to impose disadvantage because it's independent?
Yes you are 100% correct on all fronts.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
One thing you are missing is that a controlled mount can still use dodge, dash, disengage which makes it extremely good.
Doubling move speed, disengage to hit and run, and dodging make this option way more powerful that you might have first thought.
Using firebolt, then running into melee after to use your steel defenders attack is actually a bad option. You have pole arm master, use a spear and shield(lance isn't a polearm), and you get a bonus action attack to replace the steel defender bonus action. The spear bonus action adds your int bonus, and your weapon infusion +1 to attack and damage. You will do more damage, and have waaay more mobility options
firebolt + rend is 5.5+4.5 +pb = around 12 damage (goes a a little with PB)
Spear +BA PaM = 1d6+1d4 + 2xint +2x infusion = 16 to 20 damage (depending on int)
-And you will have a +1 to attack on these.
- And you will have the controlled mount options to dash, dodge, dis.
- And you can take the returning weapon infusion and make this a ranged attack by throwing the spear
Yea you're right, looking at your math it does make more sense just to use a spear instead from a pure damage-output outlook. But I feel like half the fun of Polearm Master is getting the increase in Opportunity Attack range, and I want to be able to use my mounts reactions as well to impose disadvantage on attacks (am I right to assume that I can use both the opportunity attack, and the Deflect Attack from my Steel defender in the same round? We both get a reaction right, the Deflect Attack doesn't take my characters reaction?).
I was trying to be more of a battlefield controller, rather than a pure damage build. I think if I was going full damage, I would give up on the mount idea altogether and try to optimize a different way. I do appreciate the idea, I might do that as well in another future campaign anyway, sounds fun to be the Cavalry on a mechanical hound!
Yes, your mount would and you still get separate reactions.
The thing is, PaM doesn't do anything for control, it's just pure damage on it's own. You'd need to pair it with Sentinel feat for it to be more of a control thing.
The control really comes from your steel defender causing disadvantage.
If you want to do more control, then your best option is to use Web (when you can get it).
What you can do is ride in, attack, then have your controlled mount take the disengage action to back out, and position yourself where you can get a PaM opportunity attack when the enemy moves in.
*The extra reach on a glaive is a good and bad thing, enemies can move around inside that 10ft bubble without triggering an attack, which gives them a lot more room to maneuver and reach other targets.
*Another issue with trying for reaction attacks all the time is that battle smiths really rely on shield and absorb elements reactions to be tanky, so when you can't cast those at the wrong time sometimes you get dunked on pretty hard.
My solution to this problem is a goblin artificer that uses a pistol, Repeating Shot, and a shield. Lots of discussion on whether or not RS fully negates the Ammo property or not, but Ammo property says you need a free hand to load, and RS says if you don't load Ammo it produces its own which seems to bypass that requirement of the Ammo property.
Anyway, on my Artificer's turn I shoot, then bonus action the SD to run in and attack. If I want to move in to position then Cast a spell, such as Web or Tasha's Caustic Brew, I just state I ready the spell and shoot once I'm in position, and if I know I will have enough move, I could've still BA ordered the defender to run in and attack.
I think many DM's would allow that, as it simplifies the combat, and at worst, you lose your reaction for a turn. Personally, if I were the DM, I would just allow a hybrid between the independent and controlled mounts so that the player and their construct could move and take a turn as one unit. It's simple, saves time on declarations of what actions happen when, and it is fluff that makes a good story.
I just don't think that letting an artificer ride their SD and still being able to BA attack with it, especially if you take the Mounted Combatant feat, will be game breaking. The max damage the SD will ever be able to do will be 1d8 +6, and an average of 11 extra points of damage a turn is not going to make that much difference at level 17. Plus the character had to use a feat for it so passed on better stats, so I would give em leeway.
It really feels like you guys are overcomplicating this. I simply let my players use their mount on the same turn as the player. So if they want to use their mount's movement as their own, then attack from the back, sure! Sounds completely reasonable and realistic. And if the Artificer wants to use their BA to have the Steel Defender attack, go for it! And if they want to mount/dismount, it costs half their movement, else they can't.
There's no reason mounted combat should be this hard.
This was my thought. But......
What about a steel defender with a balista mounted to its back? Repeating Shot infusion? Broken, or super duper fun?
A ballista is not a simple or martial weapon; can't be infused.
If your defender is lugging around a 200-pound siege engine, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not also your mount.
HiroSoga. Ignore everything Bodanger and the other nay sayers are saying. Why? Yes, they make several good points, however those points are MOOT because they are forgetting the biggest rule of them all that completely negates their naysaying.
Specific Beats General.
In this particular case, The general rule is the "mounted combat rules". The specific that overides it is the Steel Defenders description AND stat block.
So, what does this mean?
1: The SD has an intelligence of 4, which is higher than all horses in DND, even a war horse, by 2. It also seems to be the key breakpoint for the reference to "intelligent creature". How so? Simple, look at spells such as "animal friendship". That spell in particular says "If the beast's Intelligence is 4 or higher, the spell fails." which seems to indicate that its smarter than a beast. There are other spells that do the exact same, such as "Beast Bond", and "Awaken" (which only works on creatures with 3 or less int to 'awaken them' and make them 'smart'). Since there is no clear cut official "int requirement" to the mounted combat rules definition of "intelligent creature", we have to surmise that this limit is 4 int due to the various clues in the game. SO the SD meets the requirement. Not that the "intelligent creature" requirement even matters, since specific beats general, and bonus actions still give the SD orders.
2: Yes, a controlled mount can only use the listed actions. Mounted combat rules do not specifically say bonus actions cannot be used to order your mount to take an action. SO, specific overrides here, meaning, as a bonus action you can still give your steel defender a command, AND the steel defender can move and take reactions without your command.
3: In regards to the "The SD's Strength isnt high enough to carry you and your equipment". There is truth here. The SD has 14 str and is of medium size, which means it can carry 210 pounds. In order to ride it you have to be a small race, so right off the bat you arnt going to be too heavy, however, if you have a total of 211 pounds between your body weight and your gear, then yes, it wont be able to carry you. But, odds are pretty good that you wont.
4: the "your SD moves after your turn" part is true. So, i recommend not playing as a melee artificer, since you wont be able to close the distance on your turn to actually melee. There are work arounds, such as "I ready my action to attack the first enemy within my range", which would work, but takes your reaction AND would not trigger extra attack. So, you are better off, RAW, using ranged weapons, or spells as a SD riding battle smith. Especially if you have a DM that likes to say No to the rule of cool. (enforcing the "its not ur mounts turn, it cant move" rule is pretty crappy dming)
So, In the end, you ABSOLUTELY can ride, control, and bonus action order your SD to take actions in its stat block. JUST LIKE YOU CAN WITH A RANGER BEAST MASTER OR DRAKEWARDEN. It isnt like artificer is the only class that gets a 'pet'.
P.S. Bodanger's math is wrong on this, and is deceptive.
"firebolt + rend is 5.5+4.5 +pb = around 12 damage (goes a a little with PB)
Spear +BA PaM = 1d6+1d4 + 2xint +2x infusion = 16 to 20 damage (depending on int)
-And you will have a +1 to attack on these.
- And you will have the controlled mount options to dash, dodge, dis.
- And you can take the returning weapon infusion and make this a ranged attack by throwing the spear"
1: Firebolt + Rend+PB is 1d10+1d4+2, which is an average of 10, which is not that good, for a level 3, admittedly. But, That is assuming u cast firebolt. You have access to 1st level spell slots...and one of, if not the most powerful, spell in the game, dps wise. "Tasha's Caustic Brew" a 1st level spell, If a creature fails 1 dex save, it does 2d4 acid damage at the start of that creatures turn, EVERY TURN, for 10 turns without your action or bonus or anything. THATS 20d4 acid damage for the cost of 1 action and 1 spell slot. If the creature wants, it can use ITS ACTION to scrap the acid off. The spell is also an AOE so it can hit multiple targets, and its concentration. If that doesnt tickle your fancy, then go with the spell Catapult and deal 3d8 bludgeoning dmg to a target. OH, and also, you will have +1 to attack on your SPELLS to, from the Enhanced Arcane Focus infusion.
So here is the new math: Turn 1: Tashas + Rend + PB, 3d4+2 or 9.5 average dmg, turn 2: Tashas + catapult + Rend + PB =or 3d4+3d8+2 for 23 dmg ave. Or if you are trying to be a little more efficient, Turn 2: Tashas + firebolt + Rend + PB or 3d4+1d10+2 for 15 ave.
OR if you dont like Caustic Brew and want instant damage, Turn 1: Catapult + Rend + PB + Alchemist Fire (50gp investment, catapult breaks it on impact, weights 1 pound, ignites when exposed to air, so this works) for 3d8+2d4+2, or 20.5 ave dmg, and the target is on fire, taking 1d4 dmg per turn.
2: His dmg calc of "Spear +BA PaM = 1d6+1d4 + 2xint +2x infusion = 16 to 20 damage (depending on int)" is off. Assuming +3 to int at level 3, it would be an average of 14 dmg.
IF you rolled for stats and managed to get 18 int, or a +4, congrats, it would be an average of 16. It would NEVER be an average of 20 damage at level 3 unless your dm was giving you very rare+ magic items...at level 3....Cause if THAT is the case. If we are factoring MAGIC ITEMS, then my damage calculations are going to ALSO go up. Fair is fair.
Point is, you can be just as effective in combat, if not more, with a bit of imagination and know how.
You know they are swinging disadvantage every time?
“Heavy. Creatures that are Small or Tiny have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons. A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small or Tiny creature to use effectively.”
Oh saw you addressed that, there is no feat or buff save enlarge, but then you have mount problems.
I 100% agree, and that is how I do mounted combat within my campaign. The downside is that most DMs run mounted combat RAW; as a player, I argue the DMG is meant to be a guideline, not just a book of rules... I digress. It doesn't work most of the time.
So in the name of Rule of Cool this is how I do mounted combat. It is fun and my players enjoy the freedoms of simplified mounted combat. I let them ride in using the mount and dismount to use their movement to get extra distance. I allow dismounting only to not cost movement. If they use all of the mount's movement, that turn and dismount to use their movement. The point of the mount is to share the player's turn, not take an extra initiative spot
Nonetheless, it is 100% DM/GM's call on it.
im a little lost on this. so say you wanted it just for a mount and for its reaction you could use the normal mounted combat rules. if you wanted to use its attack or heal youd have to use its Steel defender rules?