@Kothath - I get it. You're imagining Iron Man, but the rest of us are imagining Mobile Suit Gundam. Just make the inside bigger. As many problems as this concept has, suffocation doesn't need to be one of them. The Artificer only needs about one combat's worth of air in there anyway.
And in any case, you could just put the ventilation ducts on the top, or conceal them with armor, or make them small enough that nothing dangerous gets in. They don't have to be straight lines either. You can certainly have full cover and an air supply. *If* you accept that "determine its appearance" accounts for all this nonsense.
Steel Defenders is a Medium construct, so nowhere near Gundam sized. "Just make the inside bigger..." There isn't unlimited space to make it bigger.
Make the vents too small and they do not let enough air in or get clogged. And again you do not have unlimited surface area. Open top design? Good luck if it rains. "Determine its appearance" does not equate to there being a practical design.
Will you please stop arguing about air as if it needs a 6 inch diameter hole to flow. A few grates at the bottom will provide more than enough air flow while still providing full cover from every direction. This is the least problem of all it's problems.
A cabinet provides full cover and you won't suffocate in it. People don't suffocate in elevators when the power goes out. Breathing is not an issue with this idea, stop distracting away from the actual reasons this doesn't work.
The problem with this idea is that the driver/passenger is as relevant to battle as the contents of a backpack. Other than giving commands, you can't affect the battlefield. If you want to rolepaly a gnome in a mech suit, might I suggest a warforged.
You don't need to be in a size medium tin can with legs, it can have a window so you can cast spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
You don't need to be in a size medium tin can with legs, it can have a window so you can cast spells.
If it has viewports, then is it still full cover?
There is still the movement and action problem, even if somehow vision was no issue.
The point of the Gundam comparison was to suggest that total freedom of movement isn't necessary for this concept to work. The Gundam pilots usually can't move much more than a motorcyclist can. That's not a problem.
I've countered your argument from #35, which was my intent when comparing Gundam to Iron Man. As an aside, "coordination check?" What's that, exactly? Dexterity? Wisdom? Why can't I gain proficiency with that? It's not important, just a curiosity.
Anyway. Do you mean to suggest that because there's a readied-action-sized opportunity for monsters to affect you when the window is open, the whole idea is useless? I really disagree. Even if all monsters were smart enough to ready their own actions to hit you when you open your window... Just don't open it, and they waste their whole turn. That's great! And anyway, only monsters with ranged attacks would be able to reliably do it, and those aren't too common, and traditionally (though perhaps this is changing) those ranged attacks are inferior to their melee attacks. You're still protected from AoE effects and, critically, Multiattack, as well as any spell if the caster is already concentrating.
And at what cost? Well, the only one that holds up to scrutiny is that you have to ready your action so you can act while the window is open. So basically that means a lot of the time you're using a crossbow instead of a cantrip, and your bonus actions are pretty limited. That's not nothing, but I don't think it's even close to a big deal.
You don't need to be in a size medium tin can with legs, it can have a window so you can cast spells.
If it has viewports, then is it still full cover?
There is still the movement and action problem, even if somehow vision was no issue.
The point of the Gundam comparison was to suggest that total freedom of movement isn't necessary for this concept to work. The Gundam pilots usually can't move much more than a motorcyclist can. That's not a problem.
I've countered your argument from #35, which was my intent when comparing Gundam to Iron Man. As an aside, "coordination check?" What's that, exactly? Dexterity? Wisdom? Why can't I gain proficiency with that? It's not important, just a curiosity.
Anyway. Do you mean to suggest that because there's a readied-action-sized opportunity for monsters to affect you when the window is open, the whole idea is useless? I really disagree. Even if all monsters were smart enough to ready their own actions to hit you when you open your window... Just don't open it, and they waste their whole turn. That's great! And anyway, only monsters with ranged attacks would be able to reliably do it, and those aren't too common, and traditionally (though perhaps this is changing) those ranged attacks are inferior to their melee attacks. You're still protected from AoE effects and, critically, Multiattack, as well as any spell if the caster is already concentrating.
And at what cost? Well, the only one that holds up to scrutiny is that you have to ready your action so you can act while the window is open. So basically that means a lot of the time you're using a crossbow instead of a cantrip, and your bonus actions are pretty limited. That's not nothing, but I don't think it's even close to a big deal.
It is not a Gundam though. It is not any form of powered armour. It is an actual creature being worn as armour. The only provisions for moving are either you move it using the grapple rules or it moves you using the same rules. Neither really allow for any sort of fine work such as making the grappled creature fight or gesture in any way that such would count as your attacks or your gestures.
And 75% cover is still of benefit, just not full cover.
There are plenty of rules to make the SD move or attack, remember that you can control it by Literally telling it what to do, and the rules for riding a creature don’t say you need to grapple it. I mean you don’t need too wrestle a horse until it’s moving in the right direction. You could even flavor commanding the SD as using a control panel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
Not sure how much this will contribute - however, there is already a device in WotC published materials that parallels the situation.
DoIP - Gnomengarde - Barrel Crabs
"G6. BARREL CRABS Parked in alcoves in this otherwise empty room are two gnomish contraptions. Each resembles a crab with a barrel for a shell, six articulated metal legs, and a pair of forward-facing pincer claws. A hatch on the top of each barrel opens to reveal an interior compartment equipped with a small, leather-padded seat surrounded by levers, pedals. and gears. The barrels are not airtight. The gnomes built these crablike contraptions to grip and move other objects, rather like crude forklifts. However, the contraptions are so clumsy that they are useless for delicate work. They are just small enough to navigate Gnomengarde's 5-foot-wide passageways.
Each barrel crab is a Large object with AC 15. 30 hit points, a Strength score of 10, and immunity to poison and psychic damage. It is designed to hold a single Small humanoid, though a Medium humanoid can fit inside with some discomfort. While in the barrel with the hatch closed, a creature has total cover against attacks from outside the contraption. It can use its action to make the contraption scuttle across the ground at a walking speed of 15 feet or make one attack with its pincer claws. Claws . Melee Weapon Attack: +2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (2d4) piercing damage, and the target is grappled (escape DC 10)."
So the only real questions related to the OPs question are:
1) Can a battlesmith shape their steel defender into a shape which would be large enough for them to get inside?
"You determine the creature’s appearance and whether it has two legs or four; your choice has no effect on its game statistics."
Does the steel defender stat block contain any information regarding getting inside it? No. Then one could conclude that you can't make a creature you can get inside of since the creature's appearance can have no effect on its game statistics. Being able to get inside would seem to be something that is part of a creature's statistics though all of the other creatures with this ability are usually swallowing the other creature.
You also have the rules on mounts.
"A knight charging into battle on a warhorse, a wizard casting spells from the back of a griffon, or a cleric soaring through the sky on a pegasus all enjoy the benefits of speed and mobility that a mount can provide.
A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules."
The mounted combat rules seem to specifically refer to being "on" a creature and not "in" a creature. So although a medium sized steel defender could be used as a mount by a small creature, the rules seem to refer to riding ON rather than IN such a creature. (For example, you can't ride inside your warhorse - it doesn't have that ability in its stat block - you can ride on it though since that appears to be what the mount rules describe.
2) In the end, it is entirely up to the DM. If the DM lets the artificer create a steel defender with space inside, and allows the character to be able to enter the cavity, and then allows the artificer to issue bonus action commands to the steel defender from inside then yes, an artificer could have total cover when sitting inside the steel defender. However, because the appearance of the creature created by the steel defender can't affect its statistics and because mounts in the game appear to specify on rather than in - I don't think there is any real justification to say that creating such a steel defender would be RAW.
P.S. Can you put barding on a steel defender and increase its AC?
"Barding. Barding is armor designed to protect an animal’s head, neck, chest, and body. Any type of armor shown on the Armor table in this chapter can be purchased as barding. The cost is four times the equivalent armor made for humanoids, and it weighs twice as much."
P.P.S. Can you create a steel defender with opposable appendages so that they can hold things and manipulate tools?
P.P.P.S. Can you create a steel defender with a built in saddle?
P.P.P.P.S. Can you create a steel defender with a high saddle which comes up around the character and provides partial or better cover?
Lots of DM rulings required either way.
One more postscript - depending on DM ruling, you can't cast spells through a window since they provide total cover (much like a wall of force) but that is a separate argument :)
I feel like it's been lost in the back and forth, but I'm still very much against the mech idea. I think it's rules lawyering at best, and rules butchery at worst lol. It's very clearly not the intended use, and it's janky as all hell. And it's stepping somewhat on the toes of the Armorer.
Not sure how much this will contribute - however, there is already a device in WotC published materials that parallels the situation.
DoIP - Gnomengarde - Barrel Crabs
"G6. BARREL CRABS Parked in alcoves in this otherwise empty room are two gnomish contraptions. Each resembles a crab with a barrel for a shell, six articulated metal legs, and a pair of forward-facing pincer claws. A hatch on the top of each barrel opens to reveal an interior compartment equipped with a small, leather-padded seat surrounded by levers, pedals. and gears. The barrels are not airtight. The gnomes built these crablike contraptions to grip and move other objects, rather like crude forklifts. However, the contraptions are so clumsy that they are useless for delicate work. They are just small enough to navigate Gnomengarde's 5-foot-wide passageways.
Each barrel crab is a Large object
Just want to note that Steel Defenders are Medium, not Large and that Gnomes are Small, so, if allowed, it would be more akin to "though a Medium humanoid can fit inside with some discomfort."
Agreed. Personally, as DM, I wouldn't let a small creature fit inside a medium creature but this was a published example of a similar situation (though it is a small creature in a large construct made from a barrel). As far as an artificer creating such a steel defender, it is up to the DM involved but the DM can feel free to say no citing the rules I included in the post above if they need a reason at all.
Not sure how much this will contribute - however, there is already a device in WotC published materials that parallels the situation.
DoIP - Gnomengarde - Barrel Crabs
"G6. BARREL CRABS Parked in alcoves in this otherwise empty room are two gnomish contraptions. Each resembles a crab with a barrel for a shell, six articulated metal legs, and a pair of forward-facing pincer claws. A hatch on the top of each barrel opens to reveal an interior compartment equipped with a small, leather-padded seat surrounded by levers, pedals. and gears. The barrels are not airtight. The gnomes built these crablike contraptions to grip and move other objects, rather like crude forklifts. However, the contraptions are so clumsy that they are useless for delicate work. They are just small enough to navigate Gnomengarde's 5-foot-wide passageways.
Each barrel crab is a Large object
Just want to note that Steel Defenders are Medium, not Large and that Gnomes are Small, so, if allowed, it would be more akin to "though a Medium humanoid can fit inside with some discomfort."
Agreed. Personally, as DM, I wouldn't let a small creature fit inside a medium creature but this was a published example of a similar situation (though it is a small creature in a large construct made from a barrel). As far as an artificer creating such a steel defender, it is up to the DM involved but the DM can feel free to say no citing the rules I included in the post above if they need a reason at all.
The small creature inside the medium creature is more comparable to the rules for riding a creature rather than wearing armor, my point is there are no rules stating you cannot do this and a lot of rules pointing toward the fact that you could
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
What if you just had a steel defender that is more of a frame with limbs for holding a pre made cockpit, tell me one reason that wouldn’t work. You can customize the defenders appearance however you like.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
The small creature inside the medium creature is more comparable to the rules for riding a creature rather than wearing armor, my point is there are no rules stating you cannot do this and a lot of rules pointing toward the fact that you could
The small creature inside the medium creature is more comparable to the rules for riding a creature rather than wearing armor, my point is there are no rules stating you cannot do this and a lot of rules pointing toward the fact that you could
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
The small creature inside the medium creature is more comparable to the rules for riding a creature rather than wearing armor, my point is there are no rules stating you cannot do this and a lot of rules pointing toward the fact that you could
5E is chock full of rules that contradict each other, but fundamentally speaking, RAW you can willingly enter another creature's space; if we have to pick one RAW answer (and we don't - it's fundamentally accurate to say that the RAW says both things and let a DM decide), then many more rules say you can than you can't. That's, for example, how most DMs differentiate other rules contradictions, like this one:
The small creature inside the medium creature is more comparable to the rules for riding a creature rather than wearing armor, my point is there are no rules stating you cannot do this and a lot of rules pointing toward the fact that you could
5E is chock full of rules that contradict each other, but fundamentally speaking, RAW you can willingly enter another creature's space; if we have to pick one RAW answer (and we don't - it's fundamentally accurate to say that the RAW says both things and let a DM decide), then many more rules say you can than you can't. That's, for example, how most DMs differentiate other rules contradictions, like this one:
Your first link is to the Mounted Combat rules. As Kotath previously points out at no point does it describe the rider as being inside the mount. Also one problem with the Mounted Combat rules is that it never describes what space the rider and mount occupy. I agree it is most sensible to rule that the rider and mount share the mounts space, but it is also valid to rule that the rider occupies a space adjecent to the mount.
Next you list various monsters that can swallow another creature. This is an example of two creatures occupying the same space and is an explicit exception to the general rule granted to these creatures. This is something that is not present in the Steel Defenders stat block.
Then you link to where various mounts are described in the rules and also list them explicitly. This is redundant with the Mounted Combat rules.
After the list of mounts you link to the rules describing creature size and the space they occupy, along with the rules for squeezing into a tight space. You claim this justifies being able to climb onto or even inside another creature. In fact the creature size rules explicitly reaffirm the Moving Around Other Creatures rule I linked by saying: "If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can’t get through unless the hobgoblin lets them."
The creature size rules also explain why it is sensible for a DM to rule that a rider and mount share the mounts space. This is reaffirmed by the optional Climbing onto a Bigger Creature rule in the DMG: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#ClimbontoaBiggerCreature. In both cases the situation being described is one creature being on another, not inside it.
The small creature inside the medium creature is more comparable to the rules for riding a creature rather than wearing armor, my point is there are no rules stating you cannot do this and a lot of rules pointing toward the fact that you could
5E is chock full of rules that contradict each other, but fundamentally speaking, RAW you can willingly enter another creature's space; if we have to pick one RAW answer (and we don't - it's fundamentally accurate to say that the RAW says both things and let a DM decide), then many more rules say you can than you can't. That's, for example, how most DMs differentiate other rules contradictions, like this one:
The only thing I would point out is that every creature that allows for a creature to be inside it, includes that information in the stat block (eg your entire list of creatures). For example, you can't get inside a giant unless you kill it first since the stat block for a giant does not contain any indication that it can contain another creature. This goes for every creature in the monster manual.
The stat block for a steel defender does NOT contain any indication that it could contain another creature.
The rules for the creation of a steel defender say "You determine the creature’s appearance and whether it has two legs or four; your choice has no effect on its game statistics." Since the choice of appearance has NO effect on creature statistics and the creature statistics contain no statement that the steel defender can contain a creature (unlike all of the exceptions you listed) then it would be reasonable to conclude that no matter what appearance an artificer chooses for the steel defender it can not contain another creature.
You also included a long list of mounts. All of the mounted combat rules refer to riding ON a creature. None of them reference riding IN a creature. It is DM discretion as to whether they would want to consider riding IN a creature to be considered a mount. In all of the cases where you can get inside a creature - none of them can be used as mounts from that position.
So, ultimately, it is up to the DM but they need to choose to allow the artificer to add the ability to be INSIDE another creature to the stat block for the steel defender (since it lacks this capability) AND the DM needs to allow riding IN a creature to be considered as a mount even though all of the mount rules refer to riding ON a creature.
P.S. All of the questions about ending a turn in a creatures space aren't meaningful since it is obviously possible to be in another creatures space if you have been swallowed or if you are using another creature as a mount. The questions in this case are can you get inside a steel defender that doesn't include that capability in its stat block and can you ride IN a creature when the mounted combat rules exclusively refer to riding ON creatures.
You have no BA options beside commanding the SD if you are inside. Do you want it to open? Then you must command it, otherwise it takes the Dodge action. So, every action you would take would be to hold an action (single attack or spell) and every BA would be to command it to open. You can only move on the SD's turn (again, you have to command it with your BA) and you can no longer concentrate on any spells unless you don't plan on casting for the rest of the combat (holding a spell action requires your concentration).
So you lose Extra Attack, lose your SD's attack as opening and closing would require it's action, lose casting spells if you cast a concentration spell, and be limited to your SD's movement on it's turn. That is -IF- your DM would even allow this. I would not, as portable full cover from all directions is pretty game breaking.
If you really want to wear a mech suit, just play an Armorer. You could even play as a Gnome and ask your DM if the armor could make you Medium (which I would fully allow as it is mostly flavor anyway). You keep your Extra Attack, keep the ability to cast spells while concentrating on a spell, keep your bonus action (command your Homunculus that you could flavor as a shoulder cannon or drone [Redwing anyone?]), and not be trapped in a metal box when your SD dies.
This is probably the sanest comment in this whole damn list. OP is flagrantly trying to make the battlesmith pet, which is specifically noted as being an autonomous creature, into a STRONGER version of the Armorer's Main class gimmick, this is NOT the way. and is the reason as a DM id refuse this on sight, the general ruling is to not use a low level spell to replicate what a higher spell can do, and in this case youre trying to get armorers abilites With extra total cover. and that I aint gonna give you
would you allow a necromancer wizard to rip off an abjuration wizard by making undead armor that acts the same way as the Abjuration wizard's ward while also being able to attack enemies on its own because you added a pair of skeletal arms with weapons to it? Not generally no as its invalidating another classes whole damn shtick, and if you did it would require very special dispensation and likely be a whole 'write a new spell, or invent a new magical item' sidequest.
if you really really really want to ride in your Steel defender. Fine. but then you're subject to normal mounted rules. and as the DM I'd probably expect you to have the mounted combatant feat to even try
if you want to gain full cover, you'll be considered restrained inside the steel defender because you will be wedged in there really damn tight even as a small race. (if we hypothetically stuffed someone in the hollowed out ribcage of a horse, they would be considered squeezing at best, and more likely restrained as there will not be enough room for the spell gestures for casting and you would not be able to use your weapons well at all) using creatures who can engulf players as examples is a very poor take, because they also restrain, suffocate, and blind the engulfed player pretty much unilaterally. you wont have a window for full cover, if you can see out a window they can see in and you'll be subject to all the spells that can be cast with line of sight that doesn't have to cross the intervening space. (i.e. all the spells you'd be able to use from inside anyway, which is a smaller list) which would bump you down to three quarters cover. while you're still at disadvantage on all your attack rolls. and just to restate while the standard RAI interpretation is if the spell does not eminate from the player and only requires sight to target, than casting through a window works fine, RAW's wording does not itself clearly support this, so some can and do rule that a window is enough to stop ALL spells from being cast, and that you have to open that window to use so much as a sacred flame cantrip on the enemy (which by its own description simply manifests on the target) and while I would allow 'opening and closing hatches' I would direct you to the arcane armour reference which requires a bonus action to open or close its visor, and the statblock of Mighty Servant of Leuk-o, which while it doesn't need an action to open or close its hatch, can only do so once per turn. so you would not be able to pop it open, fire and shut the door behind you. which would dock you down to half cover. additionally enemies can make use of held actions too, so just as a note, you could expect to have a volley shoved at your face the second you did pop up. Oh, and also, if you expect me to rule you didn't take damage from a giants boulder or club because you're hiding inside the thing he just hit. yeah I got bad news for ya. I would absolutely rule that any damage that drops the defender has carry over onto the artificer, as well as any damage that hits the defender sufficiently hard. (you would not have a great time trying to tank a red dragon's fire breath inside a metal shell.) but the ratio of bleed over damage would be relatively small while the defender remains standing)
I'd say you could probably get a half-cover cockpit without disadvantage being imposed, though
and while we're here lets cover some of the other points Ive seen. yes you could get full cover if you built yourself a pod or barrel for the steel defender to carry, however, barrels are made of wood, and not very hard to break open. A metal pod can be slapped with heat metal, or take damage enough that its hatch no longer functions, or is ripped open completely. it would definitely not be airtight because that would probably break the airtight seal the first hit the steel defender takes to begin with, and is wildly impractical but has no bearing on cover, except in the cases of poison clouds, cloudkill, green dragon breath, and all that other shit. the barrel crabs are a bad example because they are not only large constructs to house small creatures, meaning medium creatures would be uncomfortably wedged in there, they also limit the user to the Crab's actions, there is no mention of firing fireballs from the cockpit. in fact the only line there implies that the whole world has total cover from you despite your ability to see out. and really only further the argument why this is massively overreaching.
Now lets talk about how I would allow this to happen as a DM. Firstly there would be a lot of requisites required to begin this project, to do it alone as just a battlesmith, you'd have to spend Much more time and materials on research, testing and supplies. and if you worked towards that goal consistently for a large portion of a campaign, i'd allow you to be able to invest more and perfect it. However, I would say the end result would be more like a Large-sized exoskeleton your steel defender voltron's itself together with, that has a sizable cockpit for you, and may require repairs if you let it get too beat up.
for best results, you'd be better off playing with an armorer AND a battlesmith and they would have to basically combine their efforts. This would require a larger investment of time, materials and downtime work. and if youre going that far in, might as well add an artillerist to the mix as well, because then the specializations could work together well, and you could design a Mech defender that has a cockpit, that allows casting out of, and provides an ac bonus, cover, doesnt impose restrained, and has subsystems to allow magic to be cast out of it, and has its own mounted weaponry.
However to make this magnificent mech, would require either the perpetual devotion of all three artificers class features. Or A massive undertaking of crafting it as a standalone, to allow the artificers to keep their class features, at which point it would also lose the protection of being the artificers replacable class features and become basically a Mighty Servant of Leuk-o. a separate entity from the three artificers that can be controlled, but is also autonomous, and can be destroyed, possibly keeping the artificers busy for well over a month repairing it.
Lastly, I would advise the poster to be very careful about how far they want to try push and twist mechanics, Remember, every strategy you have access to, the DM has, too. and the DM has much meaner statblocks he is free to up and throw at you, and control them as tactically as he likes. Your steel defender idea can get you killed if you go up against someone with a heat metal scroll, a disingerate ray. or petrification gaze or cloud effect. and if you force the DM to bust out the heavy guns to deal with you, your less excessive party members will catch the worst of it and you're likely to ruin their enjoyment of the game because of it.
TL;DR the OP is frankly laughably wildly extruding and twisting rules to do something that a DM is under no obligation to tolerate ever and even a casual read through of the rules establishes this as house rules and homebrew rather than RAW/RAI functionality.
Steel defender could either provide full cover and render the artificer restrained and unable to take meaningful action Or 3/4 cover with very limited spell use, or half cover at most without serious disadvantage.
hatches are not likely to be allowed to open and close several times a turn, and even if your DM did, prepare to be on the wrong end of a game of whack-a-mole
barrels and other separate carried containers can be broken open or busted shut.
if you want to work towards building a badass mecha upgrade to your steel defender that's something you are absolutely free to pursue with DM consent.
Anything that may make you functionally immortal while allowing you to throw out your damage as normal without any consequences is cringe, and your DM is unlikely to humour it
Stop trying to steal other classes gimmicks, upgrade them, and bolt them onto your own as if you're trying to Mary sue solo the whole game.
Work with your party and you'll be given more leeway, this is a collaborative game, collaborate.
you do not want to get into an arms race with the DM, he's already won.
Seems to me there's a spectrum here. Take any metal plate. At one end of the spectrum, that plate might be a shield. Then, around the middle of the spectrum, it becomes armor. And finally, at the other end, it becomes a vehicle. I'm going to totally disregard steel defenders here, and just say: Those are the options.
The difference between armor and vehicle seems to the amount of space. Armor doesn't grant cover, it grants AC. Full plate may be ever so much plate steel, and fully enclosing - even if we decided it was power armor with it's own air supply and built-in trident and ballista, it's still armor. An armored wagon, however, is not armor. But there's still a matter of ... if you can shoot out of the wagon, others can shoot into it. The wagon doesn't grant AC to those within - but I'd give the arrow slot an AC. If you hit the AC of the arrow slot, well then you hit whatever's behind it.
Then there's the question of actions. Either you control the actions of the mount/armor/wagon/whatever - or you don't. If you do, it get's your bonuses to whatever actions you take with it. Otherwise, it's on it's own, and propably doing somewhat poorly, it being just a thing and not a PC.
If the thing is taking actions on it's own, the PC is free to do whatever is possible from inside. Let's stick with shooting. Shooting from an unstable platform is not easy. I've tried it, it's frankly borderline impossible. So I'd give any such action disadvantage. Just like, despite what I wrote above, I'd likely give disadvantage to shooting into the wagon, against the target's AC. I'm just too lazy to correct it, I'd rather type more words here.
Frankly, I see this as something of a non-issue. But I can say this: As a GM, I'd not go about making this terribly attractive. Because if it was, why isn't everyone doing it? Well, only an artificer can build and use a steel defender. Yea, hell no. Anyone capable of creating a magic item can create a steel defender equivalent, if they so desire - it's just not a class feature. Of course that's GM fiat, but ... that's how it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The Steel Defender is a creature though. That makes it... a bit different and not an item
Yea ... It's a construct, so ... it isn't really a creature. It's a golem, which is in sort of a greyzone. Like, an intelligent sword is both an item, a creature and an NPC. Steel defenders are created in forges - creatures are created in wombs.
But ... I mean, technically you're not wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The Steel Defender is a creature though. That makes it... a bit different and not an item
Yea ... It's a construct, so ... it isn't really a creature. It's a golem, which is in sort of a greyzone. Like, an intelligent sword is both an item, a creature and an NPC. Steel defenders are created in forges - creatures are created in wombs.
But ... I mean, technically you're not wrong.
Constructs are 100% really creatures. "Creature" is a well-defined game term.
Not that OP is likely paying attention any more, but if you wanted to flavor your character as having a mech suit, there are a bunch of better ways to do it than bastardizing Steel Defender.
Even re-flavoring a Rune Knight's Giant's Might as "getting in the mech" would make more sense
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Construct is a type of creature. "Organic" is not a requirement to be a lifeform, especially in a magical world. Nor is a womb. Mammal is just one class of animal, let alone of life.
Constructs are 100% really creatures. "Creature" is a well-defined game term.
And that would be why it says 'technically you're not wrong' at the end of my post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
You don't need to be in a size medium tin can with legs, it can have a window so you can cast spells.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
The point of the Gundam comparison was to suggest that total freedom of movement isn't necessary for this concept to work. The Gundam pilots usually can't move much more than a motorcyclist can. That's not a problem.
I've countered your argument from #35, which was my intent when comparing Gundam to Iron Man. As an aside, "coordination check?" What's that, exactly? Dexterity? Wisdom? Why can't I gain proficiency with that? It's not important, just a curiosity.
Anyway. Do you mean to suggest that because there's a readied-action-sized opportunity for monsters to affect you when the window is open, the whole idea is useless? I really disagree. Even if all monsters were smart enough to ready their own actions to hit you when you open your window... Just don't open it, and they waste their whole turn. That's great! And anyway, only monsters with ranged attacks would be able to reliably do it, and those aren't too common, and traditionally (though perhaps this is changing) those ranged attacks are inferior to their melee attacks. You're still protected from AoE effects and, critically, Multiattack, as well as any spell if the caster is already concentrating.
And at what cost? Well, the only one that holds up to scrutiny is that you have to ready your action so you can act while the window is open. So basically that means a lot of the time you're using a crossbow instead of a cantrip, and your bonus actions are pretty limited. That's not nothing, but I don't think it's even close to a big deal.
There are plenty of rules to make the SD move or attack, remember that you can control it by Literally telling it what to do, and the rules for riding a creature don’t say you need to grapple it. I mean you don’t need too wrestle a horse until it’s moving in the right direction. You could even flavor commanding the SD as using a control panel.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
Not sure how much this will contribute - however, there is already a device in WotC published materials that parallels the situation.
DoIP - Gnomengarde - Barrel Crabs
"G6. BARREL CRABS
Parked in alcoves in this otherwise empty room are two gnomish contraptions. Each resembles a crab with a barrel for a shell, six articulated metal legs, and a pair of forward-facing pincer claws. A hatch on the top of each barrel opens to reveal an interior compartment equipped with a small, leather-padded seat surrounded by levers, pedals. and gears. The barrels are not airtight. The gnomes built these crablike contraptions to grip and move other objects, rather like crude forklifts. However, the contraptions are so clumsy that they are useless for delicate work. They are just small enough to navigate Gnomengarde's 5-foot-wide passageways.
Each barrel crab is a Large object with AC 15. 30 hit points, a Strength score of 10, and immunity to poison and psychic damage. It is designed to hold a single Small humanoid, though a Medium humanoid can fit inside with some discomfort. While in the barrel with the hatch closed, a creature has total cover against attacks from outside the contraption. It can use its action to make the contraption scuttle across the ground at a walking speed of 15 feet or make one attack with its pincer claws.
Claws . Melee Weapon Attack: +2 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 5 (2d4) piercing damage, and the target is grappled (escape DC 10)."
So the only real questions related to the OPs question are:
1) Can a battlesmith shape their steel defender into a shape which would be large enough for them to get inside?
"You determine the creature’s appearance and whether it has two legs or four; your choice has no effect on its game statistics."
Does the steel defender stat block contain any information regarding getting inside it? No. Then one could conclude that you can't make a creature you can get inside of since the creature's appearance can have no effect on its game statistics. Being able to get inside would seem to be something that is part of a creature's statistics though all of the other creatures with this ability are usually swallowing the other creature.
You also have the rules on mounts.
"A knight charging into battle on a warhorse, a wizard casting spells from the back of a griffon, or a cleric soaring through the sky on a pegasus all enjoy the benefits of speed and mobility that a mount can provide.
A willing creature that is at least one size larger than you and that has an appropriate anatomy can serve as a mount, using the following rules."
The mounted combat rules seem to specifically refer to being "on" a creature and not "in" a creature. So although a medium sized steel defender could be used as a mount by a small creature, the rules seem to refer to riding ON rather than IN such a creature. (For example, you can't ride inside your warhorse - it doesn't have that ability in its stat block - you can ride on it though since that appears to be what the mount rules describe.
2) In the end, it is entirely up to the DM. If the DM lets the artificer create a steel defender with space inside, and allows the character to be able to enter the cavity, and then allows the artificer to issue bonus action commands to the steel defender from inside then yes, an artificer could have total cover when sitting inside the steel defender. However, because the appearance of the creature created by the steel defender can't affect its statistics and because mounts in the game appear to specify on rather than in - I don't think there is any real justification to say that creating such a steel defender would be RAW.
P.S. Can you put barding on a steel defender and increase its AC?
"Barding. Barding is armor designed to protect an animal’s head, neck, chest, and body. Any type of armor shown on the Armor table in this chapter can be purchased as barding. The cost is four times the equivalent armor made for humanoids, and it weighs twice as much."
P.P.S. Can you create a steel defender with opposable appendages so that they can hold things and manipulate tools?
P.P.P.S. Can you create a steel defender with a built in saddle?
P.P.P.P.S. Can you create a steel defender with a high saddle which comes up around the character and provides partial or better cover?
Lots of DM rulings required either way.
One more postscript - depending on DM ruling, you can't cast spells through a window since they provide total cover (much like a wall of force) but that is a separate argument :)
David42 has the best analysis so far, I think.
I feel like it's been lost in the back and forth, but I'm still very much against the mech idea. I think it's rules lawyering at best, and rules butchery at worst lol. It's very clearly not the intended use, and it's janky as all hell. And it's stepping somewhat on the toes of the Armorer.
Agreed. Personally, as DM, I wouldn't let a small creature fit inside a medium creature but this was a published example of a similar situation (though it is a small creature in a large construct made from a barrel). As far as an artificer creating such a steel defender, it is up to the DM involved but the DM can feel free to say no citing the rules I included in the post above if they need a reason at all.
The small creature inside the medium creature is more comparable to the rules for riding a creature rather than wearing armor, my point is there are no rules stating you cannot do this and a lot of rules pointing toward the fact that you could
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
What if you just had a steel defender that is more of a frame with limbs for holding a pre made cockpit, tell me one reason that wouldn’t work. You can customize the defenders appearance however you like.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
This is demonstrably incorrect: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/combat#MovingAroundOtherCreatures
The most relevant portion from the above rule is this : "Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can’t willingly end your move in its space."
Unless you are riding it
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
As I covered earlier in this thread, but I guess somehow people have already forgotten, yes you can:
Bonus monsters, since it didn't take the first two times; these monsters are explicitly called out in the rules as mounts, although not all in the same place:
Since, as a reminder, you are by definition inside a creature's space while within the space it controls, not only do all of the above examples count if you clamber into or onto them willingly, adjacency also counts, so here are the rules for doing that.
5E is chock full of rules that contradict each other, but fundamentally speaking, RAW you can willingly enter another creature's space; if we have to pick one RAW answer (and we don't - it's fundamentally accurate to say that the RAW says both things and let a DM decide), then many more rules say you can than you can't. That's, for example, how most DMs differentiate other rules contradictions, like this one:
Your first link is to the Mounted Combat rules. As Kotath previously points out at no point does it describe the rider as being inside the mount. Also one problem with the Mounted Combat rules is that it never describes what space the rider and mount occupy. I agree it is most sensible to rule that the rider and mount share the mounts space, but it is also valid to rule that the rider occupies a space adjecent to the mount.
Next you list various monsters that can swallow another creature. This is an example of two creatures occupying the same space and is an explicit exception to the general rule granted to these creatures. This is something that is not present in the Steel Defenders stat block.
Then you link to where various mounts are described in the rules and also list them explicitly. This is redundant with the Mounted Combat rules.
After the list of mounts you link to the rules describing creature size and the space they occupy, along with the rules for squeezing into a tight space. You claim this justifies being able to climb onto or even inside another creature. In fact the creature size rules explicitly reaffirm the Moving Around Other Creatures rule I linked by saying: "If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5‐foot-wide doorway, other creatures can’t get through unless the hobgoblin lets them."
The creature size rules also explain why it is sensible for a DM to rule that a rider and mount share the mounts space. This is reaffirmed by the optional Climbing onto a Bigger Creature rule in the DMG: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#ClimbontoaBiggerCreature. In both cases the situation being described is one creature being on another, not inside it.
Yes, 5e is full of rules that contradict other rules. This is by design as explained in the PHB here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/introduction#SpecificBeatsGeneral.
Personally, I would treat riding inside your Steel Defender as equivalent to mounting an independent mount and leave it at that.
The only thing I would point out is that every creature that allows for a creature to be inside it, includes that information in the stat block (eg your entire list of creatures). For example, you can't get inside a giant unless you kill it first since the stat block for a giant does not contain any indication that it can contain another creature. This goes for every creature in the monster manual.
The stat block for a steel defender does NOT contain any indication that it could contain another creature.
The rules for the creation of a steel defender say "You determine the creature’s appearance and whether it has two legs or four; your choice has no effect on its game statistics." Since the choice of appearance has NO effect on creature statistics and the creature statistics contain no statement that the steel defender can contain a creature (unlike all of the exceptions you listed) then it would be reasonable to conclude that no matter what appearance an artificer chooses for the steel defender it can not contain another creature.
You also included a long list of mounts. All of the mounted combat rules refer to riding ON a creature. None of them reference riding IN a creature. It is DM discretion as to whether they would want to consider riding IN a creature to be considered a mount. In all of the cases where you can get inside a creature - none of them can be used as mounts from that position.
So, ultimately, it is up to the DM but they need to choose to allow the artificer to add the ability to be INSIDE another creature to the stat block for the steel defender (since it lacks this capability) AND the DM needs to allow riding IN a creature to be considered as a mount even though all of the mount rules refer to riding ON a creature.
P.S. All of the questions about ending a turn in a creatures space aren't meaningful since it is obviously possible to be in another creatures space if you have been swallowed or if you are using another creature as a mount. The questions in this case are can you get inside a steel defender that doesn't include that capability in its stat block and can you ride IN a creature when the mounted combat rules exclusively refer to riding ON creatures.
This is probably the sanest comment in this whole damn list. OP is flagrantly trying to make the battlesmith pet, which is specifically noted as being an autonomous creature, into a STRONGER version of the Armorer's Main class gimmick, this is NOT the way. and is the reason as a DM id refuse this on sight, the general ruling is to not use a low level spell to replicate what a higher spell can do, and in this case youre trying to get armorers abilites With extra total cover. and that I aint gonna give you
would you allow a necromancer wizard to rip off an abjuration wizard by making undead armor that acts the same way as the Abjuration wizard's ward while also being able to attack enemies on its own because you added a pair of skeletal arms with weapons to it? Not generally no as its invalidating another classes whole damn shtick, and if you did it would require very special dispensation and likely be a whole 'write a new spell, or invent a new magical item' sidequest.
if you really really really want to ride in your Steel defender. Fine. but then you're subject to normal mounted rules. and as the DM I'd probably expect you to have the mounted combatant feat to even try
if you want to gain full cover, you'll be considered restrained inside the steel defender because you will be wedged in there really damn tight even as a small race.
(if we hypothetically stuffed someone in the hollowed out ribcage of a horse, they would be considered squeezing at best, and more likely restrained as there will not be enough room for the spell gestures for casting and you would not be able to use your weapons well at all)
using creatures who can engulf players as examples is a very poor take, because they also restrain, suffocate, and blind the engulfed player pretty much unilaterally.
you wont have a window for full cover, if you can see out a window they can see in and you'll be subject to all the spells that can be cast with line of sight that doesn't have to cross the intervening space. (i.e. all the spells you'd be able to use from inside anyway, which is a smaller list) which would bump you down to three quarters cover. while you're still at disadvantage on all your attack rolls. and just to restate while the standard RAI interpretation is if the spell does not eminate from the player and only requires sight to target, than casting through a window works fine, RAW's wording does not itself clearly support this, so some can and do rule that a window is enough to stop ALL spells from being cast, and that you have to open that window to use so much as a sacred flame cantrip on the enemy (which by its own description simply manifests on the target)
and while I would allow 'opening and closing hatches' I would direct you to the arcane armour reference which requires a bonus action to open or close its visor, and the statblock of Mighty Servant of Leuk-o, which while it doesn't need an action to open or close its hatch, can only do so once per turn. so you would not be able to pop it open, fire and shut the door behind you. which would dock you down to half cover. additionally enemies can make use of held actions too, so just as a note, you could expect to have a volley shoved at your face the second you did pop up.
Oh, and also, if you expect me to rule you didn't take damage from a giants boulder or club because you're hiding inside the thing he just hit. yeah I got bad news for ya.
I would absolutely rule that any damage that drops the defender has carry over onto the artificer, as well as any damage that hits the defender sufficiently hard. (you would not have a great time trying to tank a red dragon's fire breath inside a metal shell.) but the ratio of bleed over damage would be relatively small while the defender remains standing)
I'd say you could probably get a half-cover cockpit without disadvantage being imposed, though
and while we're here lets cover some of the other points Ive seen.
yes you could get full cover if you built yourself a pod or barrel for the steel defender to carry, however, barrels are made of wood, and not very hard to break open. A metal pod can be slapped with heat metal, or take damage enough that its hatch no longer functions, or is ripped open completely.
it would definitely not be airtight because that would probably break the airtight seal the first hit the steel defender takes to begin with, and is wildly impractical but has no bearing on cover, except in the cases of poison clouds, cloudkill, green dragon breath, and all that other shit.
the barrel crabs are a bad example because they are not only large constructs to house small creatures, meaning medium creatures would be uncomfortably wedged in there, they also limit the user to the Crab's actions, there is no mention of firing fireballs from the cockpit. in fact the only line there implies that the whole world has total cover from you despite your ability to see out. and really only further the argument why this is massively overreaching.
Now lets talk about how I would allow this to happen as a DM.
Firstly there would be a lot of requisites required to begin this project, to do it alone as just a battlesmith, you'd have to spend Much more time and materials on research, testing and supplies. and if you worked towards that goal consistently for a large portion of a campaign, i'd allow you to be able to invest more and perfect it. However, I would say the end result would be more like a Large-sized exoskeleton your steel defender voltron's itself together with, that has a sizable cockpit for you, and may require repairs if you let it get too beat up.
for best results, you'd be better off playing with an armorer AND a battlesmith and they would have to basically combine their efforts. This would require a larger investment of time, materials and downtime work. and if youre going that far in, might as well add an artillerist to the mix as well, because then the specializations could work together well, and you could design a Mech defender that has a cockpit, that allows casting out of, and provides an ac bonus, cover, doesnt impose restrained, and has subsystems to allow magic to be cast out of it, and has its own mounted weaponry.
However to make this magnificent mech, would require either the perpetual devotion of all three artificers class features. Or A massive undertaking of crafting it as a standalone, to allow the artificers to keep their class features, at which point it would also lose the protection of being the artificers replacable class features and become basically a Mighty Servant of Leuk-o. a separate entity from the three artificers that can be controlled, but is also autonomous, and can be destroyed, possibly keeping the artificers busy for well over a month repairing it.
Lastly, I would advise the poster to be very careful about how far they want to try push and twist mechanics, Remember, every strategy you have access to, the DM has, too. and the DM has much meaner statblocks he is free to up and throw at you, and control them as tactically as he likes. Your steel defender idea can get you killed if you go up against someone with a heat metal scroll, a disingerate ray. or petrification gaze or cloud effect. and if you force the DM to bust out the heavy guns to deal with you, your less excessive party members will catch the worst of it and you're likely to ruin their enjoyment of the game because of it.
TL;DR
the OP is frankly laughably wildly extruding and twisting rules to do something that a DM is under no obligation to tolerate ever and even a casual read through of the rules establishes this as house rules and homebrew rather than RAW/RAI functionality.
Seems to me there's a spectrum here. Take any metal plate. At one end of the spectrum, that plate might be a shield. Then, around the middle of the spectrum, it becomes armor. And finally, at the other end, it becomes a vehicle. I'm going to totally disregard steel defenders here, and just say: Those are the options.
The difference between armor and vehicle seems to the amount of space. Armor doesn't grant cover, it grants AC. Full plate may be ever so much plate steel, and fully enclosing - even if we decided it was power armor with it's own air supply and built-in trident and ballista, it's still armor. An armored wagon, however, is not armor. But there's still a matter of ... if you can shoot out of the wagon, others can shoot into it. The wagon doesn't grant AC to those within - but I'd give the arrow slot an AC. If you hit the AC of the arrow slot, well then you hit whatever's behind it.
Then there's the question of actions. Either you control the actions of the mount/armor/wagon/whatever - or you don't. If you do, it get's your bonuses to whatever actions you take with it. Otherwise, it's on it's own, and propably doing somewhat poorly, it being just a thing and not a PC.
If the thing is taking actions on it's own, the PC is free to do whatever is possible from inside. Let's stick with shooting. Shooting from an unstable platform is not easy. I've tried it, it's frankly borderline impossible. So I'd give any such action disadvantage. Just like, despite what I wrote above, I'd likely give disadvantage to shooting into the wagon, against the target's AC. I'm just too lazy to correct it, I'd rather type more words here.
Frankly, I see this as something of a non-issue. But I can say this: As a GM, I'd not go about making this terribly attractive. Because if it was, why isn't everyone doing it? Well, only an artificer can build and use a steel defender. Yea, hell no. Anyone capable of creating a magic item can create a steel defender equivalent, if they so desire - it's just not a class feature. Of course that's GM fiat, but ... that's how it is.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Yea ... It's a construct, so ... it isn't really a creature. It's a golem, which is in sort of a greyzone. Like, an intelligent sword is both an item, a creature and an NPC. Steel defenders are created in forges - creatures are created in wombs.
But ... I mean, technically you're not wrong.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Constructs are 100% really creatures. "Creature" is a well-defined game term.
Not that OP is likely paying attention any more, but if you wanted to flavor your character as having a mech suit, there are a bunch of better ways to do it than bastardizing Steel Defender.
Even re-flavoring a Rune Knight's Giant's Might as "getting in the mech" would make more sense
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And that would be why it says 'technically you're not wrong' at the end of my post.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
ooh! I really like this!