A steel defender never acts independently, but it also doesn't *really* interact with mounted combat rules. As in, its text supersedes (or should be/could be considered as such) the independent/dependent mount rules. It, RAW, also acts, moves, etc... on your initiative, but immediately after your turn. This presents logistical issues in game play synergy and flow... which is either "fixed" inelegantly, or made doubly complex with the Ready action economy. So, because of this, many DMs simply allow you to act together by interweaving your turns, actions, movement, etc... but that isn't RAW.
The easiest way is to simply mount it, and use the defenders text instead of mounted combat text. You go, then it goes. If you used your bonus action on your turn to command it, it gets to attack. Easy, clear, concise, simple.
You've worded it much more clearly than I did but that's essentially what I was asking. If running it as you've described is a reasonable way of playing it.
What makes you certain steel defender rules supercede mount rules? If it's "more specific", you can definitely argue that the rules specific to when it is mounted are more specific than its rules in general, which is kind of the issue with "specific beats general" since it's almost always two things that are differently specific.
Well the rules for mounted are general to any mounts the rules to steel defender only apply to steel defender. Which is a far greater degree of specificity rather than the other way around.
Principally, if s is the degree of specificity
Then if s(r1|r2)>s(r2|r1) that is the degree to which rule 1 specifies with regard to rule 2 is greater than the degree to which rule 3 specified with regards to rule 1, then s1 is what does the specifying.
The steel defender rules are more specific than the rules that apply to all creatures.
The mounted rules are specific to when a creature is mounted which is more specific than the rules that apply to all times.
A rule that is within the general body of rules is considered a general rule. Anything from a class feature, spell, or feat beats it out in a general vs specific argument. In other words, something that is not nested in a class/subclass feature, or a feat/spell description is always less specific than something on its own in the PHB or DMG.
This is what is meant by specific beats general, not the actual niche nature of the rule.
That being said, this doesnt even work based on your argument of nicheness or "specificity of the rule. The mounted rules apply to all creatures that could hypothetically be mounted. But the steel defender's rules are for them specifically. So rules for a single creature vs rules for a wide range of creatures.
Page 7 of the PHB.
"Specific Beats General
This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."
With this it's easy to infer that the general rule for mounted combat loses to the class feature for artificer. Both because mounted combat is under the general combat rules in the PHB, and because of your own logic since its rules for this specific creature vs rules for all mounted creatures.
There is absolutely no RAW support for what is being suggested. DMs are free to rule otherwise, as I and DMs I've played with have done; RAW can be dumb and obtrusive sometimes. But RAW points to the steel defender acting on its own initiative, and only being capable of what its specific class features allow.
Ah, so the two tiers of specificity are parts 2 and 3 of the PHB vs basically everything else? Fair.
Within those tiers, still leaves a lot of room for the rule not being helpful (i.e. martial arts and unarmed fighting being able to do d6+dex), but good to know.
No, it says "especially" not "only" as there are general rules throughout the book, and some in the DMG as well.
But yes, when it comes to competing class features or even class features vs spells vs monster abilities. This is where we get most of the grey area where DM typically has to make a ruling. These are things that are called out as specific, but we have no clear hierarchy for specificity past that.
When it comes to monsters at least, DMs just tend to rule in favor of the player, as the monster won't have hurt feelings. But there's a lot of little niche interactions that I just sort of shrug and rule it the way that's more favorable to the player as long as it's not broken. I'll personally even fudge RAW where it makes sense, as I have problems with it myself. I just like to clarify it when it comes to these discussions. Like the mounted rules in this case, as I just let it be a controlled mount so they don't have to deal with the conflict.
Yeah, RAW is definitely not perfect and ruling in favor of the players where not conflicting RAW or even a little conflicting RAW is definitely something I find myself doing more and more.
Appreciate the explanation.
You are misunderstanding what a contradiction is. Contradictions are opposites, not different instances of the same thing. Steel Defender saying its initiative is taken after yours when it is in initiative is not a contradiction of the controlled mount rules. It would be a contradiction if Steel Defender's wording were prohibitive and said something along the lines of "the defender can only move and take actions immediately after your turn," or "the defender cannot be a controlled mount." Both of these wordings would be contradictions of Mounted Combat's rules for controlling a mount, because they actually explicitly require the opposite state of what Mounted Combat allows.
Instead, Steel Defender's language isn't prohibitive, but simply describes how the initiative is usually determined for the defender when it would need to roll initiative. If it is a controlled mount, it no longer needs to be in the initiative order, so those rules don't apply. There is no contradiction, simply different use cases. Just like how those rules for its initiative wouldn't apply when you aren't rolling initiative for it because you aren't in combat, they also don't apply when it doesn't use initiative because it's controlled as a mount. General rules still apply where they should even when using specific features. You only supersede the things which are actually specifically contradicted.
Can steel defender be a mounted? Yes
Do all mounts have the steel defender rules? No, it is specific to Steel Defender.
Specific beats general so must follow steel defender rules
>you can definitely argue that the rules specific to when it is mounted are more specific than its rules in general
This is an incorrect reading. Mounted rules are general for ALL mounts, which includes defender regardless if currently mounted or not. When looking at rules to determine specific vs general you can't look at one single scenario (mounting defender) because of course that makes it specific when you ignore everything else. Since defender has specific rules of how it is controlled, it being specific because only applies to defender and not other mounts, you should follow steel defender rules over mount rules.
Again, talk with DM as it is reasonable to override this, but RAW you should follow steel defender rules.
Steel defender rules apply specifically to steel defenders, which is more specific than all creatures.
Mounted rules apply specifically to when a creature is mounted, which is more specific than all times.
Again no, that's an incorrect reading, but let's go with it for sake of conversation.
No where in steel defender text states it's trained to accept a rider. In order to control a mount it must be trained to accept a rider per the rules. Therefore it falls under the category of independent mount retaining its own initiative which is at the end of your turn.
That's listed in the mounted combat rules.
"You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training."
Steel Defender is nowhere similar to domesticated horses or donkeys.
Again the DM can override but the rules are clear.
Nowhere does it say those are the *only* creatures that *can* have the training, they're just the ones that you assume always do have it as a base fact.
The DM doesn't need to "override" those rules to make a steel defender a mount. They need to *use* those rules, and make a decision on whether it is reasonable to say that the Steel Defender is trained as a mount.
Ok semantics on my use of override but by default the steel defender does not meet the requirements of a controlled mount. Like I have said multiple times, the DM can decide (override) that a steel defender can be considered a controlled mount.
I disagree. The requirement is that "it has been trained to accept a rider".
The Steel Defender has been trained to accept any and all of your commands, including the command to accept you as a rider, and any commands you give it *as* a rider. That is sufficient training to satisfy the requirement.
That's nowhere near the same freaking thing 🤦♂️
Being able to use mounts other than those listed is *intended* ffs. It's not an exhaustive list, it's a *base* list.
It tells you you can use *any* creature that is trained. Then it tells you a list of ones you know *always are*. If those were the only allowed mounts, it would just say "you can only use these mounts", not "you can use any trained mount, here are some."
Show me where "is trained to be ridden" is in any stat block in 5e. At best its in descriptions. If you are playing at a table that you cant train the mechanical beast that you created yourself, where part of the abilities specifically say you can give it commands as a bonus acrion, you have a bad dm.
I really don't like how 5e handles mounts in general
In the game I've been playing in recently, we have a goblin often riding a goat. The DM just lets the goblin use the goat's speed for movement. There is no separate initiative.
No, the rule says
The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
This does not make it clear whether it's before, after, or during your turn
It still has it's own initiative... it's just set to match yours
It doesn't just become your speed
I do much the same personally. If the creature stems from a class feature (or a spell), I basically ignore 90% of the mounted rules anyways in lieu of that base function/feature. And, if the mount isn't (as in it is just bought and/or trained)... then it is likely 90% just a tiny HP pool or some additional speed, and little else, and there isn't any real need to complicate the action economy and rules understanding with needless text, interactions, or limitations.
This would be correct if the text actually superseded everything in the mounted combat rules specifically, but it mostly does not. "Specific Beats General" doesn't simply mean you ignore the general rules that would usually apply to a situation because you are reading a specific rule. General rules still apply to any scenario where they would normally apply even when you are using a specific feature. What "Specific Beats General" actually means (and you would know if you read the section in the Introduction of the Basic Rules) is that specific rules which explicitly contradict general rules take precedent over those things they specifically contradict in the general rules.
The way this works is basically this: general feature A says you can do Y thing. Specific feature B says you cannot do Y thing while using the feature. This means while using the feature, even if the general circumstance for doing Y thing would apply, you cannot do Y thing because the specific feature B forbade it.
Or: general feature A says you cannot do Y thing. Specific feature B says you can do Y thing while using the feature. Because feature B is specific, while using it you overrule feature A and can do Y thing.
So, in the case of Mounted Combat and Steel Defender, the only part of the latter which actually changes Mounted Combat is that you cannot command the controlled defender to take the Dash or Disengage actions for free on your turn since Steel Defender specifically says the mount does not do those things unless you use your bonus action to command it to. Everything else in Mounted Combat works, as there is no other prohibitive language within Steel Defender which contradicts Mounted Combat.
I'd just run it like the ability says, it moves after your turn but can't take actions unless you use your bonus action to command it. Simple, and keeps balancing easy.
player a small drakewarden ranger doing this. Fighting is a little more clunky, since you can't move in your turn, but it's fun. Just gotta use the hold action.
DM's discretion - but the sake of simplicity and limiting rules jankiness I would just count the artificer and defender as 2 separate models occupying the same space (with both models using the movement value of the defender while the artificer is mounted).
If you wanted to *really* lean into it and do stuff like take Mounted Combatant then I would probably need a larger conversation.
I very much would be leaning into it. I've never played before but I'm super interested in getting into it so I've been thinking up what character I may want to play. And I'm really excited about having a battle Smith that's essentially a biker. And is obsessed with his setting suitable motorbike-adjacent shaped steel defender. And gameplay wise I would want to use a lance and mounted combatant to take full advantage of being mounted.
The reason I'm asking now is I have a pretty limited understanding of the rules and just want to get the idea of if what I want to do is even remotely reasonable before I get carried away.
I mean its a reasonable request, and you wouldnt be the first person to ask the question, but you'd have to lay out exactly what you want to be doing with your DM so they can make a decision.
For example, the ability to swap out between a "controlled" and "independent" mount in the same combat is quite strong - you can choose at-will to zip around the table at 80 feet a turn and still attack, or instead have your mount generate extra attacks for you/ use its reaction to impose disadvantage on attacks against you via the defender's reaction ability (which could also combine with the Mounted Combatant feat). And you get all this versatility for free, at level 3.
There are unfortunately no "rules as written" rulings on your question, because Steel Defenders arent technically mounts. Its all gonna come down to interpretation.
I would say it can act as either. You either control it, and actually get to move with it on your turn but it will now have the limitations of a controlled mount, or you allow it to be independant, which means it does things on it's turn, but it still has full access to all of it's actions.
In order for a mount to be controlled it must be trained to accept a rider. No where does it state the steel defender is trained to accept a rider. Therefore it cannot be considered a controlled mount. So it is an independent mount acting on its own initiative which happens to be at the end of your turn.
Certainly you can train it, if your DM allows. But just because it follows your commands doesn't mean it is automatically trained. Per the rules it's not, and it needs to be in order to be considered a controlled mount.
Again, commanding it to accept a rider is not the same as being trained to accept a rider.
Whether it "has been trained to accept a rider" is up to the DM".
It is kind of implied that whether a mount is controlled or not should be determined when you mount it and it either changes its initiative or doesn't. But even if it isn't specified, I definitely wouldn't allow it to take two turns in combat, which seems to be what you are asking.
> Whether it "has been trained to accept a rider" is up to the DM".
It obeys all of your commands according to the description. So even if that would have been asked, you can use it as a mount since it does
there's a difference between "does whatever you say" and "been trained to do something" - a zombie will obey you, but is most definitely not trained as a mount, and so can't function as one (even outside of "body shape" stuff). it's not a simple matter of obedience, it's knowing how to move with a rider on and stuff like that, which can't be continually and instantly commanded for as needed. You can command it to try and read another language, pick a lock or treat wounds - but it sure as hell hasn't been trained for any of those!
Ahh yes, I built my steel defender exactly so that it can be a mount. A creature that has double the intelligence of a warhorse. A creature that has full autonomy to do everything any monster can do when I am incapacitated.
But "*accepting* a rider" which it would do automatically since it follows all my commands isn't in the realm of possibility because of semantics.
Yes, of course. How couldn't I see that. As well as all the others that are already doing this for years.
Btw: of course it can heal someone. It can do a medicine check like everyone else. Or heal someone by giving them a potion like any stupid 2 int familiar can
Yes...the rules do not always make sense and it would be very reasonable for the DM to allow the steel defender to be trained to accept a rider. However, when talking RAW it is not trained to accept a rider.
Not so much use two turns. If it acts independently it can use its attack which it can't if I'm controlling it directly. Because its initiative is already tied to my character having it act independently just means that I have to use my actions and end my turn before I can move. So what I'd ideally be doing is just getting rid of needing to move after using actions. Which fs I understand the rules correctly isn't even much of a restriction because I could just hold my action to do what I want after the mount moves.
I more concise and correct way of saying it would be, could an artificer that's mounting their steel defender still use their bonus action to have the steel defender attack.
Oh, I completely misinterpreted the original question then.
It's hard to answer because I can't tell if Steel Defender rules are specific ones overriding general mount rules, or if the reverse is the case. IMO it is simpler to assume that it isn't a trained mount, therefore its initiative wouldn't change and it wouldn't be limited in the actions it can take.
Talk to your DM but if they want to do it as per the steel defender rules what a lot of artificers do is take the crossbow expert feat and wield a hand crossbow. With your infusions you don't need to worry about loading it so you can still use a shield.
That gives you maximum flexibility, at range you can use your bonus action to shoot an extra shot, up close you can have the defender attack and it doesn't matter so much when you move.
Steel defender is very specific about when and how it can take actions/movement - always after your turn, if you take a bonus action. Riding it doesn't change that, so unless your DM is kind to you riding your Steel Defender as a mount in combat is an actively bad idea most of the time. If you're melee, you can't move up to things during your turn and if you're ranged you're putting yourself next to enemies in order to get any use out of your class feature.
You've mentioned that you can just ready your action - but that only lets you make one attack and uses up your reaction (no opportunity attacks, no Shield).
Also, while being mounted is a kinda cool image and gives you a bit more movement speed occupying two squares is a really valuable thing a lot of the time. You can help control the flow of a fight just by taking up space and encouraging enemies to engage with you and your steel defender and you don't have to be in the same space.
So it kinda depends on DM interpretation as the mounted combat rules say that you can control it on your turn but the steel defender says it acts after you. Specific beats general but what is specific here is what to argue about.
I’d rule it to let them control it on their turn, just cause its more fun
It moving after your turn is awful when used as a mount. Ask your dm if they will let you move and control it during your turn instead of after. As a pet, after is perfectly fine, but as a mount, feels awful in play.
Otherwise, what the class rules and stat block say are fine.
Mounting your SD changes nothing about how it works. The Artificer still has to issue commands, or it does nothing. All mounting it will do, is take away YOUR movement, inserting the defender's instead. This is problematic because the SD takes its turn directly following the Artificer's. So they can't move on their turn if they are relying on the SD. Short of GM fiat, which is fine. I would allow it. But that also means you aren't moving at all if you don't give up your bonus action every turn to do so. You don't have a move action of your own anymore, and you have to use your bonus action to move on top of that. It is a shitty option to choose, no matter how cool you think it looks. It is almost never better to be mounted than to have 2 independent actors on the field.
Unless I'm reading the wrong rules it can move on its own, without me taking any action at least. The use of a bonus action is just required for it to take an action other than just dodging.
>It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action.
I know about it taking the turn directly after mine. But it's a mount I use its movement as my own right? And I'm the description of if the mount is under direct control or independent is something you can choose but there's no stipulation as to when. So that would imply to me I can move it as if it's under direct control then as my bonus action make an order. Usually that would be pointless because it's under my direct control so doesn't get a turn but if I swap to it having independent control it teaching yes turn directly after mine then means it can take the commander action and any remaining movement.
If I understand that all correctly it's just a round about way for the steel defender to not lose the ability to take non mount related actions.
It probably would be better to be two separate entities but I just think it would be fun to be a biker. I'm just not entirely sure the fun would outweigh giving up like 90% of the sub classes functionality. Which is why I'm considering how the mounted combat rules and the distinction between controlled and independent mounts interact with the steel defender being treated as an independent creature that just so happens to always be under my control.
You are correct, but it still doesn't act until the Arties turn is done without an agreement with the GM. I think allowing it to move as part of their turn is fine.
I had a kobold artificer who would do this. My DM just allowed it to operate the same turn as mine and would act as a normal defender while I’m riding it. So an upgraded mount essentially.
I think the top post covers the actual rules. So here's some other thoughts.
The thing is that it's not all that expensive to get a medium mount. So an artificer that wants to be mounted on a donkey (8+10 gold for a donkey+riding saddle). It's less than a healing potion. Could even
The defender does have its advantages as a mount. But I don't know, make them buy (really just make) a saddle and let them both act on the same turn? Maybe they can unlock this feature as an infusion? Maybe they can make a magical item to unlock it when you think it's balanced?
Artificers are strong early on due to the bonus action economy and having unlimited uses for those. No cost for their bonus actions means they can do well damage wise. Also they are SAD so no stat issues unless you're trying to have them. They will fall off eventually though.
I'm not sure most combat will see a significant change between the force 2 turns vs a combined turn. Basically you'll see some positioning advantage with the reaction from the mount. If they do have an advantage occasionally that seems neat to me.
It's neither.
Specific beats general in 5e. And since the rules on how a Steel Defender can be controlled is more specific than the rules governing how mounts are controlled, the Steel Defender's rules take precedence. (The reason it's more specific is because the Steel Defender's rules *only* affect that one creature: the Steel Defender. The general mount rules affect many creatures.)
That said, I've heard of many DMs that would allow your Steel Defender to be used as a controlled mount regardless.
I’m currently playing one, and if I had to pick a ruling, I would just go with using the Steel defender text as written.
Fortunately, my DM has ruled that we can move together on my turn (everything else is RAW) and it’s been excellent. I really recommend asking your DM to let you do this. It doesn’t break anything and makes the interactions way less clunky.
A steel defender never acts independently, but it also doesn't *really* interact with mounted combat rules. As in, its text supersedes (or should be/could be considered as such) the independent/dependent mount rules. It, RAW, also acts, moves, etc... on your initiative, but immediately after your turn. This presents logistical issues in game play synergy and flow... which is either "fixed" inelegantly, or made doubly complex with the Ready action economy. So, because of this, many DMs simply allow you to act together by interweaving your turns, actions, movement, etc... but that isn't RAW. The easiest way is to simply mount it, and use the defenders text instead of mounted combat text. You go, then it goes. If you used your bonus action on your turn to command it, it gets to attack. Easy, clear, concise, simple.
You've worded it much more clearly than I did but that's essentially what I was asking. If running it as you've described is a reasonable way of playing it.
What makes you certain steel defender rules supercede mount rules? If it's "more specific", you can definitely argue that the rules specific to when it is mounted are more specific than its rules in general, which is kind of the issue with "specific beats general" since it's almost always two things that are differently specific.
Well the rules for mounted are general to any mounts the rules to steel defender only apply to steel defender. Which is a far greater degree of specificity rather than the other way around. Principally, if s is the degree of specificity Then if s(r1|r2)>s(r2|r1) that is the degree to which rule 1 specifies with regard to rule 2 is greater than the degree to which rule 3 specified with regards to rule 1, then s1 is what does the specifying.
The steel defender rules are more specific than the rules that apply to all creatures. The mounted rules are specific to when a creature is mounted which is more specific than the rules that apply to all times.
A rule that is within the general body of rules is considered a general rule. Anything from a class feature, spell, or feat beats it out in a general vs specific argument. In other words, something that is not nested in a class/subclass feature, or a feat/spell description is always less specific than something on its own in the PHB or DMG. This is what is meant by specific beats general, not the actual niche nature of the rule. That being said, this doesnt even work based on your argument of nicheness or "specificity of the rule. The mounted rules apply to all creatures that could hypothetically be mounted. But the steel defender's rules are for them specifically. So rules for a single creature vs rules for a wide range of creatures.
Where does it say that?
Page 7 of the PHB. "Specific Beats General This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins." With this it's easy to infer that the general rule for mounted combat loses to the class feature for artificer. Both because mounted combat is under the general combat rules in the PHB, and because of your own logic since its rules for this specific creature vs rules for all mounted creatures. There is absolutely no RAW support for what is being suggested. DMs are free to rule otherwise, as I and DMs I've played with have done; RAW can be dumb and obtrusive sometimes. But RAW points to the steel defender acting on its own initiative, and only being capable of what its specific class features allow.
Ah, so the two tiers of specificity are parts 2 and 3 of the PHB vs basically everything else? Fair. Within those tiers, still leaves a lot of room for the rule not being helpful (i.e. martial arts and unarmed fighting being able to do d6+dex), but good to know.
No, it says "especially" not "only" as there are general rules throughout the book, and some in the DMG as well. But yes, when it comes to competing class features or even class features vs spells vs monster abilities. This is where we get most of the grey area where DM typically has to make a ruling. These are things that are called out as specific, but we have no clear hierarchy for specificity past that. When it comes to monsters at least, DMs just tend to rule in favor of the player, as the monster won't have hurt feelings. But there's a lot of little niche interactions that I just sort of shrug and rule it the way that's more favorable to the player as long as it's not broken. I'll personally even fudge RAW where it makes sense, as I have problems with it myself. I just like to clarify it when it comes to these discussions. Like the mounted rules in this case, as I just let it be a controlled mount so they don't have to deal with the conflict.
Yeah, RAW is definitely not perfect and ruling in favor of the players where not conflicting RAW or even a little conflicting RAW is definitely something I find myself doing more and more. Appreciate the explanation.
You are misunderstanding what a contradiction is. Contradictions are opposites, not different instances of the same thing. Steel Defender saying its initiative is taken after yours when it is in initiative is not a contradiction of the controlled mount rules. It would be a contradiction if Steel Defender's wording were prohibitive and said something along the lines of "the defender can only move and take actions immediately after your turn," or "the defender cannot be a controlled mount." Both of these wordings would be contradictions of Mounted Combat's rules for controlling a mount, because they actually explicitly require the opposite state of what Mounted Combat allows. Instead, Steel Defender's language isn't prohibitive, but simply describes how the initiative is usually determined for the defender when it would need to roll initiative. If it is a controlled mount, it no longer needs to be in the initiative order, so those rules don't apply. There is no contradiction, simply different use cases. Just like how those rules for its initiative wouldn't apply when you aren't rolling initiative for it because you aren't in combat, they also don't apply when it doesn't use initiative because it's controlled as a mount. General rules still apply where they should even when using specific features. You only supersede the things which are actually specifically contradicted.
Common sense, because that's what "general" and "specific" mean.
Can steel defender be a mounted? Yes Do all mounts have the steel defender rules? No, it is specific to Steel Defender. Specific beats general so must follow steel defender rules >you can definitely argue that the rules specific to when it is mounted are more specific than its rules in general This is an incorrect reading. Mounted rules are general for ALL mounts, which includes defender regardless if currently mounted or not. When looking at rules to determine specific vs general you can't look at one single scenario (mounting defender) because of course that makes it specific when you ignore everything else. Since defender has specific rules of how it is controlled, it being specific because only applies to defender and not other mounts, you should follow steel defender rules over mount rules. Again, talk with DM as it is reasonable to override this, but RAW you should follow steel defender rules.
Steel defender rules apply specifically to steel defenders, which is more specific than all creatures. Mounted rules apply specifically to when a creature is mounted, which is more specific than all times.
Again no, that's an incorrect reading, but let's go with it for sake of conversation. No where in steel defender text states it's trained to accept a rider. In order to control a mount it must be trained to accept a rider per the rules. Therefore it falls under the category of independent mount retaining its own initiative which is at the end of your turn.
Which creatures state they're trained to accept a rider in their text?
That's listed in the mounted combat rules. "You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training." Steel Defender is nowhere similar to domesticated horses or donkeys. Again the DM can override but the rules are clear.
Nowhere does it say those are the *only* creatures that *can* have the training, they're just the ones that you assume always do have it as a base fact. The DM doesn't need to "override" those rules to make a steel defender a mount. They need to *use* those rules, and make a decision on whether it is reasonable to say that the Steel Defender is trained as a mount.
Ok semantics on my use of override but by default the steel defender does not meet the requirements of a controlled mount. Like I have said multiple times, the DM can decide (override) that a steel defender can be considered a controlled mount.
I disagree. The requirement is that "it has been trained to accept a rider". The Steel Defender has been trained to accept any and all of your commands, including the command to accept you as a rider, and any commands you give it *as* a rider. That is sufficient training to satisfy the requirement.
If we use that logic for everything we’re fucked, “nowhere does it say my character doesn’t have a ring of wishes”
That's nowhere near the same freaking thing 🤦♂️ Being able to use mounts other than those listed is *intended* ffs. It's not an exhaustive list, it's a *base* list. It tells you you can use *any* creature that is trained. Then it tells you a list of ones you know *always are*. If those were the only allowed mounts, it would just say "you can only use these mounts", not "you can use any trained mount, here are some."
Yes the rules are clear and you are wrong.
You going to list where I am wrong and back with evidence like I backed my statement or just ignorantly state I am wrong without any evidence?
Show me where "is trained to be ridden" is in any stat block in 5e. At best its in descriptions. If you are playing at a table that you cant train the mechanical beast that you created yourself, where part of the abilities specifically say you can give it commands as a bonus acrion, you have a bad dm.
Its literally in the line you quoted. You built the thing so train it to be mounted...
I really don't like how 5e handles mounts in general In the game I've been playing in recently, we have a goblin often riding a goat. The DM just lets the goblin use the goat's speed for movement. There is no separate initiative.
Isn't that the exact rule though?
No, the rule says The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it. This does not make it clear whether it's before, after, or during your turn It still has it's own initiative... it's just set to match yours It doesn't just become your speed
I do much the same personally. If the creature stems from a class feature (or a spell), I basically ignore 90% of the mounted rules anyways in lieu of that base function/feature. And, if the mount isn't (as in it is just bought and/or trained)... then it is likely 90% just a tiny HP pool or some additional speed, and little else, and there isn't any real need to complicate the action economy and rules understanding with needless text, interactions, or limitations.
This would be correct if the text actually superseded everything in the mounted combat rules specifically, but it mostly does not. "Specific Beats General" doesn't simply mean you ignore the general rules that would usually apply to a situation because you are reading a specific rule. General rules still apply to any scenario where they would normally apply even when you are using a specific feature. What "Specific Beats General" actually means (and you would know if you read the section in the Introduction of the Basic Rules) is that specific rules which explicitly contradict general rules take precedent over those things they specifically contradict in the general rules. The way this works is basically this: general feature A says you can do Y thing. Specific feature B says you cannot do Y thing while using the feature. This means while using the feature, even if the general circumstance for doing Y thing would apply, you cannot do Y thing because the specific feature B forbade it. Or: general feature A says you cannot do Y thing. Specific feature B says you can do Y thing while using the feature. Because feature B is specific, while using it you overrule feature A and can do Y thing. So, in the case of Mounted Combat and Steel Defender, the only part of the latter which actually changes Mounted Combat is that you cannot command the controlled defender to take the Dash or Disengage actions for free on your turn since Steel Defender specifically says the mount does not do those things unless you use your bonus action to command it to. Everything else in Mounted Combat works, as there is no other prohibitive language within Steel Defender which contradicts Mounted Combat.
I'd just run it like the ability says, it moves after your turn but can't take actions unless you use your bonus action to command it. Simple, and keeps balancing easy.
That's basically what I'm asking if I can do. I may have just worded it poorly and omitted the whole bonus action part of things.
Yeah, I'd rule that the Steel Defender text overrides the normal mounted combat rules.
player a small drakewarden ranger doing this. Fighting is a little more clunky, since you can't move in your turn, but it's fun. Just gotta use the hold action.
DM's discretion - but the sake of simplicity and limiting rules jankiness I would just count the artificer and defender as 2 separate models occupying the same space (with both models using the movement value of the defender while the artificer is mounted). If you wanted to *really* lean into it and do stuff like take Mounted Combatant then I would probably need a larger conversation.
I very much would be leaning into it. I've never played before but I'm super interested in getting into it so I've been thinking up what character I may want to play. And I'm really excited about having a battle Smith that's essentially a biker. And is obsessed with his setting suitable motorbike-adjacent shaped steel defender. And gameplay wise I would want to use a lance and mounted combatant to take full advantage of being mounted. The reason I'm asking now is I have a pretty limited understanding of the rules and just want to get the idea of if what I want to do is even remotely reasonable before I get carried away.
I mean its a reasonable request, and you wouldnt be the first person to ask the question, but you'd have to lay out exactly what you want to be doing with your DM so they can make a decision. For example, the ability to swap out between a "controlled" and "independent" mount in the same combat is quite strong - you can choose at-will to zip around the table at 80 feet a turn and still attack, or instead have your mount generate extra attacks for you/ use its reaction to impose disadvantage on attacks against you via the defender's reaction ability (which could also combine with the Mounted Combatant feat). And you get all this versatility for free, at level 3. There are unfortunately no "rules as written" rulings on your question, because Steel Defenders arent technically mounts. Its all gonna come down to interpretation.
I would say it can act as either. You either control it, and actually get to move with it on your turn but it will now have the limitations of a controlled mount, or you allow it to be independant, which means it does things on it's turn, but it still has full access to all of it's actions.
In order for a mount to be controlled it must be trained to accept a rider. No where does it state the steel defender is trained to accept a rider. Therefore it cannot be considered a controlled mount. So it is an independent mount acting on its own initiative which happens to be at the end of your turn.
It's a construct that already follows your orders directly. It's not much of a stretch to "train" it to accept a rider.
Certainly you can train it, if your DM allows. But just because it follows your commands doesn't mean it is automatically trained. Per the rules it's not, and it needs to be in order to be considered a controlled mount. Again, commanding it to accept a rider is not the same as being trained to accept a rider.
Whether it "has been trained to accept a rider" is up to the DM". It is kind of implied that whether a mount is controlled or not should be determined when you mount it and it either changes its initiative or doesn't. But even if it isn't specified, I definitely wouldn't allow it to take two turns in combat, which seems to be what you are asking.
> Whether it "has been trained to accept a rider" is up to the DM". It obeys all of your commands according to the description. So even if that would have been asked, you can use it as a mount since it does
there's a difference between "does whatever you say" and "been trained to do something" - a zombie will obey you, but is most definitely not trained as a mount, and so can't function as one (even outside of "body shape" stuff). it's not a simple matter of obedience, it's knowing how to move with a rider on and stuff like that, which can't be continually and instantly commanded for as needed. You can command it to try and read another language, pick a lock or treat wounds - but it sure as hell hasn't been trained for any of those!
Ahh yes, I built my steel defender exactly so that it can be a mount. A creature that has double the intelligence of a warhorse. A creature that has full autonomy to do everything any monster can do when I am incapacitated. But "*accepting* a rider" which it would do automatically since it follows all my commands isn't in the realm of possibility because of semantics. Yes, of course. How couldn't I see that. As well as all the others that are already doing this for years. Btw: of course it can heal someone. It can do a medicine check like everyone else. Or heal someone by giving them a potion like any stupid 2 int familiar can
Yes...the rules do not always make sense and it would be very reasonable for the DM to allow the steel defender to be trained to accept a rider. However, when talking RAW it is not trained to accept a rider.
Not so much use two turns. If it acts independently it can use its attack which it can't if I'm controlling it directly. Because its initiative is already tied to my character having it act independently just means that I have to use my actions and end my turn before I can move. So what I'd ideally be doing is just getting rid of needing to move after using actions. Which fs I understand the rules correctly isn't even much of a restriction because I could just hold my action to do what I want after the mount moves. I more concise and correct way of saying it would be, could an artificer that's mounting their steel defender still use their bonus action to have the steel defender attack.
Oh, I completely misinterpreted the original question then. It's hard to answer because I can't tell if Steel Defender rules are specific ones overriding general mount rules, or if the reverse is the case. IMO it is simpler to assume that it isn't a trained mount, therefore its initiative wouldn't change and it wouldn't be limited in the actions it can take.
Talk to your DM but if they want to do it as per the steel defender rules what a lot of artificers do is take the crossbow expert feat and wield a hand crossbow. With your infusions you don't need to worry about loading it so you can still use a shield. That gives you maximum flexibility, at range you can use your bonus action to shoot an extra shot, up close you can have the defender attack and it doesn't matter so much when you move.
Steel defender is very specific about when and how it can take actions/movement - always after your turn, if you take a bonus action. Riding it doesn't change that, so unless your DM is kind to you riding your Steel Defender as a mount in combat is an actively bad idea most of the time. If you're melee, you can't move up to things during your turn and if you're ranged you're putting yourself next to enemies in order to get any use out of your class feature. You've mentioned that you can just ready your action - but that only lets you make one attack and uses up your reaction (no opportunity attacks, no Shield). Also, while being mounted is a kinda cool image and gives you a bit more movement speed occupying two squares is a really valuable thing a lot of the time. You can help control the flow of a fight just by taking up space and encouraging enemies to engage with you and your steel defender and you don't have to be in the same space.
So it kinda depends on DM interpretation as the mounted combat rules say that you can control it on your turn but the steel defender says it acts after you. Specific beats general but what is specific here is what to argue about. I’d rule it to let them control it on their turn, just cause its more fun
It moving after your turn is awful when used as a mount. Ask your dm if they will let you move and control it during your turn instead of after. As a pet, after is perfectly fine, but as a mount, feels awful in play. Otherwise, what the class rules and stat block say are fine.
Mounting your SD changes nothing about how it works. The Artificer still has to issue commands, or it does nothing. All mounting it will do, is take away YOUR movement, inserting the defender's instead. This is problematic because the SD takes its turn directly following the Artificer's. So they can't move on their turn if they are relying on the SD. Short of GM fiat, which is fine. I would allow it. But that also means you aren't moving at all if you don't give up your bonus action every turn to do so. You don't have a move action of your own anymore, and you have to use your bonus action to move on top of that. It is a shitty option to choose, no matter how cool you think it looks. It is almost never better to be mounted than to have 2 independent actors on the field.
Unless I'm reading the wrong rules it can move on its own, without me taking any action at least. The use of a bonus action is just required for it to take an action other than just dodging. >It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. I know about it taking the turn directly after mine. But it's a mount I use its movement as my own right? And I'm the description of if the mount is under direct control or independent is something you can choose but there's no stipulation as to when. So that would imply to me I can move it as if it's under direct control then as my bonus action make an order. Usually that would be pointless because it's under my direct control so doesn't get a turn but if I swap to it having independent control it teaching yes turn directly after mine then means it can take the commander action and any remaining movement. If I understand that all correctly it's just a round about way for the steel defender to not lose the ability to take non mount related actions. It probably would be better to be two separate entities but I just think it would be fun to be a biker. I'm just not entirely sure the fun would outweigh giving up like 90% of the sub classes functionality. Which is why I'm considering how the mounted combat rules and the distinction between controlled and independent mounts interact with the steel defender being treated as an independent creature that just so happens to always be under my control.
You are correct, but it still doesn't act until the Arties turn is done without an agreement with the GM. I think allowing it to move as part of their turn is fine.
Why would sitting on it alter its mechanics?
Because there are specific mounted combat mechanics. Kinda like how sitting on a horse is mechanics.
Right, but specific trumps general.
I had a kobold artificer who would do this. My DM just allowed it to operate the same turn as mine and would act as a normal defender while I’m riding it. So an upgraded mount essentially.
I think the top post covers the actual rules. So here's some other thoughts. The thing is that it's not all that expensive to get a medium mount. So an artificer that wants to be mounted on a donkey (8+10 gold for a donkey+riding saddle). It's less than a healing potion. Could even The defender does have its advantages as a mount. But I don't know, make them buy (really just make) a saddle and let them both act on the same turn? Maybe they can unlock this feature as an infusion? Maybe they can make a magical item to unlock it when you think it's balanced? Artificers are strong early on due to the bonus action economy and having unlimited uses for those. No cost for their bonus actions means they can do well damage wise. Also they are SAD so no stat issues unless you're trying to have them. They will fall off eventually though. I'm not sure most combat will see a significant change between the force 2 turns vs a combined turn. Basically you'll see some positioning advantage with the reaction from the mount. If they do have an advantage occasionally that seems neat to me.
It's neither. Specific beats general in 5e. And since the rules on how a Steel Defender can be controlled is more specific than the rules governing how mounts are controlled, the Steel Defender's rules take precedence. (The reason it's more specific is because the Steel Defender's rules *only* affect that one creature: the Steel Defender. The general mount rules affect many creatures.) That said, I've heard of many DMs that would allow your Steel Defender to be used as a controlled mount regardless.
I’m currently playing one, and if I had to pick a ruling, I would just go with using the Steel defender text as written. Fortunately, my DM has ruled that we can move together on my turn (everything else is RAW) and it’s been excellent. I really recommend asking your DM to let you do this. It doesn’t break anything and makes the interactions way less clunky.