D&D 5E Using The Battlesmith's Iron Defender as a Mount

[Eubani]

One of my players who is playing a Gnome Artificer Battlesmith wants to use his Iron Defender as a mount. I can see that whilst it was not intended, doing so is not against the mount rules. Should I say yes and run with it or say no and under what grounds?

 

[aco175]

As a basic mount, I would be cool with it. I don't think I would let him fight while mounted unless he has some feat or powers like a cavalier. I don't see it as a big deal.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I can't see any reason not to alow it.

I would stick with "Handle Animal" skill when you need them to make a "not fall off" check.

 

[Eubani]

I just know the topic of barding will eventually come up.

 

[Kurotowa]

I just know the topic of barding will eventually come up.

Opinions on that point were divided in previous discussions. One camp said that because the Defender's AC doesn't improve on its own then barding should be allowed. The other said that innate AC like Warforged have generally doesn't allow armor to stack with it. The rules themselves offered no hint as to which way to go, which will hopefully be remedied in the next version.

 

[Eubani]

Well since the Iron Defender can only carry 210 pounds with the rider and it's gear encumberance could be the deciding factor.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Opinions on that point were divided in previous discussions. One camp said that because the Defender's AC doesn't improve on its own then barding should be allowed. The other said that innate AC like Warforged have generally doesn't allow armor to stack with it. The rules themselves offered no hint as to which way to go, which will hopefully be remedied in the next version.

The rules are actually pretty clear with regards to AC stacking. Barding uses the same rules as regular armour, and regular armour doesn't stack with AC from different sources. It would benefit from +1 dex bonus if the armour was light/medium.

As for whether to allow it in the first place, would you allow familiars/chainlock familiars to wear armour?

But the simplest answer is proficiency - they can't wear armour because they are not proficient. Warhorses can wear armour because they have armour proficiencies (proficiencies are not normally noted in stat blocks). You can't put barding on a riding horse because it is not proficient (i.e. it isn't trained).

 

[Blue]

Just because it isn't explicitly listed doesn't mean it can't happen.

Though beware that it may not be everything expected. With an INT of 4 I would put it under the Intelligent Mount section, which means it acts on it's own initiative and you won't be able to move it on your initiative.

The Iron Defender has a static initiative of "shares your initiative count, but it takes it turn immediately after yours". So after you take your turn, it take it's turn and move. If you need to get somewhere for the beginning of your turn, you're out of luck.

If your DM doesn't put it under Intelligent Mounts (and there's no clear guidelines what Intelligent means), then you can move it on your own initiative, but it's not taking any actions on it's own - specifically the default Dodge action.

So either way has potential drawbacks vs. not riding it.

(Personally, I'd probably follow the RAF and just allow it to work as expected - act as a non-intelligent mount but take the dodge action if no other command is given. I don't see a balance issue, and considering it's static AC and moderately low HPs I think that's sort of needed. But that's me making a ruling for my table.)