Battle Smith Artificer - is this OP?

[sayaijin]

I have a player who wants to roll up the rock gnome battle smith artificer and use the medium size steel defender as a mount. I want to just give the SD actions and movement at the same time as his character for simplification. The only real difference I see between this and RAW is that he gets to use both his and the SD's attacks at the same time instead of using his action as a reaction.

Is this too over powered? It sure would make combat more simple.

[stoutstien]

As long as the SD still needs to use the player's bonus action to do anything more than dodge it really doesn't change much.

[Mr Adventurer]

I would say it needs to still follow the general rules for independent mounts and Battle Smith rules for control, but I would be OK with always setting its own Initiative to the same count as its master. The main difference is that you can't mix up actions on the same turn: the Artificer takes their turn, and then the Steel Defender takes their turn; or vice-versa (though the SD perhaps won't have the benefit of the Artificer's commands if it goes first).

[sayaijin]

I would say it needs to still follow the general rules for independent mounts and Battle Smith rules for control, but I would be OK with always setting its own Initiative to the same count as its master. The main difference is that you can't mix up actions on the same turn: the Artificer takes their turn, and then the Steel Defender takes their turn; or vice-versa (though the SD perhaps won't have the benefit of the Artificer's commands if it goes first).

With my method of just letting both take their turns at the same time, the artificer gets increased movement speed and a bonus action rend/disengage/hide/dash from the SD all on his turn. It seems like a better version of rogue cunning action. It definitely simplifies battle, but I know that it's stronger than RAW. I'm just not sure if it's too powerful.

[Necromas]

I think the minmaxed way to play a mounted battlesmith is to make them a crossbow build and those don't really care much about being able to move before acting. So while it's a boost to melee builds I don't think it raises the power ceiling.

[stoutstien]

Eh. It's not like mounted combat doesn't have its own risks involved.
They're overall concept of the mounted battlesmith is okay but I feel like it removes one of the biggest benefits of having two separate places that you can occupy at once.

[sayaijin]

Eh. It's not like mounted combat doesn't have its own risks involved.
They're overall concept of the mounted battlesmith is okay but I feel like it removes one of the biggest benefits of having two separate places that you can occupy at once.

That was my thought process too. They're sacrificing having an extra body on the field for increased mobility.

[Mr Adventurer]

With my method of just letting both take their turns at the same time, the artificer gets increased movement speed and a bonus action rend/disengage/hide/dash from the SD all on his turn. It seems like a better version of rogue cunning action. It definitely simplifies battle, but I know that it's stronger than RAW. I'm just not sure if it's too powerful.

Yeah, the tactical ability is greater if you can mix actions between the creatures on the same Initiative. With my suggestion, it's the same as if they had any other different Initiative scores - but no enemy in between their turns.

Edit: also, does a mount's Disengage action apply its benefits to the rider? Likewise, a mount Hide action definitely doesn't apply to the rider.

[sayaijin]

Edit: also, does a mount's Disengage action apply its benefits to the rider? Likewise, a mount Hide action definitely doesn't apply to the rider.

That's an interesting question. I had assumed that the hide action would be impossible while mounted, but I kinda thought disengage would apply to both Art and SD.

Edit:
Found the sage advice:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/09/mount-disengage/