Can you use Sovereign Glue to permanently attach your armor to a saddle?

[Damon_Tor]

To prevent dismounts, could you sovereign glue to permanently affix your armor to the saddle of your mount? What are the unforseen consequences of doing this?

[OldTrees1]

1) What if your saddle rotates around the horse?
2) What if you need to get off your horse? Getting out of your armor or undoing the saddle takes time.
3) What if you want to rotate while mounted? Assuming you only glued the seat, that would still mildly limit your movement.
4) What if you wanted to partial get up? For example shift seating position to attack backwards for part of a turn.
5) What if something would have dismounted you? Now instead of bending like a reed (get knocked off the horse) you might break like a twig (the impact deals some damage instead)
6) What if you want to walk? Will you forgo part of your armor, or would you walk around with a cumbersome and unsightly piece of leather between your legs.

etc

[Silly Name]

Well, the first and most obvious consequences is that it'll make dismounting (and then mounting again), a very lengthy, complicated process that probably requires outside help.

In real life, it would be a bad idea because when riding you don't necessarily want to always sit upright - you may want to lean forward or down a bit, stand up on the stirs, slide on the saddle, etc. And all that gets harder/impossible if your bottom is glued to the saddle.

[Keravath]

To prevent dismounts, could you sovereign glue to permanently affix your armor to the saddle of your mount? What are the unforseen consequences of doing this?

1) If you are hit with enough force something has to give. It will either be the armor, your back, or the saddle and the back of the horse. Normally, if you were hit hard enough you are knocked off the horse and 1/2 the momentum of the impact goes into accelerating you off the horse. Without that, your body and the horse's body absorb all of the force of the impact.

2) The saddle could tear along the glue lines.

3) The saddle could be torn from the horse leaving you in armor glued to the saddle in the seated position lying on the ground unable to stand up or move properly.

4) The armor could rip apart along the seams. Plate armor lower parts are not "cemented" to the upper part because the upper body still needs to bend and move. A strong enough force could rip you right out of the lower half of the armor doing damage and leaving you lying on the field with the top half of the armor. Possibly breaking your back or legs in the process.

Basically, when you are hit with sufficient force, something has to give if you can't be separated from the horse.

It is also possible if it was just a joust for example that a sufficient hit by the opponent could knock them backwards off their horse - it might also break the attackers lance. On the other hand, if the other is much stronger than you, one of the other consequences I mentioned above might occur.

Also, keep in mind that you would have to climb into the lower half of the armor that is affixed to the saddle and would be unable to dismount without taking off 1/2 of your suit of armor. If you were jousting, it would be obvious that you were cheating. If you are fighting in a battle it would be fine but you would be unable to get off the horse to pursue opponents if they took cover in rocks or a building or other location where your horse could not follow.

Bottom line for me is that the proper character might try it for a one off contest if they thought it necessary to cheat to win and could somehow manage to do so without the subterfuge being discovered. Otherwise, in my opinion, it may have too many downsides for regular use.

[stoutstien]

To prevent dismounts, could you sovereign glue to permanently affix your armor to the saddle of your mount? What are the unforseen consequences of doing this?

They did try this a few times in history. The net results was a lot of broken people and horses. As far as someone doing this in game...nope can't see this ever ending well.

[Mr Adventurer]

I mean, you don't even stay in tight contact with a saddle when you're riding normally, do you? I'd give Disadvantage on riding checks and call for checks in more circumstances.

[da newt]

As someone who has ridden horses - you do not want to be glued to the saddle while riding, you'll just beat the crap out of yourself and the horse if you ever travel faster than a walk.

In order to mount / dismount you will need to remove the bottom half of your armor and get lifted into / out of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGk63f1PM9c

[Damon_Tor]

For context, this is more about a gnome artificer gluing himself to his Iron Defender, so one-to-one comparisons to horseback riding aren't 100% appropriate. The Iron Defender is treated more like an exo-skeleton than a traditional mount, and is engineered for this purpose. Bonding the armor to the mount is pretty critical for this, since the two are basically supposed to be the same object.

[stoutstien]

For context, this is more about a gnome artificer gluing himself to his Iron Defender, so one-to-one comparisons to horseback riding aren't 100% appropriate. The Iron Defender is treated more like an exo-skeleton than a traditional mount, and is engineered for this purpose. Bonding the armor to the mount is pretty critical for this, since the two are basically supposed to be the same object.

For this I think I would try to just come up with a custom infusion to turn the SD into an suit of armor of sorts.

[Garfunion]

As someone who has ridden horses - you do not want to be glued to the saddle while riding, you'll just beat the crap out of yourself and the horse if you ever travel faster than a walk.

In order to mount / dismount you will need to remove the bottom half of your armor and get lifted into / out of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGk63f1PM9c

I was going to post this exact scene.

[da newt]

So your artificer is attempting to design an iron defender that he can wear like a robot exoskeleton / like a gnome inside a warforged, and he wants to use Sovereign Glue to bond it to his skin forever?

So your gnome will need to sleep in the suit, go to the bathroom while wearing it, etc ... and he is super-gluing it to his body? Sounds like a 80s sci fi villain.

[Mr Adventurer]

The magic item Saddle of the Cavalier means you can't be dismounted. While riding in the saddle, attacks made against your mount have Disadvantage, too. It's Uncommon - see if you can get it via Replicate Magic Item.

[MaxWilson]

The magic item Saddle of the Cavalier means you can't be dismounted. While riding in the saddle, attacks made against your mount have Disadvantage, too. It's Uncommon - see if you can get it via Replicate Magic Item.

Or even just plain make one using the Xanathar's rules, after researching the formula.

[AttilatheYeon]

How would you use the bathroom... nvm, i don't wanna know. 😉

[Dork_Forge]

A military saddle is mundane, not very expensive and no real inconvenience to you, the Sovereign Glue thing just seems like it will complicate things for little benefit (like what if the SD dies?).

[Damon_Tor]

The magic item Saddle of the Cavalier means you can't be dismounted. While riding in the saddle, attacks made against your mount have Disadvantage, too. It's Uncommon - see if you can get it via Replicate Magic Item.

This is the most useful suggestion, thank you.

[Wraith]

Historically, mounted knights could be screwed or riveted into their saddles - some contemporary documents note knights who were disqualified from jousting competitions for using screw-in armour/saddles to unfairly prevent themselves from being unhorsed during a competition.

This is probably a much better idea than glue in that they could later be removed to allow you to leave the horse, and because they could include natural 'breakaway' sections that would keep you firmly in place during a charge or from a glancing hit, but would sheer away to prevent serious injury when a solid hit was threatening to remove your entire torso, humorously leaving your head floating in mid-air with a confused expression on its face.

[Sigreid]

Yes, but for a lot of reasons that could end badly.

[Hytheter]

For context, this is more about a gnome artificer gluing himself to his Iron Defender, so one-to-one comparisons to horseback riding aren't 100% appropriate. The Iron Defender is treated more like an exo-skeleton than a traditional mount, and is engineered for this purpose. Bonding the armor to the mount is pretty critical for this, since the two are basically supposed to be the same object.

Just checking, are you aware that the armorer artificer exists? I lack full context but this strikes me as a strange and clunky way of doing what that subclass is literally designed for.

[Damon_Tor]

Just checking, are you aware that the armorer artificer exists? I lack full context but this strikes me as a strange and clunky way of doing what that subclass is literally designed for.

What that subclass is designed for poorly. I'll both be doing significantly more damage AND be tankier (by every metric, including AC and effective HP) than the armorer. I'll be more mobile too.

I really wanted to like the armorer, but they spent too much design space on "Iron Man" features with zero synergy (ie, why bother with blasting spells on a half-caster who has no spell-damage increasing abilities?) and neglected to give him enough durability to fulfill his apparent role. Notably, he has no Shield spell, no Warding Bond (and no beefy pet to cast it on him even if he had it) and he's limited to trash weapons. I just don't see the point of it.

[Sigreid]

For context, this is more about a gnome artificer gluing himself to his Iron Defender, so one-to-one comparisons to horseback riding aren't 100% appropriate. The Iron Defender is treated more like an exo-skeleton than a traditional mount, and is engineered for this purpose. Bonding the armor to the mount is pretty critical for this, since the two are basically supposed to be the same object.

So talk to your DM. There's no game reason your iron defender can't be designed with a cockpit for you to sit in. Install a seatbelt if you like

[Dork_Forge]

What that subclass is designed for poorly. I'll both be doing significantly more damage AND be tankier (by every metric, including AC and effective HP) than the armorer. I'll be more mobile too.

I really wanted to like the armorer, but they spent too much design space on "Iron Man" features with zero synergy (ie, why bother with blasting spells on a half-caster who has no spell-damage increasing abilities?) and neglected to give him enough durability to fulfill his apparent role. Notably, he has no Shield spell, no Warding Bond (and no beefy pet to cast it on him even if he had it) and he's limited to trash weapons. I just don't see the point of it.

Okay I'll bite here:

-How are you getting an actual higher AC on a Battle Smith than an Armorer?

-Is this effective hp comment just about the disadvantage from the SD and using Warding Bond?

-In what possible way, are the weapons they get access to 'trash' for their roles?

[McSkrag]

As a DM I would certainly let you try.

[stoutstien]

Okay I'll bite here:

-How are you getting an actual higher AC on a Battle Smith than an Armorer?

-Is this effective hp comment just about the disadvantage from the SD and using Warding Bond?

-In what possible way, are the weapons they get access to 'trash' for their roles?

While I disagree with the notion that the BS is noticably better at party damage mitigation than the armorer but it is a close enough call to cause some frustration.

[Dork_Forge]

While I disagree with the notion that the BS is noticably better at party damage mitigation than the armorer but it is a close enough call to cause some frustration.

It's kind of close, but it comes down to choices how close it is. Party damage mitigation is only the domain of the Guardian Armor, a subset of the subclass, where as it's baked into the Battle Smith as a whole. Even then if you keep your SD at your side to make attacks at disadvantage, and you cast Warding Bond on yourself, then it's really just reducing your own damage. Sure the SD is an additional target that's pretty meaty,but to some extent you can just use the Homunculus to do the same thing.

The Battle Smith is explicitly about being a combat medic/supporty type character, the Armorer is more... open I guess?

[stoutstien]

It's kind of close, but it comes down to choices how close it is. Party damage mitigation is only the domain of the Guardian Armor, a subset of the subclass, where as it's baked into the Battle Smith as a whole. Even then if you keep your SD at your side to make attacks at disadvantage, and you cast Warding Bond on yourself, then it's really just reducing your own damage. Sure the SD is an additional target that's pretty meaty,but to some extent you can just use the Homunculus to do the same thing.

The Battle Smith is explicitly about being a combat medic/supporty type character, the Armorer is more... open I guess?

Aye. I think the flexibility of the BS compared to the toggle nature of the armorer is a good way of viewing them.

[Damon_Tor]

The infiltrator armor design is barely worth mentioning though. An extra 1d6 tacked on to a 1d6 weapon once per turn doesn't make you a striker. +3.5 damage each turn is less than what a Battlesmith gets just from using a heavy crossbow past level 5.

The guardian disadvantage imposition is moderately better than what the cavalier or ancestral barbarian do because the armorer doesn't have to remain adjacent to impose that disadvantage. Combined with the armorer's relatively low eHP but bonus action self-repair ability, this opens up the armorer as a sort of skirmisher defender in a way those other two classes aren't, but without any mobility tricks baked into the subclass I don't see this as seriously viable. The Battle Smith's built in mount and access to reach weapons for use with Booming Blade make them better at this sort of gameplay as well.

[Dork_Forge]

The infiltrator armor design is barely worth mentioning though. An extra 1d6 tacked on to a 1d6 weapon once per turn doesn't make you a striker. +3.5 damage each turn is less than what a Battlesmith gets just from using a heavy crossbow past level 5.

At what point are you thinking the Infiltrator is designed to be a striker? And just so I'm clear, I'm guessing that term is meant to be high single target DPR?

The Infiltrator gets added movement speed and a stealth buff and is called... the Infiltrator. The focus seems to be more clearly on being a stealthy option, not a high DPR one, but the DPR isn't even bad:

-A BS using a heaavy crossbow gets an additional 2 points of damage on the primary weapon damage, this isn't actually more than the Infiltrator until Extra Attack comes online. Are you including the SD's attack in the damage total?

-A BS with Heavy Crossbow only does more damage when they make both attacks hit, where as the additional damage can be added to any attack for the Infiltrator, like Sneak Attack.

-The base damage is pretty good, especially since it is none mundane damage from the offset with good range, but it's just a ranged attack. So you can throw an infusion on it, you can throw Sharpshooter on it, Sneak Attack from a Rogue MC etc.

-A BS using a heavy crossbow loses out on a shield. Not only can the Infiltrator use a shield at the same time, they can still have that offhand free for a melee weapon if they want.


The guardian disadvantage imposition is moderately better than what the cavalier or ancestral barbarian do because the armorer doesn't have to remain adjacent to impose that disadvantage. Combined with the armorer's relatively low eHP but bonus action self-repair ability, this opens up the armorer as a sort of skirmisher defender in a way those other two classes aren't, but without any mobility tricks baked into the subclass I don't see this as seriously viable. The Battle Smith's built in mount and access to reach weapons for use with Booming Blade make them better at this sort of gameplay as well.

You seem to not be taking into account the higher AC ceiling of the Armorer in any of your post. An Armorer will always have a natively higher AC ceiling than any other Artificer and a high AC overall. There's no need to skirmish, just have a good Con score and stand there. The bonus action temp hp takes the edge off enough to make this a viable tactic and False Life is an Artificer spell and should most certainly be used if you're going to be in melee. On the same note, you should also be leveraging Aid for more hp too.

Personally I'd have rather the amount of temp hp been Int mod at least, to make it more impactful in lower levels.

Though if you do want to skirmish, just use the boots of the winding path infusion native to the class or pick up the mobile feat if you have other plans for your infusions or bonus.

On the Battlesmith comment here, no, the Battle Smith does not have a built in mount. The Steel Defender can be a mount if you have it take an appropriate form and make yourself a small character. Which will effectively lock you out of heavy weapons (like that cross bow you were talking about) and all reach weapons besides the whip and lance.

The whip is balanced with a lower damage die and the lance gives you disadvantage on anyone within 5ft, it's not a neat 'this is better' and being small to ride the SD means you can't use the other reach weapons.

Booming blade on a Battle Smith of 5th+ also seems like a waste tbh, they get Extra Attack and will likely be using an infused weapon, the more attacks the more they leverage their class abilities (and the more damage they do).

I can understand not liking something, but your specific complaints don't really seem to be actual problems with the subclass.

[Damon_Tor]

At what point are you thinking the Infiltrator is designed to be a striker? And just so I'm clear, I'm guessing that term is meant to be high single target DPR?

The Infiltrator gets added movement speed and a stealth buff and is called... the Infiltrator. The focus seems to be more clearly on being a stealthy option, not a high DPR one, but the DPR isn't even bad:

If it's a stealth specialist, it's bad at that too. All they get is advantage on stealth checks, on a class that could already get that via infusion.


-A BS using a heaavy crossbow gets an additional 2 points of damage on the primary weapon damage, this isn't actually more than the Infiltrator until Extra Attack comes online.

Yes, at levels 3 and 4 it does 1.5 more damage per turn, then .5 damage less per turn every level thereafter.


A BS with Heavy Crossbow only does more damage when they make both attacks hit, where as the additional damage can be added to any attack for the Infiltrator, like Sneak Attack. While true, as long as your to-hit is around 75% that won't make up the difference.

And the counterpoint to that is that any other ways of giving you extra attacks (haste, for example) will boost a good weapon much more, while leaving the Lightning Launcher behind.


The base damage is pretty good, especially since it is none mundane damage from the offset with good range, but it's just a ranged attack. So you can throw an infusion on it, you can throw Sharpshooter on it, Sneak Attack from a Rogue MC etc.

Magical piercing damage is a better damage type than lightning.


-A BS using a heavy crossbow loses out on a shield. Not only can the Infiltrator use a shield at the same time, they can still have that offhand free for a melee weapon if they want.

That's true. Of course a Battle Smith could have a repeating hand crossbow or a returning spear and not only be able to use a shield, they would have a much better selection of feats via crossbow master or polearm master. This is part of my problem with the comparison: the Battle Smith has a TON of build options because of the variety of weapons they can choose from. The Armorer has two.


You seem to not be taking into account the higher AC ceiling of the Armorer in any of your post. An Armorer will always have a natively higher AC ceiling than any other Artificer and a high AC overall. There's no need to skirmish, just have a good Con score and stand there. The bonus action temp hp takes the edge off enough to make this a viable tactic and False Life is an Artificer spell and should most certainly be used if you're going to be in melee. On the same note, you should also be leveraging Aid for more hp too.

The difference between full plate and half plate is just 1 AC... which is provided by Warding Bond. The fact that the Battle Smith has the Shield spell as well doesn't help make the comparison between the two seem any more fair.

The Temp HP generated by the bonus action doesn't get the Armorer even as much HP as a ranger or paladin or any other d10 class, and the fact that it's temp HP means that many other forms of effective HP generation (such as False Life) are redundant.

And the Battle Smith has access to False Life and Aid as well, so that's no points in the armorer's favor.


Personally I'd have rather the amount of temp hp been Int mod at least, to make it more impactful in lower levels.

There's absolutely more they should have done to make the armorer viable. Like I said, I really wanted to like the subclass. IMO, the guardian's armor bonus should have been an alternate HP pool modeled after the Abjurer's ward. That way it could stack with tHP.


Though if you do want to skirmish, just use the boots of the winding path infusion native to the class or pick up the mobile feat if you have other plans for your infusions or bonus.

That would be an option, but only if you aren't using your bonus action to recover your tHP.


On the Battlesmith comment here, no, the Battle Smith does not have a built in mount. The Steel Defender can be a mount if you have it take an appropriate form and make yourself a small character. Which will effectively lock you out of heavy weapons (like that cross bow you were talking about) and all reach weapons besides the whip and lance.

The whip is balanced with a lower damage die and the lance gives you disadvantage on anyone within 5ft, it's not a neat 'this is better' and being small to ride the SD means you can't use the other reach weapons.

Apples to apples, the Armorer can't make effective use of any of those weapons either.


Booming blade on a Battle Smith of 5th+ also seems like a waste tbh, they get Extra Attack and will likely be using an infused weapon, the more attacks the more they leverage their class abilities (and the more damage they do).

The decision to use Booming Blade instead of two attacks changes based on the situation, your character level, and whether or not you think the target is likely to take the bonus damage. But either way that's not really relevant to the comparison between the two subclasses as the Armorer would face the same dilemma.


I can understand not liking something, but your specific complaints don't really seem to be actual problems with the subclass.

They're my problems with the subclass. I don't expect everyone to agree. I was asked why I'm hamfisting my Steel Defender into being a suit a of armor when the Armorer exists. This is my answer.

[Monster Manuel]

They're my problems with the subclass. I don't expect everyone to agree. I was asked why I'm hamfisting my Steel Defender into being a suit a of armor when the Armorer exists. This is my answer.

I jumped in here to make a well-reasoned argument in favor of Dork_Forge's take on the armorer class, but then I read this and it reinforced that this isn't what this thread is for; the OP question was about how to permanently attach armor to a mount, and while I might agree that the Armorer is better than you give it credit for, that's immaterial here.

So, abandoning that thought process, I considered what might help you achieve the original objective. The Cavalier's Saddle is a good suggestion; have you considered using the cast-off armor from Xanathar's? Permanently attach the armor to the Steel Defender, which would be a pain to get in and out of, but if the armor was Xanathar's cast-off armor, you can doff it as an action, rather than however many minutes it takes to get out of armor. It's banking on having access to two separate magic items, (the armor, and the sovereign glue to attach it) but might help overall.

[Lunali]

I'd say the biggest problem with this is you wouldn't be able to get into or out of your armor. Your thighs and shins are not nearly as flexible as your waist and knees.

[Mr Adventurer]

I don't think Booming Blade works with Reach weapons?

Anyway, I'm curious: what do you do if your Steel Defender is slain, if you're glued to it?