# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  artificer question

## FabulousFizban

what happens if i cast heat metal on my steel defender?

can a steel defender attune to magic items?

can i put armor on a steel defender?

----------


## Rukelnikov

> what happens if i cast heat metal on my steel defender?


RAW, unless you deem the defender to be in contact with itself it does nothing. I'd however have the defender take the damage.




> can a steel defender attune to magic items?


I don't see why not.




> can i put armor on a steel defender?


I don't see why not.

----------


## Zhorn

> Originally Posted by FabulousFizban
> 
> 
> what happens if i cast heat metal on my steel defender?
> 
> 
> RAW, unless you deem the defender to be in contact with itself it does nothing. I'd however have the defender take the damage.


I agree on how Rukelnikov would rule on it damaging the Steel Defender.
The difficulty with trying to find a strictly RAW interpretation for me is
a) As Rukelnikov covers if you count a creature as being in contact with itself? and
b) Does the steel defender classify as an object to be a valid target of the spell?

'Steel' is in the name so we should be able to say it IS _metal_, and being made by the artificer we can also rule that it IS _manufactured_, but the final part about classifying as an object is a little vague. It is a creature, which helps with the other two questions:



> can a steel defender attune to magic items?


yes, any creature can attune to a magic item



> can i put armor on a steel defender?


Yes, and worst case scenario it would be barding. A steel defender can be ruled as a mount for small sized artificers, and the articifer has design control over anatomy (appearance and two or four legged), so making it of a shape suitable to be fitted with regular armor, or follow the rules for barding.
Proficiency for wearing the armor might not be easy to justify by strict RAW, so without a lenient DM the steel defender would incur the disadvantage penalties as detailed in the PHB p144.

But back to the creature/object issue. An dead (or unconscious depending on DM's reasoning and leniency) creature can be ruled on as an object, and does not cease being a creature, so one can be both at the same time, but I'm not aware of a ruling on a conscious creature being ruled simultaneously as both object AND creature at the same time.

----------


## Mastikator

A steel defender is a metal creature, not a metal object. You can only target metal objects with Heat Metal, ergo you can't heat metal a steel defender.

Edit- steel defenders can wear armor or maybe barding, but they're not proficient.

Steel defenders are creatures and all creatures can attune to magic items.

----------


## EggKookoo

It's not attunement, but our artificer's steel defender has a bag of holding "built into" it. Mechanically it's just that the defender has the bag in its possession and can use it just like any other creature could. Narratively it's more integrated, with a panel the artificer (or defender itself) swings open and can reach into and such.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> what happens if i cast heat metal on my steel defender?


You waste a spell slot. _Heat Metal_ targets objects, Iron Defender is a creature.




> can a steel defender attune to magic items?


Ask your GM. Personally, I'd say no, as it's not sapient.




> can i put armor on a steel defender?


Sure, if you can get one in appropriate shape. It's not proficient, so it'll take appropriate penalties, but its attack is not Str- or Dex-based, so the main function will be unaffected.

----------


## Zhorn

> Ask your GM. Personally, I'd say no, at it's not sapient.


Perfectly valid response as a personal take.
But as we'd be into the territory of 'rulings not rules', can I ask how you justify this one?
Not a criticism, just wanting to understand the take.
Sapience is not a function of the rules as far as I'm aware, and the base rules for attunement only require that the subject be a creature unless the specific item calls for additional requirements ('by a spellcaster' , 'by a wizards', 'by a paladin' etc)

----------


## JNAProductions

> Perfectly valid response as a personal take.
> But as we'd be into the territory of 'rulings not rules', can I ask how you justify this one?
> Not a criticism, just wanting to understand the take.
> Sapience is not a function of the rules as far as I'm aware, and the base rules for attunement only require that the subject be a creature unless the specific item calls for additional requirements ('by a spellcaster' , 'by a wizards', 'by a paladin' etc)


To echo this, a Steel Defender has Int 4, Wis 10, and Cha 6.

It's not SMART, for sure, but that indicates it's got basic consciousness, at least.

----------


## Mastikator

Steel defender acts independently and takes actions of its own choice while its artificer is incapacitated, suggesting it has free will.

----------


## Psyren

> what happens if i cast heat metal on my steel defender?


You can't; it's not an object.




> can a steel defender attune to magic items?


Yes, if you order it to and it can use the object in question (e.g. doesn't need hands.)




> can i put armor on a steel defender?


Yes, if you have armor of the appropriate shape (i.e. barding) to put on it - however, this might not have the benefit you think it does. Per Sage Advice:




> _Here are some ways to calculate your base AC:
> 
> Unarmored
> Armored
> Unarmored Defense (Barbarian)
> Unarmored Defense (Monk)
> Draconic Resilience (Sorcerer)
> Natural Armor
> 
> These methodsalong with any others that give you a formula for calculating your ACare mutually exclusive; you can benefit from only one at a time. If you have access to more than one, you pick which one to use._


In other words, your Steel Defender can calculate its AC using its natural armor, or use an armor calculation from barding you put on it, but it will not benefit from both. Moreover, it's not trained/proficient in armor, so you may be subjecting it to a number of penalties depending on the armor you put on it.

----------


## Sigreid

> Sure, if you can get one in appropriate shape. It's not proficient, so it'll take appropriate penalties, but its attack is not Str- or Dex-based, so the main function will be unaffected.


If I remember right, not being proficient in armor doesn't really do much in the negative anymore.

----------


## JNAProductions

> If I remember right, not being proficient in armor doesn't really do much in the negative anymore.


You get disadvantage on every d20 roll you make that uses Strength or Dexterity. And you can't cast spells.

----------


## Sigreid

> You get disadvantage on every d20 roll you make that uses Strength or Dexterity. And you can't cast spells.


So disadvantage on attack rolls is the only thing that would affect the steel defender.

----------


## JNAProductions

> So disadvantage on attack rolls is the only thing that would affect the steel defender.


And saves, and ability checks.
Though actually, its attacks don't use its Strength or Dexterity. It uses the owner's Intelligence. So it'd attack fine.

----------


## Sigreid

> And saves, and ability checks.
> Though actually, its attacks don't use its Strength or Dexterity. It uses the owner's Intelligence. So it'd attack fine.


Good point!   May need to strap some armor on mine.

----------


## JNAProductions

You'd need...

Half-Plate or Chain Mail for +1 AC
Splint for +2 AC
Or Full Plate for +3 AC

I dunno if that's worth it, given that it now has disadvantage on Dexterity saves, which are often HP-damaging AoEs.

----------


## Sigreid

> You'd need...
> 
> Half-Plate or Chain Mail for +1 AC
> Splint for +2 AC
> Or Full Plate for +3 AC
> 
> I dunno if that's worth it, given that it now has disadvantage on Dexterity saves, which are often HP-damaging AoEs.


But...my artificer is an artificer with a fully stocked magic workshop.  If I ever decide to do it, I'm getting fancy.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> Perfectly valid response as a personal take.
> But as we'd be into the territory of 'rulings not rules', can I ask how you justify this one?
> Not a criticism, just wanting to understand the take.
> Sapience is not a function of the rules as far as I'm aware, and the base rules for attunement only require that the subject be a creature unless the specific item calls for additional requirements ('by a spellcaster' , 'by a wizards', 'by a paladin' etc)


The attunement rules also require "to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can't be the same short rest used to learn the item's properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity." While there are no explicit values denoting sapience, like in 3.x, Steel Defender has the same Int as baboon. I don't consider anything with animal-like intelligence to be capable of the requied focus. I'd say 5 or 6 Int is the minimal value at which I'm willing to consider the creature capable of attuning a magic item. Kinda arbitrary, but eh.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> The attunement rules also require "to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can't be the same short rest used to learn the item's properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity." While there are no explicit values denoting sapience, like in 3.x, Steel Defender has the same Int as baboon. I don't consider anything with animal-like intelligence to be capable of the requied focus. I'd say 5 or 6 Int is the minimal value at which I'm willing to consider the creature capable of attuning a magic item. Kinda arbitrary, but eh.


So a PC with 4 Int wouldn't be able to attune to an item either?

----------


## Mastikator

> The attunement rules also require "to spend a short rest focused on only that item while being in physical contact with it (this can't be the same short rest used to learn the item's properties). This focus can take the form of weapon practice (for a weapon), meditation (for a wondrous item), or some other appropriate activity." While there are no explicit values denoting sapience, like in 3.x, Steel Defender has the same Int as baboon. I don't consider anything with animal-like intelligence to be capable of the requied focus. I'd say 5 or 6 Int is the minimal value at which I'm willing to consider the creature capable of attuning a magic item. Kinda arbitrary, but eh.


A steel defender can understand the language of its creator, and can act freely if the artificer is incapacitated. It has self awareness, can think in language and has free will. The int score should not be the determining factor here, as @Rukelnikov said, a PC can have 4 int. A 4 int PC would still be able to attune to a magic item as per RAW.

----------


## Sigreid

> So a PC with 4 Int wouldn't be able to attune to an item either?


To be fair, I've only seen one of those and the player had a blast playing a total moron.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> So a PC with 4 Int wouldn't be able to attune to an item either?


No, though for a different reason: There's no such thing as 4 Int PCs in my games (unless they are _Polymorph_ed, in which case they are animals with animal intelligence anyway).




> A steel defender can understand the language of its creator, and can act freely if the artificer is incapacitated. It has self awareness, can think in language and has free will. The int score should not be the determining factor here, as @Rukelnikov said, a PC can have 4 int. A 4 int PC would still be able to attune to a magic item as per RAW.


[citation needed]

Nothing in the Battlesmith's ability description says the Steel Defender has self awareness or "can think in languages". Zombies can understand languages too, despite being completely mindless, ability to understand languages doesn't mean anything in D&D, especially if we're talking about artificial beings and glorified (sub)class features.

----------


## spacedog

The wording calls it a companion, much like some rangers get an animal companion, so it sounds like a robotic animal companion. 
I am curious what the OP had in mind for attuned items? Ring of spell storing?

----------


## EggKookoo

> Nothing in the Battlesmith's ability description says the Steel Defender has self awareness or "can think in languages". Zombies can understand languages too, despite being completely mindless, ability to understand languages doesn't mean anything in D&D, especially if we're talking about artificial beings and glorified (sub)class features.


While the companion is called a construct, it is also called a creature. Creatures, in general, have some level of awareness. Having a 4 Int means the companion has a very limited awareness but unless there's reason to think otherwise I would say it has some level of it.

General vs. specific -- in general, creatures have consciousness. There's nothing specifying the companion's lack.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> To be fair, I've only seen one of those and the player had a blast playing a total moron.


I think, outside of one shots, I've only seen one too, and another with 5 or 6, but they are possiblewithin the system.

----------


## Zhorn

> [citation needed]


To be fair, the same could be said for many of your own assertions in this area.
As I was saying earlier, we are clearly in 'rulings not rules' territory. A DM wanting to set limitations and stat minimums for things like attunement I think is fine for their own tables, likewise with discussions on minimum levels of sapience, free will, independent thought, etc.
BUT that doesn't change the fact that those are still all house rules and not being drawn from any 5e book reference.

If I had a DM that set those done as the rules for their table, I'd take no issue playing under them.
I don't think it is being unreasonable to have such restrictions.

But that is not the same as agreeing that such a ruling is official.
And for the purposes of answering FabulousFizban's initial question, we should strive to delineate between official citable rules vs personal rulings (which I think you did for your initial comment of _"Personally, I'd say no, at[as] it's not sapient."_ , just your follow ups on the discussion come across more of an asserting of rule authority)

A PC _can_ achieve a score as low as a 3 by official means of stat generation (specifically rolling), only point-buy has the limitation of not setting a score lower than 8 specific to the section 'Variant: Customizing Ability Scores' (PHB p13).
They may not be a thing at your own table, but PCs of INT scores equal to or lower than a steel defender is possible.
And while prior editions have had limitations based on lower INT scores, 5e doesn't have (as far as I am aware) a list of general limitations that come with the lower score. If you have a page reference, I'll gladly accept being mistaken.
Most I can think of is it preventing specific multiclassing (Wizard and Artificer), but you can still be single class beings of either of those with the low score.

As for Steel Defender autonomy, TCoE p19, it does specify that while their master is incapacitated; the "defender can take ANY action of its choice, not just dodge". So lacking a citable rule that their lower intelligence prevents attuning, there is nothing stopping a steel defender from doing as needed to complete the activity.

Again, nothing against the limitation as a table ruling, but it IS a table ruling.

----------


## ChaosStar

This discussion sparked a thought about having the Steel Defender be humanoid in appearance and from what I can research people on both Reddit and D&D Beyond both say that yes, Steel Defenders can be humanoid in appearance and attune to magical items. Not sure about the general attitude between this forum, Reddit, and D&D Beyond forums regarding each other, but I consider all three sources valuable places of information for my own 5e research.

----------


## Slipjig

> This discussion sparked a thought about having the Steel Defender be humanoid in appearance and from what I can research people on both Reddit and D&D Beyond both say that yes, Steel Defenders can be humanoid in appearance and attune to magical items. Not sure about the general attitude between this forum, Reddit, and D&D Beyond forums regarding each other, but I consider all three sources valuable places of information for my own 5e research.


Yes, the description of the ability specifies that the Steel Defender may have two or four legs, but that it has no effect on the creature's stats.  And it is a creature, so I'm not seeing anything in RAW that would preclude attuning to an item.

Definitely bounce this off your DM, though, and I'd suggest doing it BEFORE you come to the table, including what you plan to have your SD attune.

----------


## stoutstien

Personally I just allow the SD/homunculus to share from the artificer's attunement slots.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> And for the purposes of answering FabulousFizban's initial question, we should strive to delineate between official citable rules vs personal rulings (which I think you did for your initial comment of _"Personally, I'd say no, at[as] it's not sapient."_ , just your follow ups on the discussion come across more of an asserting of rule authority)


I stated that's what I would rule, everything else in this chain of conversation relates to that ruling (as far as I can tell), not the original questions. And thanks for pointing out the typo.

----------


## diplomancer

The Feeblemind spell reduces Intelligence to 1, and lists some consequences for that; notably, it specifies that the creature can't _activate_ a magic item, but says nothing about attuning to one.

So, with an Intelligence of 4, I'd say: "attune, definitely; activate, ask your DM"

----------


## Zhorn

> I stated that's what I would rule, everything else in this chain of conversation relates to that ruling (as far as I can tell), not the original questions.


Fully with you on your original comment, just trying to steer this away from a fruitless argument of misunderstandings.
When discussing personal rulings; calling into question someone else's statements with [citation needed] carries an implication required authority.
As a personal ruling, I think your take is very reasonable, not trying to ruffle feathers on that, but can come across poorly when calling for [citation needed] when your own take is lacking in that area.




> The Feeblemind spell reduces Intelligence to 1, and lists some consequences for that; notably, it specifies that the creature can't _activate_ a magic item, but says nothing about attuning to one.
> 
> So, with an Intelligence of 4, I'd say: "attune, definitely; activate, ask your DM"


This would be some good grounds for basing JackPhoenix's stance on.
It's not concrete, but lays down a decent framework from the PHB of using magic items should have an INT score higher than 1. how much higher is still up for debate, but as a minimum 1 is too low.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> The Feeblemind spell reduces Intelligence to 1, and lists some consequences for that; notably, it specifies that the creature can't _activate_ a magic item, but says nothing about attuning to one.
> 
> So, with an Intelligence of 4, I'd say: "attune, definitely; activate, ask your DM"


As you've said, it lists "some" consequences. That does not mean the list is exhaustive. One thing to note is that PHB (and thus, _Feeblemind_ spell) was published long before DMG and the magic item rules.




> Fully with you on your original comment, just trying to steer this away from a fruitless argument of misunderstandings.
> When discussing personal rulings; calling into question someone else's statements with [citation needed] carries an implication required authority.
> As a personal ruling, I think your take is very reasonable, not trying to ruffle feathers on that, but can come across poorly when calling for [citation needed] when your own take is lacking in that area.


I provided justification for my take on things. As an answer, I got definitive statement that "It has self awareness, can think in language and has free will." Not "in my opinion" or something similar. So, as far as I'm concerned, [citation needed] fits.

----------


## Arkhios

> what happens if i cast heat metal on my steel defender?


I'd rule that the steel defender gets hurt and pissed at you. As a result of that, I'd houserule it would become inert until you make amends (better be creative!).




> can a steel defender attune to magic items?


Well, it is a creature capable of individual actions regardless of your commands, though doubtful if it can make decisions like that.




> can i put armor on a steel defender?


Sure thing. Although, it wouldn't have proficiency so it would be subject to whatever penalties it entails.

----------


## diplomancer

> As you've said, it lists "some" consequences. That does not mean the list is exhaustive.


Yes, it does. Or, at the very least, I'd be very cautious before adding effects to any spell, that are not listed in its description. Therein lies madness, controversies, and horribly unbalanced games. In the case of Feeblemind, long before considering the effects of the spell on attunement, I'd consider it on _ proficiencies_ , and yet someone under the effects of the spell is still just as capable of wielding a sword or picking a lock as before.




> One thing to note is that PHB (and thus, _Feeblemind_ spell) was published long before DMG and the magic item rules.


If by "long before" you mean "a few months", then sure. I personally find it hard to believe that the concept of attunement was entirely out of the developer's mental field when the PHB was being written, only to appear fully developed in the DMG a few months later. 

And, anyway, this argument proves too much, since all magic items that are "activated" were only published with the DMG, not the PHB (a potion of healing is drunk, not activated), and still Feeblemind mentions those magic items and restricts their use- further evidence, if any was needed, that the books were developed side-by-side, and not sequentially.

----------


## FabulousFizban

> I am curious what the OP had in mind for attuned items? Ring of spell storing?


Hadn't got that far, figured I should ask if it was possible first.

----------

