I may have missed it but I was told the Artificer s treated lie a divine caster, meaning technically they KNOW all their spells they just choose what ones to prepare, But it is mention in lvl 6 Prototype wand, that you can put a cantrip into the wand, "Even ones you do not know " from the artificer list... so does that mean they are NOT treated as a divine caster after all?
Even divine casters don't know all the cantrips on their list and cannot choose to prepare different ones every long rest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I may have missed it but I was told the Artificer s treated lie a divine caster, meaning technically they KNOW all their spells they just choose what ones to prepare, But it is mention in lvl 6 Prototype wand, that you can put a cantrip into the wand, "Even ones you do not know " from the artificer list... so does that mean they are NOT treated as a divine caster after all?
Even divine casters don't know all the cantrips on their list and cannot choose to prepare different ones every long rest.
They are treated like a divine caster in the fact they know every artificer spell of a level they can cast and have to choose which to prepare, unlike a Wizard that has to find each spell they can put into the spellbooks they have. Artificer are 1 up on every spell caster with cantrips as they can change one when they go up a level or at 10th level change the cantrip on a rest.
I may have missed it but I was told the Artificer s treated lie a divine caster, meaning technically they KNOW all their spells they just choose what ones to prepare, But it is mention in lvl 6 Prototype wand, that you can put a cantrip into the wand, "Even ones you do not know " from the artificer list... so does that mean they are NOT treated as a divine caster after all?
The Artificer is like the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin in that they are able to chose their spell list after a long rest. However, because of the nature of the Artificer's Artillerist they are able to use any cantrip from the Artificer list for the Wand Prototype ability. Additionally, when the the Artificer reaches level 10 they get The Right Cantrip for the Job which allows them change a single cantrip after a short or long rest.
There is nothing inventive about giving a subclass more spells instead of coming up with a better ability/feature.
I guess cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, and warlock subclasses need new features then.
Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are spellcasters and not all spells in their subclasses spell lists fit that specific subclass (the Insect Plague spell doesn't fit the Cleric's Tempest subclass, Cone of Cold would be a better choice). The spell lists for the Paladin fit the subclasses, plus the Paladin class does not prioritize spell casting like D&D did with the Artificer. Finally, the Ranger didn't have subclass spell lists until XGtE and even then those spells fit those subclasses and there are only 5 spells each for those 3 subclasses (compared to the 10 spells each for the Artificer's subclasses).
Obviously they are not all in the same situation. I was merely pointing out that apparently these 5 classes have multiple subclasses with "non-inventive" features.
I will admit that the specialist spells could be chosen better. And if the base artificer had a more diverse spell list, it wouldn't matter as much that the subclass spells be perfectly chosen.
And the ranger was significantly underpowered before the XGtE subclasses (still kind of is, but slightly improved), so that is not a point for your argument.
Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are spellcasters and not all spells in their subclasses spell lists fit that specific subclass (the Insect Plague spell doesn't fit the Cleric's Tempest subclass, Cone of Cold would be a better choice). The spell lists for the Paladin fit the subclasses, plus the Paladin class does not prioritize spell casting like D&D did with the Artificer. Finally, the Ranger didn't have subclass spell lists until XGtE and even then those spells fit those subclasses and there are only 5 spells each for those 3 subclasses (compared to the 10 spells each for the Artificer's subclasses).
Obviously they are not all in the same situation. I was merely pointing out that apparently these 5 classes have multiple subclasses with "non-inventive" features.
I will admit that the specialist spells could be chosen better. And if the base artificer had a more diverse spell list, it wouldn't matter as much that the subclass spells be perfectly chosen.
And the ranger was significantly underpowered before the XGtE subclasses (still kind of is, but slightly improved), so that is not a point for your argument.
Once again the Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are spellcasters and they have other abilities/features besides spellcasting. The Paladin and Ranger are not dependent on their spellcasting ability. It is your opinion that they Ranger was underpowered.
When WotC/D&D first released the first Artificer UA in 2017, there were no subclass spell lists. And while the class and subclasses were broken, the class and subclasses did not have the feel of being a spellcaster. When they released the completely new Artificer UA in 2019, the class became essentially a spellcaster. So, instead of coming up with abilities and features that were not dependent on spellcasting, they expanded on the class' spell list (some of which I agree with and some I don't) , gave the class and some of the subclasses abilities/ features that worked with the class' spellcasting ability, and gave all of the subclasses spell lists.
To be fare the only Artificer subclass that should keep their spell list is the Artillerist as it fits that subclass (in my own opinion). But other than that the spell list for the rest of the subclasses should go away and I think the Archivist should be a Wizard subclass. Also, the Artificer doesn't need a more diverse spell list. The Artificer class is a support type class and it doesn't need divine or direct damaging spells. As a matter of fact, in my own opinion I believe that all direct damaging and divine spells should be removed from the spell list.
Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are spellcasters and not all spells in their subclasses spell lists fit that specific subclass (the Insect Plague spell doesn't fit the Cleric's Tempest subclass, Cone of Cold would be a better choice). The spell lists for the Paladin fit the subclasses, plus the Paladin class does not prioritize spell casting like D&D did with the Artificer. Finally, the Ranger didn't have subclass spell lists until XGtE and even then those spells fit those subclasses and there are only 5 spells each for those 3 subclasses (compared to the 10 spells each for the Artificer's subclasses).
Obviously they are not all in the same situation. I was merely pointing out that apparently these 5 classes have multiple subclasses with "non-inventive" features.
I will admit that the specialist spells could be chosen better. And if the base artificer had a more diverse spell list, it wouldn't matter as much that the subclass spells be perfectly chosen.
And the ranger was significantly underpowered before the XGtE subclasses (still kind of is, but slightly improved), so that is not a point for your argument.
Once again the Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are spellcasters and they have other abilities/features besides spellcasting. The Paladin and Ranger are not dependent on their spellcasting ability. It is your opinion that they Ranger was underpowered.
When WotC/D&D first released the first Artificer UA in 2017, there were no subclass spell lists. And while the class and subclasses were broken, the class and subclasses did not have the feel of being a spellcaster. When they released the completely new Artificer UA in 2019, the class became essentially a spellcaster. So, instead of coming up with abilities and features that were not dependent on spellcasting, they expanded on the class' spell list (some of which I agree with and some I don't) , gave the class and some of the subclasses abilities/ features that worked with the class' spellcasting ability, and gave all of the subclasses spell lists.
To be fare the only Artificer subclass that should keep their spell list is the Artillerist as it fits that subclass (in my own opinion). But other than that the spell list for the rest of the subclasses should go away and I think the Archivist should be a Wizard subclass. Also, the Artificer doesn't need a more diverse spell list. The Artificer class is a support type class and it doesn't need divine or direct damaging spells. As a matter of fact, all direct damaging and divine spells should be removed from the spell list.
You understand how it looks when you use phrases like "As a matter of fact..." when you're giving opinions, don't you?
Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are spellcasters and not all spells in their subclasses spell lists fit that specific subclass (the Insect Plague spell doesn't fit the Cleric's Tempest subclass, Cone of Cold would be a better choice). The spell lists for the Paladin fit the subclasses, plus the Paladin class does not prioritize spell casting like D&D did with the Artificer. Finally, the Ranger didn't have subclass spell lists until XGtE and even then those spells fit those subclasses and there are only 5 spells each for those 3 subclasses (compared to the 10 spells each for the Artificer's subclasses).
Obviously they are not all in the same situation. I was merely pointing out that apparently these 5 classes have multiple subclasses with "non-inventive" features.
I will admit that the specialist spells could be chosen better. And if the base artificer had a more diverse spell list, it wouldn't matter as much that the subclass spells be perfectly chosen.
And the ranger was significantly underpowered before the XGtE subclasses (still kind of is, but slightly improved), so that is not a point for your argument.
Once again the Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are spellcasters and they have other abilities/features besides spellcasting. The Paladin and Ranger are not dependent on their spellcasting ability. It is your opinion that they Ranger was underpowered.
When WotC/D&D first released the first Artificer UA in 2017, there were no subclass spell lists. And while the class and subclasses were broken, the class and subclasses did not have the feel of being a spellcaster. When they released the completely new Artificer UA in 2019, the class became essentially a spellcaster. So, instead of coming up with abilities and features that were not dependent on spellcasting, they expanded on the class' spell list (some of which I agree with and some I don't) , gave the class and some of the subclasses abilities/ features that worked with the class' spellcasting ability, and gave all of the subclasses spell lists.
To be fare the only Artificer subclass that should keep their spell list is the Artillerist as it fits that subclass (in my own opinion). But other than that the spell list for the rest of the subclasses should go away and I think the Archivist should be a Wizard subclass. Also, the Artificer doesn't need a more diverse spell list. The Artificer class is a support type class and it doesn't need divine or direct damaging spells. As a matter of fact, all direct damaging and divine spells should be removed from the spell list.
You understand how it looks when you use phrases like "As a matter of fact..." when you're giving opinions, don't you?
You are correct. I try to check my work before I post it. I have made the necessary changes to show that I am stating my own opinion.
[23m] Question about the archivist text "storing information in a real or an artificial mind" - turns out this was referencing an earlier version which could manipulate minds, and was left in by mistake. It will be removed in the next version.
[24m] Question if battle smith might get a feature that removes the melee clause of their smite spells - actually they will likely be swapping those particular spells out, so that the battle smith has full flexibility to fight at any range.
[32m] Question if they've considered an artificer subclass that focuses on special armor (i.e. wears their construct) - response was that it could happen someday, but can already use the Enhanced Defense infusion for this purpose e.g. make it visually special, use it as your focus. They did consider an Izzet themed subclass focused on power armor, but following play feedback they'd rather introduce power armor as a magic item for all artificers than limit it to a single subclass.
[37m] Question of how many hours are in a crafting workday (questioner was thinking of alchemist especially) - a workday is 8 hours, a workweek is 5 days of 8 hours.
[54m] Question if they will add a mechanic for other casters to flavor their spells like artificers - maybe, but Jeremy also says that the PHB already encourages spell casting flavor to be influenced by use of different focus items.
[58m] Will alchemists get more items to make with their herbalism kit (does it formally make any right now?) - maybe... Jeremy suggests can use as a focus to flavor spells (presumably thinking of restorations & buffs). DM's could allow its use as part of making magic ointments, but there's nothing in XGTE to make that formal.
So from the sound of it, these Dragon+ Q&A's are very heavily suggesting that there will be another Unearthed Arcana for the Artificer before it sees a release.
So from the sound of it, these Dragon+ Q&A's are very heavily suggesting that there will be another Unearthed Arcana for the Artificer before it sees a release.
It certainly seems like there should be one more - for instance the next/final alchemist will look nothing like the one we have now (no base extra attack or pet) - but if they are really confident of sticking the landing they could bypass it. With how spaced out releases tend to be - and some on the horizon already - I think they definitely have a window for doing so though, even if it is more of a draft version to build hype.
Trying to understand the wording on Infusions. Am I correct in reading that infusing items can only take place immediately after a long rest, when spells would be prepared again?
Rules as written, that does appear to be the case for infusing items. Rules as intended, the designers of this game will not make you choose between infusing items and preparing spells after a long rest, if that's what you're concerned about. And if that is the intent of the rules for the class, there's always houserules.
I think I understand what you were thinking. As written, yes the item infusions are static choices you can make at the end of a long rest that persist until the end of your next long rest and at no other time.
Hey guys, first time poster here, wonder if someone can help me out.
I have a player playing the revised artificer in my home game. He has selected the Battle Smith. The issue i'm having is with what the Iron Defender can and can’t do.
My interpretation of the rules as written are as follow:
Even on your command the iron defender can only take the following actions: Dodge, Dash, Disengage or Help. Outside of actions listed on the stat block.
When given one of those commands it will execute it on its turn immediately after yours.
If no commands were given this turn it can only dodge, move or use its reaction.
The issue we are having is that the players is insisting that the above is only the case inside combat. Outside combat they believe that the Iron Defender can execute multi action tasks like guarding items or camp while its master sleeps. Or tell it that if this person attempts to do this task then use aid, even if I’m not currently present.
The players justification for this is that the text says “It is friendly to you and your companions, and it obeys your commands.” So it will do whatever I say and “In combat, the iron defender shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. 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 one of the actions in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, or Help action.” Only applies in combat. Also that because it has an int score it is capable of free thinking.
My stance is that as far as 5e is concerned there is no distinct difference between in combat and out of combat. They are the same just slowed down to make the fast paced nature of combat manageable.
Id really like someone to weigh in on this just to make sure im not way off base.
I personally would rule that it can follow simple commands like "guard the thing", "carry this", or "keep watch"; as far as more complicated commands go, I would say that it could follow a specific command like "follow [x pary member] and help them climb the mountain", but that it can only follow one such command at a time without the player there to direct it, and it can't pull off extremely complex sequences like in a Mission: Impossible heist.
Now granted, I'm a fairly permissive DM, but that's how I would go about it.
Everything has an INT score, so that doesn't mean much in itself... however I personally feel with INT 4 it has a similar level of sentience to a familiar or paladin steed, so would expect it to be quite capable of actions like guarding or - at the very top of the scale - following an ally and pouncing on anyone who attacks them.
However; while INT 4 is well above bestial intelligence it is still less than the INT 6 of a paladin steed, which represents a well-trained companion with the capacity for quick thinking - so I wouldn't hold back emphasising this is still basically intellect at the level of a well trained dog/weasel/whatever. E.g.
ID told to guard the camp > spots a squirrel and barks/roars till BS wakes.
ID told to carry a precious item > won't relinquish it to anyone but the BS - allies would have to destroy it & pry the item loose, if BS not around.
ID told to accompany party member & protect them > it won't stop doing so until the BS says so, no matter how much they shout at it or try to ditch it.
While it understands language, it won't necessarily grasp nuance (or at least be on a leaning curve) and it is 100% obedient to its creator only - if they want to 'share' its loyalty or designate some kind of control object/word for it (i.e. any instruction that begins with "Simon says"), they have to live with the consequences of those over-rides being out there.
Hey guys, first time poster here, wonder if someone can help me out.
I have a player playing the revised artificer in my home game. He has selected the Battle Smith. The issue i'm having is with what the Iron Defender can and can’t do.
My interpretation of the rules as written are as follow:
Even on your command the iron defender can only take the following actions: Dodge, Dash, Disengage or Help. Outside of actions listed on the stat block.
When given one of those commands it will execute it on its turn immediately after yours.
If no commands were given this turn it can only dodge, move or use its reaction.
The issue we are having is that the players is insisting that the above is only the case inside combat. Outside combat they believe that the Iron Defender can execute multi action tasks like guarding items or camp while its master sleeps. Or tell it that if this person attempts to do this task then use aid, even if I’m not currently present.
The players justification for this is that the text says “It is friendly to you and your companions, and it obeys your commands.” So it will do whatever I say and “In combat, the iron defender shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. 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 one of the actions in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, or Help action.” Only applies in combat. Also that because it has an int score it is capable of free thinking.
My stance is that as far as 5e is concerned there is no distinct difference between in combat and out of combat. They are the same just slowed down to make the fast paced nature of combat manageable.
Id really like someone to weigh in on this just to make sure im not way off base.
Thanks in advance.
As far as being supper ridged rules as written you have the right as GM to limit "pet companions" to be no more than a weapon/combat tool.... I would highly recommend against that. Just like Beast master Rangers, Pact of the Chain Warlocks, and Wizards with Familiars…. Artificer companions are a creative tool and using it to keep watch, placing a standing order to defend or assist and ally all seem completely reasonable for a sentient creature, even a basic guard dog. There is no problem that this creates that GM can't over come and it adds flavor to the game and agency to the player using what they have available to them... which are both good things. If you want to limit it, I would recommend allowing it to do one of these things but can't change unless the Battle Smith orders it however this is easily over come by the Battle Smith ordering the Iron Defender to Obey a specific Player Character until the BattleSmith returns. That just means that the player left with it controls it for encounters as if it's their "pet companion" instead of the Battle smith if your problem is that the Battlesmith player is directly involved in all things. If the Battle smith assigns it to guard X instead it will guard X until dead even if that would cause conflict. It will keep watch and warn allies even as they fight....."shut up already!! We know hostile enemies are approaching them we are fighting them already!!" and if it was assigned to help a character when they perform action X it will do that but not defend them however, even a dog would protect an ally in danger if it considered it an ally aka part of its pack and this is an Iron Defender...so perhaps "1 order + Defensive Pounce unless the Battle smith relinquishes control to another player" is a good rule for a minor limitation without stealing player agency and the fun flavor that a companion like this can add to the game for the whole party. In a way this is even more of gift to the party because when another player takes if the Iron Defender becomes more of a tool for the group like having one friend with a working car everyone is always asking to borrow which makes for some interesting in party interaction where they all like this thing but the Battle Smith doesn't want to loan it out all the time because its his.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
My concerns were mostly around the player spotlight hogging. I was basicly trying to figure out what the intended rules as written were for what it could and couldn't do so I had a base to build from. There is a history of arguing with DM rulings unless hard text can be provided to back it up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Even divine casters don't know all the cantrips on their list and cannot choose to prepare different ones every long rest.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
They are treated like a divine caster in the fact they know every artificer spell of a level they can cast and have to choose which to prepare, unlike a Wizard that has to find each spell they can put into the spellbooks they have. Artificer are 1 up on every spell caster with cantrips as they can change one when they go up a level or at 10th level change the cantrip on a rest.
The Artificer is like the Cleric, Druid, and Paladin in that they are able to chose their spell list after a long rest. However, because of the nature of the Artificer's Artillerist they are able to use any cantrip from the Artificer list for the Wand Prototype ability. Additionally, when the the Artificer reaches level 10 they get The Right Cantrip for the Job which allows them change a single cantrip after a short or long rest.
Obviously they are not all in the same situation. I was merely pointing out that apparently these 5 classes have multiple subclasses with "non-inventive" features.
I will admit that the specialist spells could be chosen better. And if the base artificer had a more diverse spell list, it wouldn't matter as much that the subclass spells be perfectly chosen.
And the ranger was significantly underpowered before the XGtE subclasses (still kind of is, but slightly improved), so that is not a point for your argument.
Once again the Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are spellcasters and they have other abilities/features besides spellcasting. The Paladin and Ranger are not dependent on their spellcasting ability. It is your opinion that they Ranger was underpowered.
When WotC/D&D first released the first Artificer UA in 2017, there were no subclass spell lists. And while the class and subclasses were broken, the class and subclasses did not have the feel of being a spellcaster. When they released the completely new Artificer UA in 2019, the class became essentially a spellcaster. So, instead of coming up with abilities and features that were not dependent on spellcasting, they expanded on the class' spell list (some of which I agree with and some I don't) , gave the class and some of the subclasses abilities/ features that worked with the class' spellcasting ability, and gave all of the subclasses spell lists.
To be fare the only Artificer subclass that should keep their spell list is the Artillerist as it fits that subclass (in my own opinion). But other than that the spell list for the rest of the subclasses should go away and I think the Archivist should be a Wizard subclass. Also, the Artificer doesn't need a more diverse spell list. The Artificer class is a support type class and it doesn't need divine or direct damaging spells. As a matter of fact, in my own opinion I believe that all direct damaging and divine spells should be removed from the spell list.
You understand how it looks when you use phrases like "As a matter of fact..." when you're giving opinions, don't you?
You are correct. I try to check my work before I post it. I have made the necessary changes to show that I am stating my own opinion.
A new Dragon+ is out: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/441371062
Artificer content:
So from the sound of it, these Dragon+ Q&A's are very heavily suggesting that there will be another Unearthed Arcana for the Artificer before it sees a release.
It certainly seems like there should be one more - for instance the next/final alchemist will look nothing like the one we have now (no base extra attack or pet) - but if they are really confident of sticking the landing they could bypass it. With how spaced out releases tend to be - and some on the horizon already - I think they definitely have a window for doing so though, even if it is more of a draft version to build hype.
Trying to understand the wording on Infusions. Am I correct in reading that infusing items can only take place immediately after a long rest, when spells would be prepared again?
Rules as written, that does appear to be the case for infusing items. Rules as intended, the designers of this game will not make you choose between infusing items and preparing spells after a long rest, if that's what you're concerned about. And if that is the intent of the rules for the class, there's always houserules.
I was more thinking in combat, on the fly, swapping wands as needed, etc till I went back and reread the section.
I think I understand what you were thinking. As written, yes the item infusions are static choices you can make at the end of a long rest that persist until the end of your next long rest and at no other time.
Yeah unfortunately that would probably be too much flexibility, same as if you would be allowed to swap prepared spells on the fly during combat.
You do get like 5 infused items quickly which is already a lot of infusions to swap between.
Hey guys, first time poster here, wonder if someone can help me out.
I have a player playing the revised artificer in my home game. He has selected the Battle Smith. The issue i'm having is with what the Iron Defender can and can’t do.
My interpretation of the rules as written are as follow:
The issue we are having is that the players is insisting that the above is only the case inside combat. Outside combat they believe that the Iron Defender can execute multi action tasks like guarding items or camp while its master sleeps. Or tell it that if this person attempts to do this task then use aid, even if I’m not currently present.
The players justification for this is that the text says “It is friendly to you and your companions, and it obeys your commands.” So it will do whatever I say and “In combat, the iron defender shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. 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 one of the actions in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, or Help action.” Only applies in combat. Also that because it has an int score it is capable of free thinking.
My stance is that as far as 5e is concerned there is no distinct difference between in combat and out of combat. They are the same just slowed down to make the fast paced nature of combat manageable.
Id really like someone to weigh in on this just to make sure im not way off base.
Thanks in advance.
I personally would rule that it can follow simple commands like "guard the thing", "carry this", or "keep watch"; as far as more complicated commands go, I would say that it could follow a specific command like "follow [x pary member] and help them climb the mountain", but that it can only follow one such command at a time without the player there to direct it, and it can't pull off extremely complex sequences like in a Mission: Impossible heist.
Now granted, I'm a fairly permissive DM, but that's how I would go about it.
Everything has an INT score, so that doesn't mean much in itself... however I personally feel with INT 4 it has a similar level of sentience to a familiar or paladin steed, so would expect it to be quite capable of actions like guarding or - at the very top of the scale - following an ally and pouncing on anyone who attacks them.
However; while INT 4 is well above bestial intelligence it is still less than the INT 6 of a paladin steed, which represents a well-trained companion with the capacity for quick thinking - so I wouldn't hold back emphasising this is still basically intellect at the level of a well trained dog/weasel/whatever. E.g.
While it understands language, it won't necessarily grasp nuance (or at least be on a leaning curve) and it is 100% obedient to its creator only - if they want to 'share' its loyalty or designate some kind of control object/word for it (i.e. any instruction that begins with "Simon says"), they have to live with the consequences of those over-rides being out there.
As far as being supper ridged rules as written you have the right as GM to limit "pet companions" to be no more than a weapon/combat tool.... I would highly recommend against that. Just like Beast master Rangers, Pact of the Chain Warlocks, and Wizards with Familiars…. Artificer companions are a creative tool and using it to keep watch, placing a standing order to defend or assist and ally all seem completely reasonable for a sentient creature, even a basic guard dog. There is no problem that this creates that GM can't over come and it adds flavor to the game and agency to the player using what they have available to them... which are both good things. If you want to limit it, I would recommend allowing it to do one of these things but can't change unless the Battle Smith orders it however this is easily over come by the Battle Smith ordering the Iron Defender to Obey a specific Player Character until the BattleSmith returns. That just means that the player left with it controls it for encounters as if it's their "pet companion" instead of the Battle smith if your problem is that the Battlesmith player is directly involved in all things. If the Battle smith assigns it to guard X instead it will guard X until dead even if that would cause conflict. It will keep watch and warn allies even as they fight....."shut up already!! We know hostile enemies are approaching them we are fighting them already!!" and if it was assigned to help a character when they perform action X it will do that but not defend them however, even a dog would protect an ally in danger if it considered it an ally aka part of its pack and this is an Iron Defender...so perhaps "1 order + Defensive Pounce unless the Battle smith relinquishes control to another player" is a good rule for a minor limitation without stealing player agency and the fun flavor that a companion like this can add to the game for the whole party. In a way this is even more of gift to the party because when another player takes if the Iron Defender becomes more of a tool for the group like having one friend with a working car everyone is always asking to borrow which makes for some interesting in party interaction where they all like this thing but the Battle Smith doesn't want to loan it out all the time because its his.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Thanks for the responses!
My concerns were mostly around the player spotlight hogging. I was basicly trying to figure out what the intended rules as written were for what it could and couldn't do so I had a base to build from. There is a history of arguing with DM rulings unless hard text can be provided to back it up.