The artificer returns

[Anderlith]

Went back and updated my review with the last two subclasses added to it.

What justifies getting rid of the Homunculi? Artificers have always had them

[Tetrasodium]

What justifies getting rid of the Homunculi? Artificers have always had them

They have yes, but I thing that with the way 5e as a system is structured it might be really hard to make a fun & interesting to play artificer that also has a meaningful homunculi. There is basically no drawback to losing your familiar now & improved familiar is no longer a feat+problematic enough as a warlock pact that I'd not want to see it replicated. The current crop of artificer archtypes are both interesting and thematically fitting to the setting & it's lore. Neither Tesslar(blade of flame books), Tenquis (heirs of dhakaan books), or Lei(dreaming dark books) seemed to have one & all were pretty awesome artificers in their respective non-cannon* novels.

*By design no eberron novel is or will ever be considered cannon including the ones written by keith baker himself. Great sources to mine for info/fluff/depth yes, but not cannon. This avoids the "but in drizzt book 42 it says that..." problem with the cannon novels of other settings.

[Anderlith]

Snip

So... the class should be limited by ephemeral tangential novels that should not be considered cannon which are all based on the ideas presented in TTRPGs?

That’s your justification? The Artificer is already struggling with the low-magic limitations of 5e. Crafting rules, magic items, & feats are already “optional”. So they have to careful design this class to not set on any toes or encourage feat taxes. This is why they have repeating crossbows & +x wands. Not because they want to make the Artificer more powerful but because they don’t want to impose or invalidate certain builds. Homunculi are a core part of Artificers, & I’m glad that they are giving variety to the subclasses the way they are.

[Misterwhisper]

What justifies getting rid of the Homunculi? Artificers have always had them

I didn't say anything about getting rid of homunculi, I said get rid of iron defender and just make a combat pet centric subclass and let battle smith be the weapon based artificer subclass.

[Anderlith]

I didn't say anything about getting rid of homunculi, I said get rid of iron defender and just make a combat pet centric subclass and let battle smith be the weapon based artificer subclass.

So, which Homunculus would they get?

[Misterwhisper]

So, which Homunculus would they get?

You are using homunculi to mean the pet of every subclass, however, the actual term homunculus is only the name of the alchemist subclass pet.

I said get rid of iron defender the pet for the battle smith.

They don't need a pet, they are built to be the weapon user subclass. Just give them better personal abilities with no pet.

Make a stand alone subclass that specifically gets a very nice pet as its main point not just tacked on with the battle smith.

Not every artificer needs a pet.

[Arkhios]

So, which Homunculus would they get?

[Anderlith]

You are using homunculi to mean the pet of every subclass, however, the actual term homunculus is only the name of the alchemist subclass pet.

I said get rid of iron defender the pet for the battle smith.

They don't need a pet, they are built to be the weapon user subclass. Just give them better personal abilities with no pet.

Make a stand alone subclass that specifically gets a very nice pet as its main point not just tacked on with the battle smith.

Not every artificer needs a pet.

Iron Defender is a Homunculus variant introduced in the Eberron books, you know, the one which introduced the Artificer? You want to take an iconic class feature away from them.

[Arkhios]

You are using homunculi to mean the pet of every subclass, however, the actual term homunculus is only the name of the alchemist subclass pet.

I said get rid of iron defender the pet for the battle smith.

They don't need a pet, they are built to be the weapon user subclass. Just give them better personal abilities with no pet.

Make a stand alone subclass that specifically gets a very nice pet as its main point not just tacked on with the battle smith.

Not every artificer needs a pet.

To be honest, before looking at it's details, I half-expected Battle Smith to be more like the Self-forged from 4th edition.

[Misterwhisper]

To be honest, before looking at it's details, I half-expected Battle Smith to be more like the Self-forged from 4th edition.

I was thinking more like a hex blade/eldritch knight, yet it is more like a beast master with a hex blade dip.

[jaappleton]

To be honest, before looking at it's details, I half-expected Battle Smith to be more like the Self-forged from 4th edition.

That's pretty much exactly what I expected, too.

[Garfunion]

To be honest, before looking at it's details, I half-expected Battle Smith to be more like the Self-forged from 4th edition.

That is what I was thinking. I would give the iron defender to the Archivist, they seem to be more bookworm-y and would need a bodyguard.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That is what I was thinking. I would give the iron defender to the Archivist, they seem to be more bookworm-y and would need a bodyguard.

By that logic wizards should be the companion class. I don't think the Archivist is a great fit, unless we take out the entire Artificial Mind to put in Iron Defender, then its not really an Archivist anymore.

I agree with the party who says that Battle Smith currently appears to be two subclasses joined at the hip. There's a martial based class in there and there's also the companion class, they shouldn't be the same class.

[Garfunion]

By that logic wizards should be the companion class. I don't think the Archivist is a great fit, unless we take out the entire Artificial Mind to put in Iron Defender, then its not really an Archivist anymore.

I was thinking more of giving them a basic iron defender and going a different direction with the subclass (while keeping the archivist concept). But you are right, perhaps I should have brainstormed the redesign of the subclass a bit more before I posted an cut/paste iron defender feature.

[Tetrasodium]

So... the class should be limited by ephemeral tangential novels that should not be considered cannon which are all based on the ideas presented in TTRPGs?

That’s your justification? The Artificer is already struggling with the low-magic limitations of 5e. Crafting rules, magic items, & feats are already “optional”. So they have to careful design this class to not set on any toes or encourage feat taxes. This is why they have repeating crossbows & +x wands. Not because they want to make the Artificer more powerful but because they don’t want to impose or invalidate certain builds. Homunculi are a core part of Artificers, & I’m glad that they are giving variety to the subclasses the way they are.

uhhh... That is practically the opposite of what I said. The differences between versions are too great in too many ways for a direct 1:1 conversion to really work. every artificer archtype currently has a fancy thematic homunculi-like thing (turret/ai/homonculi/iron defender) & taking them away to add a homoculi would hurt them both in terms of being interesting/thematic and in terms of being useful. I mentioned the few known artificers in the novels not having one despite being very artificery to show that it's very reasonable to not have a creature called a "homonculous" and still be a great example of an artificer. The artificer archtypes have an ability that cuts down on time it takes to craft stuff already, move right cantrip for the job to a more reasonable level & you effectively have the benefits of the homonculi back home crafting your stuff.

With some of the differences between 3.5 & 5e, the current artificer archtypes fit eberron better than the original in some ways.

[Anderlith]

The Battlesmith is perfect, the ID allows him to have a few nifty options in melee & allows him to have a measure of defense/control if they go Ranged. Other than that, they don’t do much, they don’t step on any toes & the meat of the subclass is focused on their he Battlesmith.

The Archivist is too alien for most to really consider how to handle them right now. The only real flaw I see in it is that the manifested mind is invulnerable. I say give it 5HP per level & an 11 AC. I would much prefer it mimicked the furtive filtcher or dedicated wright. The mind having its own skills is the right way to go, the indestructible lightning rod is not.

[Anderlith]

snip

You want to get rid of an iconic class feature. That is what I said. That is also what YOU said. I’m telling you that it is wrong to do so. The Iron Defender matches perfectly to what Battlesmith Artificers are & do. Your noncannonal, non source material, third tier fictional book characters are not going to persuade me. Your argument is no different than demanding Barbarians give up Rage, or a Rogue give up their skills

[jaappleton]

Can everyone here do me one small favor?

Please, shout any and all Artificer build ideas at me.

I'm trying to think of a few and my brain is just fried from work. So... If you could help a guy out, I'd appreciate it.

[Wildarm]

Can everyone here do me one small favor?

Please, shout any and all Artificer build ideas at me.

I'm trying to think of a few and my brain is just fried from work. So... If you could help a guy out, I'd appreciate it.

We've been discussion some here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...lesmith-Builds

Also further back in this thread I posted a few concepts.

Another fun concept. Probably more useful with a Tier 2/3 Start:

Cyborg Artificer:
1/2 Elf
Starting Stats
8 Str, 16 Dex, 10 Con, 8 Int, 16 Wis, 16 Cha

Survive with that low Con till level 16. :P

Then with your 3 infusions get Amulet of Health, Belt of Hill Giant Str, Headband of Intellect, Put your 4 ASIs in - 2x Dex 2x Wis
Stats at level 16:
21 Str, 20 Dex, 19 Con, 19 Int, 20 Wis, 16 Cha

Fluff it as your augmenting your body with mechanical devices. You're more machine than man/elf.

Avoid Beholders...

[Misterwhisper]

You want to get rid of an iconic class feature. That is what I said. That is also what YOU said. I’m telling you that it is wrong to do so. The Iron Defender matches perfectly to what Battlesmith Artificers are & do. Your noncannonal, non source material, third tier fictional book characters are not going to persuade me. Your argument is no different than demanding Barbarians give up Rage, or a Rogue give up their skills

barbarians did give up the way rage used to work
rogues did give up unique skill trainings and their huge skill numbers.
All martial classes gave up their higher to hit bonuses.

Just because a class did something years ago does not mean a thing.

Warlocks did not even cast spells at all originally, bards were not full casters, casters used to fail spells because they wore armor.

Welcome to 5e where no body cares what the sacred cow of a class used to be.

[Anderlith]

barbarians did give up the way rage used to work
rogues did give up unique skill trainings and their huge skill numbers.
All martial classes gave up their higher to hit bonuses.

Just because a class did something years ago does not mean a thing.

Warlocks did not even cast spells at all originally, bards were not full casters, casters used to fail spells because they wore armor.

Welcome to 5e where no body cares what the sacred cow of a class used to be.

Barbarians still have rage
Rogues still have the most skills
Martial still have the most attacks
Bards were always casters

Artificers used to not only pick which specific Homunculus they wanted but could also enhance them with things like armor, damage & flight. Stop acting like it’s anathema, because you want to perfectly replicate some obscure watered down book character

[Misterwhisper]

Barbarians still have rage
Rogues still have the most skills
Martial still have the most attacks
Bards were always casters

Artificers used to not only pick which specific Homunculus they wanted but could also enhance them with things like armor, damage & flight. Stop acting like it’s anathema, because you want to perfectly replicate some obscure watered down book character

I never mentioned a thing about book characters you are getting who you are complaining to backwards.

[jaappleton]

Also, let's all be clear on one thing regarding the Artificer:

Its designed, at least for 5E, to be the swiss army knife. They can heal, they blast a little, they can hit, they have skills... But they don't out-do any other class.

Except at being versatile. This is where they shine. At being able to do almost anything fairly well.

Can they out-smite a Paladin?
Can they out-heal a full caster?
Can it out blast a Wizard or Sorc?
Can it out-skill the Rogue?
Can it out-buff a Cleric, or Divine Soul?

....Nope.

Can it do a bit of all that? Absolutely.

[Rukelnikov]

Barbarians still have rage
Rogues still have the most skills
Martial still have the most attacks
Bards were always casters

Artificers used to not only pick which specific Homunculus they wanted but could also enhance them with things like armor, damage & flight. Stop acting like it’s anathema, because you want to perfectly replicate some obscure watered down book character

Edition changed, game changed, classes changed.

Druids and Rangers had the best companions in the game, Druid lost it completely, Ranger needs to take a specific subclass to get it.

You can't expect a 5e Artificer to be comparable to a 3.x one, most classes aren't comparable.

[Anderlith]

Edition changed, game changed, classes changed.

Druids and Rangers had the best companions in the game, Druid lost it completely, Ranger needs to take a specific subclass to get it.

You can't expect a 5e Artificer to be comparable to a 3.x one, most classes aren't comparable.

I understand that, but this Artificer works surprisingly well. A vocal minority is raising a stink because they don’t want Artificers to have homunculi, mostly because they don’t seem to want “pets” in general, ignorant of the fact it was a class feature, & is being implemented in a wonderful, streamlined way

[jaappleton]

I understand that, but this Artificer works surprisingly well. A vocal minority is raising a stink because they don’t want Artificers to have homunculi, mostly because they don’t seem to want “pets” in general, ignorant of the fact it was a class feature, & is being implemented in a wonderful, streamlined way

I won't lie, I'm not a 'pet' kind of player. I won't play a summoner style character, because I find rolling for all the summons just slows my turn to a crawl.

Even just one pet, I'm not too keen on.

But... I might have to deal with one if I want to make the Artificer that I want.

[Mjolnirbear]

Ok, I finally got some free time, so an analysis.

Thank you for a critique. You make many points, so I'm going to only address certain ones.

- Simple weapons + Crossbows
This was obviously just put there to make sure that people could get the most out of one of their infusions.

Actually the infusion wasn't there the first time around. I think its that the crossbow is iconic in a way to the artificer.

Thieves and tinkers tools, + 1 extra artisan tools.
Fits thematically but a little much honestly.
With a background you can easily start with 5 tool proficiencies, more if you get one from race.

Except for thieves tools, tools are ribbons. You go into this point many times, but the most salient point you make here is that the party artificer is likely hogging the spotlight here. This isn't anything new, though; just like a thief can be better at persuading than a paladin, sorcerer, warlock or bard. Many tables take this into account and avoid overlapping abilities anyways; doing this for tools is no different and matters significantly less than it does for skills.

Tools are a role-playing hook only. It's one of the reasons I personally think Performance and Animal Handling, two of the least-used skills, should have been tools instead.

Saves of Con + Int
Well that is about the best that any caster would ever want. Main casting stat and the Con for your concentration checks.
Huge bonus there.

According to all the minmax guides, con proficiency is all but required. I'm not sure I agree but many do indeed rate it strong. This is not unprecedented though, as sorcerers get it too.

Gee, I wonder how long it will be before people try to argue that you can't counterspell an artificer because you can't see them casting...
That is a VERY bad sentence to put in the description that is just screaming to be metagamed by powergamers.

And yet was there not just a huge thread about the RAW regarding material components and counterspells? Including foci?

Power gamers will powergame. We cannot stop it, and the RAW in place already gives a DM the excuse to say no. The point of the ability is for fluff, to give permission to play around with it.

. Also, they get spells starting at level 1, no other non-full caster gets that.

you're not wrong, but so what? No other caster save sorcerer gets metamagic. No other martial save fighter gets four attacks. The game is full of "...and here's a little something fun only this class gets."

. Cantrips:
Wait, they are a "1/2" caster that gets cantrips? That is hugely insulting to the Paladins and Rangers out there who never get them.

as someone already mentioned, 1/3 casters already offer that insult.

Repeating Shot:
Ok this one I have a problem with.
+1 to hit and damage just like enhance weapon.
But it lets you use a hand crossbow with one hand and use the other one for a shield/other weapon/whatever.
CBE with people machine gunning hand crossbows was already VERY powerful and now they can do it while using a shield too.
Nope, that is not cool. That is just mad power gaming munchkinry.

Very strong, yes. But getting rid of a minor weapon property is hardly the most offensive thing this game has. And given the glut of competing bonus action the artificer has, why bother taking CBE?

Not sure your issue with shields. Shields come with medium armor. Every time. It seems odd you complain about halfcasters getting cantrips but then object to medium armor-wearers getting shields.

I would have no problem with this or Repeating Shot, if they also just released a normal magic item with those properties.
The only way to do that otherwise was a Dwarven Thrower, in my opinion the best weapon in the game.

Not sure what your issue is here. That no one else can have repeating or returning weapons? Because that's bunk. If the DM wants them, the DM will include them. Since magic items are never ever at the purview of the player except by DM choice, this changes nothing.

And infusions aren't permanent magic items. They don't belong on the DMG magic item tables.

Lastly, why you complain these aren't normal magic item properties and the boots or pouch aren't is, well, weird. I hesitate to put it this way but it's almost like...jealousy?

Spell Storing Item:
Ok, it is level 18 so I know it should be really powerful, but come one.
I can put a buff or whatever spell I want in an item and then use it up to 10 times without having to recharge it.
AND it does not make me lose the spell
AND I do not even have to have it on my list any more
AND It says nothing about concentration...

I find nothing broken about this. A wizard can cast infinite magic missiles without using a spell slot, a druid can cast spells while shifted into a spider, a monk can become resistant to all damage, a fighter has two actions surges and three save rerolls...

Soul of Artifice:
So you can attune up to 6 items all of a sudden.
Kind of seems like this should be spaced out over the class more.
Wait, you ALSO get a +1 to all saves for each one, so you just poof into getting the saves of a paladin as if they had a charisma of 22...
That is crazy.
6 attuned items is not so crazy if spread out, the save bonus on top is too much.

Monk gets proficiency on all saves at 14. Including death saves. At this level, that's +5 to each save they are not already proficient in.

BONUS SPELLS:
Nothing to write home about, all good to have around for free, speaking of which, Warlocks do not get their patron spells for free, they only get the choice to pick them to take up their small spells known slots, and PHB rangers do not even get bonus spells, that was all added in the "definitely not power creep" subclasses later.

personally I believe this is a problem with the ranger and the warlock, not the artificer.

Free pet that can bonus action help, guidance cantrip, 5 to 7 tool proficiencies all with expertise.

Might as well just tell your dm not to bother ever using checks that require tools use, you are just going to win.

Last time I'll mention tools... Because tools are ribbons. Seriously! Who cares if you win at blacksmithing!? Or knitting? The only tools of significance are thieves' tools, and rogue and bard can both get expertise in this, get help in their check, and benefit from guidance. This is nothing. Nothing at all. Artificer are masters of tools. It's their thing. Their defining characteristic, and it's a frigging ribbon. Sheesh.

Gains bonuses when you gain proficiency bonuses...
Hold on... are we going to go back and give that to any other class that gets a pet/enhanced familiar.
Nope, that will never happen, because they refuse to reprint the PHB with all the additions and fixes.
Sorry Chain Warlock and Beastmaster Rangers, no new goodies for you, have to play the new stuff if you want the things you should have had.
But again, definitely not power creep.

Don't agree with chain warlock, but beast master rangers definitely get the shaft here. Again, though, this is a problem with the ranger and their refusal to reprint it, not a problem with the artificer.

Sorry life clerics, keep your +2 to healing, I will take my INT bonus.
Oh, also, multiple free Lesser Restorations just lying around.

Wait, so you can only one class that's extra good at healing? And it's not like life clerics don't have their own tricks...

This is a common theme in your posts. Like a classes unique abilities are sacred and inviolable. But a warlock can smite, a paladin gets Hex, a knowledge cleric gets expertise, a bugbear has sneak attack, a goblin has cunning action, a warlock can get shillelagh, a bard can steal find steed and swift quiver...

Telepathic advisor: 2 more skills, so now we are up to minimum 4 skills and 5 tools.

Like a half-elf bard/rogue? Or taking a dip into Knowledge cleric? Getting lots of skills is not difficult and there are many paths to that.

Manifest Mind:
So you make a floating, spectral... thing that:
- has darkvision
- flies
- you can share senses with
- can be the starting point of spells that you can cast through it...
Wait. So unlike other familiars who can deliver touch spells, but will die pretty fast.
This thing can float around, is immune to all effects, you can cast any of your spells through it that you want as if it cast them, while using its senses.
Welcome to 3/4 casting from full cover with complete immunity at level 3 up to INT/LR.
Pretty much pick at least one fight that you can just hide and control.

I liked this ability when it was in Shadowrun and they called it a Rigger.

Wait, it gets even worse...

Information Overload:
Float around looking though your invulnerable specter and can now use your action to use an INT save, (the easiest in the game) ability that does 1d8 psychic damage (one of the lest resisted)
AND it give whoever attacks them advantage on their next attack.
hold on, still more
AFTER it has been a successful damage ability you can blow spell levels to essentially smite with it...

If someone created a wizard subclass that had that ability as a capstone, people would question the brokenness of if.

but wait, there is more.

It is not a spell, so sit behind cover and just use this with impunity up to 300 feet away while invisible if you want.
They can't do anything to it, it is immune.
you do not have to be there, you can use its senses
you are not casting a spell so it does not break invisibly or sanctuary or anything else like that.

but wait there is STILL more.

Mind Network

Psychic Damage: Now you can add your INT to damage of your floating, invisible, psychic ball of death.
oh, you can also telepathically communicate across the world or even other planes.

But wait there is STILL STILL more.

Pure Information:

Now when you psychic smite someone they must make an intelligence save or be stunned until the end of your next turn.
So, int save, scaling 1d8 + int damage, can smite, if you smite they have to save or be stunned for at least a turn, can do it from 300 feet away, from cover, and it is immune to effects and abilities...

who the hell made this?

Oh, also you can teleport to your floating death machine or any of your other magic items once for free or with any level 2 spell slot or above...

in many ways this is, in my opinion, your most significant comment.

I feel a great deal of abuse can be avoided by simply ruling that maintaining concentration on seeing through its senses requires your action each turn. That would put it on par with most familiars and would also require you to be able to have line of sight to any spell target since you can't cast and use the familiars senses at the same time.

Even with that caveat, which is a relatively simple fix, there are definite improvements to be made here.

The remnants of Mike Mearles try to rip off another video game...

I really dislike your use of personal attacks when you disagree with something.

Arcane Turret:

Well this just flies in the face of the idea of not liking sci-fi in fantasy settings.
Many people love the ideas of flintlock or similar firearms in their DND and some hate the concept, some at WOTC hate it as well.
So how do we cover this, let's keep firearms as an optional rule in the DMG but go ahead and make a subclass that pulls out a tool box and Team Fort's a walking mechanical gun turret...
I do not see this EVER hitting print but on we go.

even if it hits print, a DM is not obliged to allow it at his table. And if you don't like it, don't play it. I personally don't like guns in my fantasy, but nothing here requires me to view this as sci-fi. The fact that you do does not mean they are. Even if they were explicitly described using sci-fi terms like robotic, lasers, technological or whatever, like the previous iteration of gunsmith, you can simply fluff it. Ultimately, there is no such thing as badwrongfun in D&D.

[Rukelnikov]

I won't lie, I'm not a 'pet' kind of player. I won't play a summoner style character, because I find rolling for all the summons just slows my turn to a crawl.

Even just one pet, I'm not too keen on.

But... I might have to deal with one if I want to make the Artificer that I want.

I'm quite the contrary, I love pets, mained a Lock in WoW for the pet :P

And for my taste 5e doesn't have any real pet, Revised Beastmaster is the only one that has a true pet, but its UA :(

[Makorel]

Knowing nothing to very little about 3.5e and Eberron I could take or leave the companions.

Homunculus makes sense for the Alchemist, and I doubt my issues with the subclass (being pigeonholed into acid and poison for one) would be solved by getting rid of it. It's not the first thing I personally think of when I think "Alchemist" but it makes sense.

Turret hardly feels like a companion. It's more like they took the gun from the first Artificer and put it on a stick, and part of why I'm not too broken up about them removing it. Maybe we can split the difference and give the Artillerist a Backpack Gun like the Engineer in Risk of Rain. Or give it 30 feet of movement; make it functional enough to be worth projecting emotions onto.

Similarly the Mind for the Archivist feels more like a familiar or a class feature than a true companion, weird combat shenanigans not withstanding. It doesn't have HP and you have to use your whole action to get it to use its attack so in some ways it's more like you're wielding a smart weapon than directing a minion. I think this one just needs a bit of tuning.

The Iron Guardian seems to be the odd man out. Battle Smith is probably powerful enough that you could just pretend the Guardian doesn't exist if you just want to be the Gish 5e supposedly promised you but never delivered. On the other hand if you want to be the mechanist or golemancer the Battle Smith implies with the Guardian then I would expect the subclass to lean into that harder, centering its combat strategy around making the Guardian the star instead of the sidekick, and allowing for more interesting customization options than static damage upgrades. I wouldn't want this at the expense of the battle prowess of the Battle Smith though, hence the idea to split this subclass in two.

Crazy idea: Give the Iron Guardian to the Artillerist as an option and call him the "Siege Master" or something. It's more flavorful than the Turret and it makes sense that the Artificer that's trained for war to have several different siege engines at his disposal.

Another crazy idea: Instead of a companion the Battle Smith turns their armor into Mech Armor to augment their abilities. Then they're not swinging their sword the mech suit they crafted is, hence the damage from Int.

[jaappleton]

Knowing nothing to very little about 3.5e and Eberron I could take or leave the companions.

Homunculus makes sense for the Alchemist, and I doubt my issues with the subclass (being pigeonholed into acid and poison for one) would be solved by getting rid of it. It's not the first thing I personally think of when I think "Alchemist" but it makes sense.

Turret hardly feels like a companion. It's more like they took the gun from the first Artificer and put it on a stick, and part of why I'm not too broken up about them removing it. Maybe we can split the difference and give the Artillerist a Backpack Gun like the Engineer in Risk of Rain. Or give it 30 feet of movement; make it functional enough to be worth projecting emotions onto.

Similarly the Mind for the Archivist feels more like a familiar or a class feature than a true companion, weird combat shenanigans not withstanding. It doesn't have HP and you have to use your whole action to get it to use its attack so in some ways it's more like you're wielding a smart weapon than directing a minion. I think this one just needs a bit of tuning.

The Iron Guardian seems to be the odd man out. Battle Smith is probably powerful enough that you could just pretend the Guardian doesn't exist if you just want to be the Gish 5e supposedly promised you but never delivered. On the other hand if you want to be the mechanist or golemancer the Battle Smith implies with the Guardian then I would expect the subclass to lean into that harder, centering its combat strategy around making the Guardian the star instead of the sidekick, and allowing for more interesting customization options than static damage upgrades. I wouldn't want this at the expense of the battle prowess of the Battle Smith though, hence the idea to split this subclass in two.

Crazy idea: Give the Iron Guardian to the Artillerist as an option and call him the "Siege Master" or something. It's more flavorful than the Turret and it makes sense that the Artificer that's trained for war to have several different siege engines at his disposal.

Another crazy idea: Instead of a companion the Battle Smith turns their armor into Mech Armor to augment their abilities. Then they're not swinging their sword the mech suit they crafted is, hence the damage from Int.

I'm in favor of the Iron Guardian moving to the Artillerist as a turret option.

Also LOVE the idea of Battle Smith getting some sort of armor. I AM IRON GNOME!