You know what?  Fine.  Why am I bothering?  If you can't see how this whole thing is an enormous loss for the artificer class after two pages of hammering it home, you're not going to see it with any more.

Go and enjoy your adventure-deficient potion chucker, man.  I have to work on scrambling a new character together for the Tursk campaign because the entire play group looked at this new information and had the same reaction: "Wow, ew.  Why did they ruin artificers?  Are you...are you still gonna try and play Ana, Yurei?"

I'd love to.  But I honestly don't know if I can, after Wizards went and mauled the class this badly.

And maybe the spell slots they expend will create better elixirs the higher level they are, or more of them for the level. I think there will be a way to make it work. And at least it isnt just a subclass based around flinging acid at people, like the last UA.

This is not a potion chucker by any means Yurei. This is a support based subclass. Perhaps your main method of damage is not throwing acid and then spending your bonus action to throw more acid anymore, but it does have some merit.

I really don't understand why you keep saying it is a potion chucker. There is nothing in the subclass description about throwing potions. And I keep telling you this, and you refuse to respond to that and keep saying that I want a potion thrower. I do not. I want a class that uses potions as they are meant to be used, as support and buffing.

I understand that this, as written, is not good, but I do think that the actual  class, not the shortened  version for the convention, will be better.

At least, I hope so, because that is all I can do.

Perhaps.

On the other hand, we have no real reason to believe that the pregen sheets present at Gamehole Con were just invented out of whole cloth, so what was printed is very likely to be legit.  It's possible there were features that were omitted from the sheets, yeah, but I have a lot of trouble picturing them inventing brand new class features that aren't in the book specifically to bamboozle people at a convention less than a month before their big fat highly anticipated new book ships.

Jeremy Crawford has confirmed that only the Battlesmith, out of all the artificer subclasses, is retaining the Arcane Armament feature (and that only because the Battlesmith's Hexblade-y gish-off-your-casting-stat thing always gets the munchkins salivating).  Given the strong player push in both this thread and the last one for a more downtime, crafty-focused artificer, I have to assume that whatever replaces that feature for non-Battlesmiths is not going to be as good as a second attack.

The Experimental Elixir thing was a central facet of the GHC pregen artificer.  Crawford was on record as stating that the alchemist tested poorly and they were looking into redoing the Alchemist's Satchel; this is a feature clearly based on the Alchemist's Satchel, save significantly less useful and efficient (which takes some freaking work, let me tell you).  Yet despite the EE feature meaning the alchemist has no effective use of its bonus action while both other artificers do and the fact that the elixirs offered are generally either weaker versions of existing level 1 spells or effects that were previously available without expending spell slots, I've seen both here and in the original Reddit thread that people, somehow, like this version.

"I like this, it's all potion-y and stuff!  I can make cool potions and, like...drink 'em and stuff!"

All I can assume is that in five more years, we'll be right back here with a UA document full of alternative class features, and it'll be stuffed full of options for the artificer the way this latest one's stuffed full of options for the ranger.  Because the way it's looking so far, the alchemist especially and the artificer in general aren't really worth including in your adventuring party save as a Bag of Holding loot mule.  Which is...intensely depressing, given how much shining promise the 2019 UA document had.

How is this based on the alchemists satchel? You have potions. Is that an actual quote, or a strawman you made because you refuse to believe anyone intelligent would like the idea of the alchemist (who is strongly associated with potions in fantasy tropes, and dnd is a trope based game) working with potions as a subclass ability? They are not weaker versions of 1st level spells, they are actually significantly stronger than many. 

Huh, that's a little weird.  The Archivist tested more positively than Alchemist yet ended up being cut from the final version (at least, for the Eberron sourcebook...)

Quote from Mezzurah >>

Huh, that's a little weird.  The Archivist tested more positively than Alchemist yet ended up being cut from the final version (at least, for the Eberron sourcebook...)

 People loved the Archivist. But it was also ridiculously broken. It's core feature was the ability to send out an untouchable avatar to incredible distances that could attack without getting attacked back.

The other features were nice and I personally hope they found a way to salvage some of what it was into something the other subclasses can use.

I mean yeah, it was super broken, but it's not like it couldn't have been fixed.

Honestly I didn't love the archivist. I really liked the flavor, and the ideas, but I did not really understand what niche it filled in a gameplay sense. The other artificer subclasses clearly fit a role for a playstyle, but I could not find the archivists role for the life of me. Also, I think they are keeping alchemist because that is much more of a classic fantasy role, and I think they are trying to push that as the "basic rules" version of the artificer (not actual basic rules, but the one that they design specifically to fit in any setting, not just eberron).

Yeah, I liked it but honestly I also felt it might work better as an idea for a future psionics class than an Artificer subclass.  Still surprises me they cut it if it wasn't the lowest testing subclass though.

I strongly suspect the Archivist was cut because it was the least functional class, and they didn't feel they'd have time to get it into a functional state before the release of Rising.  As has been pointed out, even the people who liked it thought it was crazy busted, and it was easily the most out-there, Experimental Prototype artificer subclass.

The overall design space for alchemists is well understood, and it's officially proven now that people who wanted alchemists are easy to please - attach the word "potion" to any lame effect you can pull out of your bumbum and the masses will be thrilled with it.  I figure getting the Archivist right was going to take more design revision than they had time left to give it, especially with the requirement in place that the other three needed to be butchered finished in time for Rising.

You're probably right.  -_-  Deadlines are the bane of everything good in this universe.

Well, I guess we'll find out for sure in a couple of weeks whether we'll be playing our cool characters or a shitty Pennywise the Clown.  Or Boo Boo the Fool.

Tbf if any subclass should be focused on potions, its alchemist. Not that potions are all of alchemy. (and i think people wanted alchemists because they wanted to work with potions)

With the new UA article giving prettyy well all casters cantrip, if they didn't already have them, and the ability to swap them, I hope to God they changed the Artificer cantrip related abilities.