Part of the appeal of the artificer class in general for me is the fact that they're not defined by their subclass as much as other characters are.  An alchemist has a specialty, but she still gets tinker's tools and whatever her choice of level 1 artisan's tools are as well as her alchemy; she's capable of building, doing, and being more than a futzy-haired poo flinger. 

I liked the restoration spells as well, and the excellent utility of alchemy/herbalism Expertise.  Frankly, despite Marine I mostly ignored the acid spells; my artificer fought with a crossbow, not an Acid Splash cantrip, and in point of fact I didn't bother with offensive cantrips at all.  The allure of alchemy was a highly functional mechanical familiar, extremely good tool Expertise selections, and healthy access to useful spells the party healers never actually bother casting.  That and doubling your INT bonus to Cure Wounds made for a surprisingly helpful pocket healing aid, helped stretch those limited spell slots a little bit further.

Suppose my beef with the Satchel is that 'Sack of Hurlin' Poo' is such a dismayingly uncreative solution for an "Alchemist", as well as being one that stomps all over the useful tool proficiencies.  Why have fun trying to create unique and interesting new alchemical tools when the Sack of Hurlin' Poo says "these three or four things are what you know how to make.  Use these, and forget your actual tool proficiencies"?  

One of the things I liked most about my own artificer was working up special rules for magic-infused herbal teas, using the herbalism kit and alchemical knowledge.  Some of which I squee'd about in this old thread.  But in a world where the 2017 artificer comes back and the only 'Alchemy' you get is the Sack of Hurlin' Poo, how is one supposed to brew arcane teas?  Or do anything else from that thread without any tool proficiencies?

q_q

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Suppose my beef with the Satchel is that 'Sack of Hurlin' Poo' is such a dismayingly uncreative solution for an "Alchemist", as well as being one that stomps all over the useful tool proficiencies.  Why have fun trying to create unique and interesting new alchemical tools when the Sack of Hurlin' Poo says "these three or four things are what you know how to make.  Use these, and forget your actual tool proficiencies"?  

One of the things I liked most about my own artificer was working up special rules for magic-infused herbal teas, using the herbalism kit and alchemical knowledge.  Some of which I squee'd about in this old thread.  But in a world where the 2017 artificer comes back and the only 'Alchemy' you get is the Sack of Hurlin' Poo, how is one supposed to brew arcane teas?  Or do anything else from that thread without any tool proficiencies?

q_q

 I don't see how the Alchemist's Satchel prevents one from using their tool proficiencies. You can have the Satchel and make other, more unique concoctions as well.

Mostly, the 2017 version they seem to be pulling back to gets all of two tool proficiencies, no specialty-related tools at all, and only applies Expertise to tools you get directly from the class, not to background or feat/training tools.  Since artificers can't really be artificers without tinker's tools, I suppose I could do my teas if I decided to make the herbalism kit the ONE 'bonus' tool proficiency you get.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Mostly, the 2017 version they seem to be pulling back to gets all of two tool proficiencies, no specialty-related tools at all, and only applies Expertise to tools you get directly from the class, not to background or feat/training tools.  Since artificers can't really be artificers without tinker's tools, I suppose I could do my teas if I decided to make the herbalism kit the ONE 'bonus' tool proficiency you get.

We don't know that they're taking away tool Expertise. You're making some big assumptions here. Why don't you wait and see the final product before getting upset about something that hasn't happened yet?

I never felt that wands fit the Artillerist.  It just seemed out of place.  I see the Artillerist that had someone who can rain down destruction or provide protection for their party members.  I would rather see a separate Wandslinger subclass.  A person who pulls out a wand and can lay a single enemy out or battle multiple enemies at a single time.

I agree that there should have been a separate Wandslinger subclass.  Trying to combine what is essentially 2 different subclass just didn't feel right in my opinion.  As for arcane guns, Eberron is supposed to be a land of inventors so I can see someone within Eberron inventing an arcane firearm.

The Thunder Cannon was indeed grossly overpowered.  I mean by 9th level they could deal 2d6 piercing damage and an additional 4d6 thunder damage every round.

I didn't see an issue gaining proficiencies with Alchemist's Supplies and the Herbalism Kit.  They fit the subclass.  However, I agree that being able to cast lesser and greater restoration was too much it was like there was no need for a cleric.  Casting Lesser Restoration a number of times equal to your Intelligence modifier and Greater Restoration for free once per day.  Just doesn't see right.

While I'm not a fan of the Artificer getting Thieve's Tools, I don't see D&D getting rid of the initial 3 tool proficiencies.  

Quote from Marine2874 >>

I never felt that wands fit the Artillerist.  It just seemed out of place.  I see the Artillerist that had someone who can rain down destruction or provide protection for their party members.  I would rather see a separate Wandslinger subclass.  A person who pulls out a wand and can lay a single enemy out or battle multiple enemies at a single time.

 This may be an artifact of how Eberron inspired this class is, because in Eberron wandslingers are the gunslingers and an Arcane Firearm is basically a wand with a grip.

Quote from Marine2874 >>

I didn't see an issue gaining proficiencies with Alchemist's Supplies and the Herbalism Kit.  They fit the subclass.  However, I agree that being able to cast lesser and greater restoration was too much it was like there was no need for a cleric.  Casting Lesser Restoration a number of times equal to your Intelligence modifier and Greater Restoration for free once per day.  Just doesn't see right.

 With a Artificer (Alchemist) you DON'T need a cleric as a HEALER. The Artificer would not be as good as a Life domain cleric at healing, but could funtion in place of a cleric healer. But then so could a bard or druid healer.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from Marine2874 >>

I never felt that wands fit the Artillerist.  It just seemed out of place.  I see the Artillerist that had someone who can rain down destruction or provide protection for their party members.  I would rather see a separate Wandslinger subclass.  A person who pulls out a wand and can lay a single enemy out or battle multiple enemies at a single time.

 This may be an artifact of how Eberron inspired this class is, because in Eberron wandslingers are the gunslingers and an Arcane Firearm is basically a wand with a grip.

 In all the Eberron based novels I have read, and all the Eberron-based modules I have found/purchased, I have never seen a single firearm in Eberron. I have seen many references to wandslingers.

Right ... wands are the Eberron equivalent of a gun, is what I'm saying.

Yes the Druid and Bard can cast restoration spells.  But In the case of the Bard, the player has to decided whether or not they want the restoration spells as they are stuck with it until they reach another level.  As their spells are permanent.  Especially when they reach level 20 and can no longer change out spells.

My issue with the 2019 Alchemist as there is no originality to the subclass.  It is an expanded spellcaster with a pet (that is no better than the mechanical servant of the 2017 Artificer).  Plus, who says the alchemist has a deeper understanding of how to cure things associated with restoration spells?  And, who says the Alchemist has to be a healer?  These spells specifically steer the Alchemist into the direction of a healer.

This is a problem with the 2019 Artificer (Alchemist).  D&D specifically steered the Alchemist into the direction of a HEALER.  You are correct that the Alchemist wouldn't be as good as a Life domain Cleric (let alone any Cleric) or even a Druid at healing.  But nothing says a Bard has to select healing or restoration spells, it is up to the player.  The 2019 Alchemist doesn't get that option.  I would rather see the Alchemist Satchel and Alchemical Formulas make a return.  To address healing and restoration, they can keep the Healing Draught formula and add another formula that addresses restoration.   And since the player selected which alchemical formulas they wanted (even though by 17th level they had all 7 formulas) in the original 2017 Artificer (Alchemist), the player can decided if they want to chose the healing draught or restoration formulas or both.

I am not going to disagree with you on the wording of the 6th level and 14th level features.  Simply because I can't.  It is how we interpret the wording that matters.  You have inferred from the wording in both of those features that the Alchemist has a better understand on how to cure things.  The way I interpret them is that due to their exposure to chemicals and magical chemicals they have become resistant to their harmful nature and learned how to use them to end negative conditions.  But that doesn't mean they have a deep understanding of how to cure things associated with restoration spells.  They just know alternate ways of end negative conditions.

In the long run, the 2019 Artificer (Alchemist) is essentially a healer, who's specializes in acid and poison damage.  They would essentially be a medieval apothecary or modern day pharmacist.  

P.S. I missed your "I believe" in your previous post.

I am very happy that they will have Arcane Firearms in the new book.  I was probably one of the few people that really liked the Gunsmith.

Quote from Golaryn >>

I am very happy that they will have Arcane Firearms in the new book.  I was probably one of the few people that really liked the Gunsmith.

I would temper expectations that - putting two & two together with past comments about Arcane Turret revisions becoming carryable - it is quite possible that the new form of arcane firearm just refers to that i.e. it is a 10 minute weapon 'summon' with a few different forms that allows a bonus action attack.

Nothing wrong with that as a concept, I'm just expecting it is less about crafting guns and more about managing resources for bursts of having x guns on demand.

Quote from Golaryn >>

I am very happy that they will have Arcane Firearms in the new book.  I was probably one of the few people that really liked the Gunsmith.

 I am happy for the people who wanted firearms. I, myself, wish they had added arcano-mechanical armor to the Battle Smith instead of another pet/companion. :)

Quote from Mergon >>

Quote from Golaryn >>

I am very happy that they will have Arcane Firearms in the new book.  I was probably one of the few people that really liked the Gunsmith.

 I am happy for the people who wanted firearms. I, myself, wish they had added arcano-mechanical armor to the Battle Smith instead of another pet/companion. :)

That would be pretty cool.  I could get behind a little Iron Kingdoms blended into my D&D :)

I agree.  I doubt the Arcane Firearms will have less to do with the Thunder Cannon of the 2017 Artificer (Gunsmith) and will more than likely have something to do with the Artillerist's Arcane Turret.  To me, it seems like D&D is overthinking and under performing when it comes to the Artificer.  But, we will not know what the Artificer will looks like until the release of Eberron: Rising from the Last War.  At that point we can give our opinions on the Artificer.