Frankly, I think both of these claims are pretty ridiculous, and I tend to give more weight to the ones complaining that it's underpowered (the Alchemist subclass does exist, after all).
It's not underpowered or overpowered. It's just powered. ;-)
I never felt underpowered on an alchemist. The other subclasses are more efficient but the alchemist does add versatility over them and focuses more on actual healing. Different focus isn't the same thing as underpowered.
I mean, they literally have the same armor proficiencies as a Ranger, but less weapon proficiencies, a smaller hit die, and have to trade their Fighting Style, their Extra Attack, and other martial features for 2 cantrips and a handful of infusions. They're half-casters, and they get a tiny bit more casting than Rangers/Paladins (this difference is even slighter if the Ranger/Paladin takes the Divine/Druidic Warrior Fighting Style), but aren't martial, they're primarily buff-based (and they can buff themselves if they choose to).
If the armor proficiencies are good enough for a ranger then they are good enough for an artificer. I'd argue artificers applying infusions make better use of the armor regardless of who is wearing it, though.
Less weapon proficiencies won't matter because subclasses either add proficiencies or the artificer uses cantrips instead. The extra attack is similar in that subclasses add it for that style of character anyway.
Using the fighting style to gain cantrips comes a level later, gives up the actual fighting style, and doesn't add the additional cantrips gained later or ritual casting.
Infusions are not available to paladins or rangers.
I would say the points given show they are different in some respects and not others, but doesn't demonstrate superiority or inferiority.
IMO, they're much less OP than a Paladin, and roughly equivalent to new Rangers in their power-scale. They do get nice features, and are versatile (much like the Warlock), but none of their subclasses are OP, none of their features are OP, and none of their spells are OP (they don't even get unique spells, they're mostly piggy-backing off of the Wizard and a bit from the Cleric).
Artificers are more versatile than paladins. Paladins are better at nova (IME).
Unique spells aren't more or less powerful than other spells of the same level. That's the point of having spell levels to measure general power. ;-)
In my experience, Paladins, Wizards, Clerics, Bards, and even Rogues have been more game-breaking than Artificers. And, in my experience, Aasimar, Elves, Mountain Dwarves, Yuan-Ti, Satyrs, and Dragonmarked Races have been much more powerful than Warforged. I just don't see how Warforged Artificers could be gamebreaking, unless in a very niche campaign, especially not gamebreaking enough for you to advocate/support removing them from the game.
IME none of those classes are actually game breaking. Hella useful sometimes but not actually game breaking.
Care to explain/rebutt anything?
Challenge accepted, but I'm not sure we're disagreeing. I think we both don't find artificers OP or weaksauce.
One other, from what I've seen in this thread. Two people saying "this thing is OP and broke my campaign" with no elaboration whatsoever isn't a very compelling or believable argument.
Artificers are not OP. They are pretty useful in all stages of the game, but more infusions at lower levels would be nice. That feels a bit restrictive.
Getting back to the artificer, I've reevaluated Artillerist and I'd rank him as a very good artificer and character in general.
I really want to like armourer, but I'm just not seeing it for him.
I see you caught some of the arguments for artillerists I was going to make. The armorer has good AC without needing to cast
shield because of infusions and also has
absorb elements as mentioned for tanking above with wizards. Damage isn't stellar but the guardian armor draws attacks or protects other better than a lot of classes, and the electric blast from the infiltrator armor can be used to leverage the sharpshooter feat.
All artificers also add
sanctuary and
web in the arsenal to help with protecting others, and armorers get a solid spell in
hypnotic pattern to help.
The bonus action can go to the homunculus for a ranged attack, or a feat to help, or hold off for using it on a bigger spell like
bigby's hand or
animate objects later.
The subclass to watch out for is the alchemist because they are more resource dependent than the other 3 subclasses. They can be effective but that lasting power cost for cost isn't there compared to other artificer subclasses.
I bet there are a few spells you can take to increase your hit.
Yes.
Faerie fire is available to all artificers at 1st level and can cheese it later with the SSI for the homunculus to cast it and spend the concentration to maintain it. If I want to play with more damage for the armorer that tactic plus
flash of genius makes up for the hit penalty on sharp shooter more than enough.
That's a lotta levels to wait through to get good.
By "good" Zard means "good at damage" specifically, and when it comes up into comparison is compared to a sharpshooting crossbow expert battle master with precision. ;-)