Sure. To further pin down my meaning: it's a question of scale. Lets use proficiencies as an example.Yeah. I gotta say, though: repeating "this is just subclass material" over and over again is not like something out of the Cambridge Union either. There have been lots of arguments and ideas posted in this thread. To me, they sounded distinctive, in terms of flavor and in terms of mechanics, and when I say "distinctive", I mean "as distinctive or more distinctive than Sorcerers or Rangers." I don't know what you're looking for here in terms of originality, but we're not likely to find the RPG equivalent of the Higgs Boson, nor are we required to.
Folks have said that artificers are distinct from wizards because they use medium armor and simple weapons and have skills like pick locks and disable traps (in 5e, this would be thieves' tools).
I say that this does not do enough to make artificers distinct from wizards. As support, I showed that a subclass in the PHB can add a proficiency (or several). So, if the goal is simply to replicate what a 3e/e artificer could do, the artificer can be a subclass and have those proficiencies. If the goal is to make the artificer an independent class, the artificer must have more to distinguish it than those proficiencies. "I think otherwise" is fine, but it isn't much of a reason for anyone to agree with you.
The current convo is more about infusions and crafting. Folks have said that making magic items that house spells is something that is distinctive from what wizards do.
I say that this does not do enough to make artificers distinct from wizards. As support, I showed that the difference between "I prepare and cast fireball" and "I make a bomb that explodes using the mechanics of fireball" largely boil down to whose action triggers the effect. Meanwhile, other classes that can use fireball (such as sorcerers and sun clerics) have additional mechanics that make them stand apart from each other. If the goal is to simply replicate what the 3e/4e artificer could do, the artificer can be a subclass and prepare spells in items that others can trigger. If the goal is to make the artificer an independent class, they must have more to distinguish it than letting allies trigger their spells. "I think otherwise" is fine, but it isn't much of a reason for anyone to agree with you.
Earlier, people said that subclasses based on creating certain items could support the class. I argued that the proposed subclasses seemed a little arbitrary. Someone came in and had the brilliant idea of using artificer PrC's as a basis for subclasses. I'm on board with that.
Recently, [MENTION=7989]Wrathamon[/MENTION] proposed an alternate item crafting system perhaps with different "rider effects" that artificers could choose. That sounds like it has some meat, too.
I can totally see an artificer class condensing out of that cloud of vaporous hypothetical mechanics.
But notably, both expand the mechanical place of an artificer beyond an armor-wearing, club-wielding, trap-disarming wizard who lets others trigger their spells. Warlocks and sorcerers both won their independence from wizards in a similar fashion: their mechanics are more than "I am a blood wizard who uses spontaneous casting and a spear" or "I am a sword-wielding wizard whose magic spells are gifts from beyond this world." Meanwhile, assassins couldn't jump away from rogues because they couldn't get a unique enough head of steam, and swordmages are a kind of fighter now because "I am a fighter who casts spells" is not big enough to leave a subclass.
So there is a distinct mechanical scope that a class needs to achieve in 5e to be an independent class. It needs to earn its large decision point. The concept of an artificer certainly can earn that (any concept could), but it needs big mechanics to back that up if it wants that. A slightly different proficiency load-out and letting your allies trigger your spells don't fly high enough.,