New Official UA Artificer, yay or nay.

Arcane Weapon? It's certainly an interesting one. Quite powerful as it's sort of a "better hex/hunter's mark", but I think it is fairly thematic for Artificer. It does seem a little too good in it's current form for my version, mostly it would be a problem for a Gadgetsmith with a repeating crossbow though. Might port something like that over at some point though! Would probably need some small tweaks though.

KibblesTasty

The only thing I would really like to see come out of the new UA Artificer is the spell they included.

Mike Hughes

I am currently leaning toward "Alternate Artificer" I accept that is a tad boring, but it is descriptive and makes it easily apparent what it's going to be so people know if they are interested or not. Revised made sense when it was technically a revision of the UA version (though... very loosely by the end) but it no longer has the tenuous tie, so I don't want to imply that they should expect "the Artificer but better" with the name, but something entirely different (and maybe better! :) ) I still plan to do my own hot take on the Beast Master Ranger at some point (because the world clearly needs more of those) so I'll use the same label for whatever I do there I guess. Ultimately I don't want to go too crazy "fixing" things, as "fixing" is always harder to integrate into a game than "new", but I might hit some of the highlights in time if I don't think there is a satisfactory answer to it yet.

KibblesTasty

I rather enjoy the Infuse Items, Magical Tinkering, and tools of the trade features of the new artificer, but aside from that i much prefer using your artificer. along with the expanded spell list for each subclass. which i fully intend to implement into your subclasses, likely taking from the upgrades of each subclass.

Marc Wilebski

I actually really like the UA Artificer, but agree it has some issues. I would like the continued development of KT's Artificer, at least until they refine the WotC one.

All good points. I like the "Alternate Artificer", so I may use that as a stop-gap either way until a name change is decided or not. It's definitely a point well taken on the SEO merits of the name "Artificer" but on the other hand competing directly with an official class long term seems unwise. Definitely something I will think about, but I think Alternative Artificer might be a good middle ground at least for now, as it fixes the fact that it really isn't "Revised" anymore, and that may be a misleading name at this point.

KibblesTasty

I see very little in the UA Artificer that needs to be kept. The pets are a little too much, and the other features are just kind of average. The tinkering ability at level 1 has some good flavor, though. I think a new name might be wise, as then you're not putting yourself in a space where you're arguing over WotC's design, you're just presenting your own. Maybe change the name to "Smith"? :)

Matthew Gesus

On the topic of a name, something like Alternate Artificer (or some other modifier before the name Artificer) seems fine to me. There are lots of alternate versions of the Ranger class out there that use that sort of naming system. EDIT: In addition, changing the name means people looking for it won't find it. People who want a homebrew Ranger fix won't find it if the homebrewer named their class "Wildmaster" or something. Same thing here, anyone who is unsatisfied with the WotC Artificer and wants a different option won't find it if yours is renamed something else.

Like everyone else, the UA has some interesting Ideas, but ultimately falls flat, and doesn't inspire me.

I like Artificer as a class name as well, but fighting for visibility with WotC doesn't sound fun! I'm partial to Engineer myself, but that may be because I put an unreal amount of hours into TF2 back in the day.

That's fair. I guess I just don't really like going head to head with WotC for naming a class, and it no longer is "Revised" really, so that moniker doesn't quite fit anymore. I honestly wonder if I shouldn't go very generic at the top level class name, and then go a lot more evocative at the subclass names, given how much emphasis I have at the subclass level - in some ways its really a bundle of subclasses as much as a class. All food for thought, but I will definitely keep everyone here in the loop and get your opinions, just sort of probing the waters right now. I really did expect that I would eventually hang up the Artificer and let WotC take it from here, but I'm not really seeing that in the cards with this version, it's not quite in the direction that I would favor, and the community message is pretty strong on the "nay"... I mean, it's 8 to 0 right now for nay :D

KibblesTasty

It may just be me, but I don't see a good enough reason to change the name, since it really does occupy the same design space.

I definitely feel like the UA came short, but has some really awesome ideas that are worth exploring. Tool Expertise is an elegant and appropriate implementation. The Right Cantrip for the Job is unique and on flavor. Magical Tinkering is fluff, but good fluff (though I don't see the problem with lifting the limited uses altogether so that I can graffiti up my Spelljammer Ship). Spell Storing Item is maybe an alternative option for some feature. Replicate Magic Item feels.... really really bad, actually. Not all of the ideas are winners, but it certainly has some ideas to consider

I agree with Austin and Corgi both. There are a couple of interesting Ideas but for the most part it feels terribly uninspired. It almost feels like the "dragging your feet" version of the class. I'm kind of split on renaming it. The Artificer name is thematic and fits perfectly for the class, but I totally see the point about avoiding confusion of having a "Revised Artificer" and an "UA Artificer" (two of those actually). "Magicsmith" doesn't necessarily sound bad. I like "Enchanter" as a class title, but there is already a wizard school of enchantment and the artificer does more than just that. Maybe something generic like "Innovator" or "Maker"? Then theres the stuff thats slightly off-key like "Arcanist" and "Tinkerer." All of them feel a little bit off mark. Leaving it the "Revised Artificer" feels like the best option so far to me.

Since it is looking like Revised Artificer is here to stay as a parallel version... should I rename it? I am learning toward yes to reduce long term confusion and make a clean break as it is no longer related to the official one with that them ditching all their old design. Something simple like the "Magicsmith", "Crafter", "Builder", "Wielder", "Engineer", "Creator"... If people think I should, I'll put up a pull with new names... so give me any name ideas you have if you if you think I should.

KibblesTasty

Some interesting stuff in the new one, but I definitely don't feel any great desire to convert mine away from your version.

Without a doubt, your Artificer had much more flavour and fun to it, much more customisable even if the "infusions" look an awful lot like your upgrades!