Alchemy do you think it should be a subclass or proficiency?

[Awhole]

I'm currently in a group playing as a rogue and by coincidence not by choice he has helped the group more with his cunningness not his sword. He has really defeated enemies with improvised weapons and potions. I'm imagining making a rogue with Batman like utility belt like talents. I've researched alchemy and in some ways I think if you could mix up the subclasses you could but if you left it to proficiency rolls it would be easier to make. What are your thoughts?

[Dax Doomslayer]

If you're asking about D&D 5E, the Artificer class has a subclass of "Alchemist". I'm not sure if this interests you but figured I'd mention it. WotC just put out an "Unearthed Arcana" with this class to start the process to migrating it to D&D 2024, it looks.

[Zacchaeus]

Even without the Alchemist subclass the artificer does pretty much what are doing.

[Awhole]

That is correct. The only thing I can think is that I could make the concoctions. If I was proficient I could still max out my sneak attack or multi class into a monk. That's why I'm wondering if just being proficient is to powerful and sub classing actually nerfs my idea. As subclassing makes u specialize in one avenue of artificer. You either a alchemist, battle master, armorer. I'd like to be able to do all three .

[Zacchaeus]

I'm not really sure now what you are asking; but given that you want to mix up subclasses and do stuff which isn't within the rules then you'd be best to discuss this with your DM to see what they would allow. Having more than one subclass would certainly be overpowered in my view and I wouldn't allow it.