D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Arcane Archer Subclass

[guachi]

I don't think the Rogue is the best fit for a Scout. A spy, maybe. But not a Scout.

The Scout initially appeared in the "Kits of Old" UA. So the Fighter/Scout was an update of a 2e fighter kit.

If the Ranger were not a spell caster, the Ranger could take the non-magical Scout position. But they are casters.

I guess what I'm getting from you is that the Fighter can't be good at Exploration because that's the purview of the Ranger and Rogue.

"I want a non-magical Ranger" isn't that big of an ask. The fighter is so basic a concept that I think it needs more subclasses to fill it out compared to other classes. You could have ten subclasses and still have ideas to spare. I like the fighter in general. A lot. But it suffers greatly from poorly evocative subclasses - the Champion, Battlemaster, and Banneret are just not interesting from a flavor standpoint. And Arcane Archer is just a fighter... but with magic and magic is a lazy way out in design.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think the Rogue is the best fit for a Scout. A spy, maybe. But not a Scout.

The Scout initially appeared in the "Kits of Old" UA. So the Fighter/Scout was an update of a 2e fighter kit.

If the Ranger were not a spell caster, the Ranger could take the non-magical Scout position. But they are casters.

I guess what I'm getting from you is that the Fighter can't be good at Exploration because that's the purview of the Ranger and Rogue.

"I want a non-magical Ranger" isn't that big of an ask. The fighter is so basic a concept that I think it needs more subclasses to fill it out compared to other classes. You could have ten subclasses and still have ideas to spare. I like the fighter in general. A lot. But it suffers greatly from poorly evocative subclasses - the Champion, Battlemaster, and Banneret are just not interesting from a flavor standpoint. And Arcane Archer is just a fighter... but with magic and magic is a lazy way out in design.

I am in no way saying that the Fighter cannot be good at exploration. I will say it is not the Fighters purview to be the best, or even top tier in exploration but that is an entirely side issue to what I am saying.

If you were to ask me to give a one word answer to the question "What is the key component of a Scout" my answer would be "Stealth". No matter what else you may want to layer on, no matter if it is the deep woods, caves, or back alleys, Stealth is the key to a scout. Look between the two classes, Fighter and Rogue, which one leans more heavily into the concept of Stealth?

The Rogue has always been the stealth class (amongst other things), and traditionally the fighter has been less good at stealth, sometimes they are even utterly abysmal at it. So, if you are going to pick a more natural fit between those two, the Rogue is the more natural fit.

To make a bad analogy it would be like asking which is the better passenger plane, a Jumbo Jet or a Bomber. Sure, you can redo the bomber so it can carry people, and do the same with the Jet to carry explosives, but they were built for certain jobs and if I'm making a better passenger plane, I'm going to look at Jumbo Jets first for my design.



All of the rest of it doesn't really have anything to do with my other points, but...


I don't think asking for a magic-less ranger is asking for too much. In fact, a slightly bitter part of me which wants a more magical ranger hopes you guys finally get your magic-less ranger so you'll stop bringing it up. Maybe if you guys get that I can get a more magical ranger since they won't feel the need to split the difference anymore.


I don't find magic to be "a lazy way out in design". It can be a lazy way out, but it can also be a very intriguing and interesting design space to work within.


I also think that many of the Fighter Sub-classes are evocative, at least for me. The Battlemaster is great for my conception of a duelist, someone who has a bunch of sword tricks because they've devoted themselves to the blade. Eldritch Knight is great for the "combining spell and sword" space, which granted is a huge space, but the idea of a bonded weapon goes a long way for me. Bannerets are super cool, a little mechanically lacking though, as the warrior who inspires others to grit their teeth and fight on harder, the standard bearer fighting on the front lines, I like it a lot. And of course, the defending Knight, the warrior spirit fueled Samurai, and the Arcane Archer all inspire different characters and ideas within me.

And, since we are talking about evocative subclasses, how is the Scout anymore or less evocative than the Banneret, Knight, or Samurai?

 

[Ancalagon]

Do we *need* a scout class though? Especially in 5e? Rogue, with outlander background. Done.

 

[gyor]

Do we *need* a scout class though? Especially in 5e? Rogue, with outlander background. Done.

If you look at the Rogue Scout, it brings back some mechanics from the 3e scout class.

 

[Parmandur]

Do we *need* a scout class though? Especially in 5e? Rogue, with outlander background. Done.

Xanathar's Guide is filled with stuff too esoteric for the PHB, basically.

 

[Ancalagon]

If you look at the Rogue Scout, it brings back some mechanics from the 3e scout class.

That doesn't mean we need it

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Prepared to be shocked then. He said 25+ new (not including SCAG).

My fear here is that there was little to no chance that they really properly vetted all these new subclasses in regards to multiclassing. So who knows how many OP game breakers they will be creating.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

My fear here is that there was little to no chance that they really properly vetted all these new subclasses in regards to multiclassing. So who knows how many OP game breakers they will be creating.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

Every subclass making it was exposed to a large public play test, followed by an intensive alpha test: seems likely they will be as thought through as possible.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Every subclass making it was exposed to a large public play test, followed by an intensive alpha test: seems likely they will be as thought through as possible.

I hope so. During the public play test I saw lots of things that were rather broken.

Hopefully they are all gone.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

 

[Parmandur]

I hope so. During the public play test I saw lots of things that were rather broken.

Hopefully they are all gone.

Sent from my SM-T820 using EN World mobile app

They've been pretty clear over the years that UA is unpolished, pre-balance material: they want to know what people like thematically, before they go into balance.