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

[Patrick Withrow]

I get that, and I love the lore concept of the arcane archer. But, if it's not mechanically strong enough to justify it's place in the party it wont really be doing the lore justice. With it's limited selection of magic tricks it won't be doing enough to differentiate itself from a standard archer. Giving it more options and more chances to use them would make it a stronger class. The pathfinder AA, for example, can imbue its arrows with any spell it knows and the arrow attack is part of the casting. The pathfinder AA also gets elemental bursts on normal shots, without an arbitrary daily limit. Every single shot they take is magical and supports the AA concept. The 5e AA, based on the most recent one from UA, gets as little as two magic shots a day depending on your DM, and definitely not more than two magic shots per fight. That doesn't sound like an arcane archer to me, it sounds like a normal archer with a couple of parlor tricks.

 

[Patrick Withrow]

You have not seen it yet and you think you know with certainty which is better "in almost every way"?

Don't you think that kind of judgement should wait for...actually seeing the thing you're talking about so you can analyze it relative to the Ranger you're certain works better?

I'm basing my comments on the most recent test version of the AA from Unearthed Arcana. We know they haven't added spell casting, so my biggest criticism still stands. I would ease up on my complaints if they increased the number of shots from 2 per short rest to 2 per encounter. Depending on your DM, your AA could end up firing as little as two magic shots per day. That's not very magical at all. I would also back off if they gave the AA an equivalent to cantrips. If he had unlimited uses of elemental arrows that deal +1d6 of a certian element, that would be cool. Otherwise, he's going to be a standard archer for most of the time.

 

[gyor]

My guess I'd they up the shots to 3 per short rest, maybe 4.

 

[Mistwell]

My guess I'd they up the shots to 3 per short rest, maybe 4.

Yeah I don't think anything will be measured by "encounter" in 5e.

 

[guachi]

Well, by that standard we don't NEED D&D either do we?

But to elaborate a bit on my original point, let's compare the scout to the Arcane Archer. The concept, of someone specialized in infusing their arrows with magic, is hard to do with the existing rule-set, so a subclass as an alternate to the Eldritch Knight made sense. *However*, as I pointed out earlier, if your concept is a "rogue who's good in nature and at sneaking and stuff"... well just take a rogue with the outlander background. Done. The rules exist to fill the niche quite well.

Except that's not the concept. The concept is "fighter who is good with outdoors stuff and doesn't use magic". I.e. a spell-less ranger. That's exactly what the Fighter/Scout did. I mean, it even lifted a Ranger ability wholesale. Can't get much more explicit than that. So, no, the concept isn't "Rogue who's good at sneaking and nature".

It's easy for a rogue to be good at anything. Just use expertise and you're done.

 

[guachi]

The AA wasn't supposed to be a spellcaster, the form of their magic is very different, offering a very different experience of magic from spellcasters.

He gets to cast two spells per short rest that do magical things to his arrows. It's barely different from what a Ranger can do.

It's basically a warlock version of a Ranger with your two spells and automatic upcasting.

 

[Ancalagon]

Except that's not the concept. The concept is "fighter who is good with outdoors stuff and doesn't use magic". I.e. a spell-less ranger. That's exactly what the Fighter/Scout did. I mean, it even lifted a Ranger ability wholesale. Can't get much more explicit than that. So, no, the concept isn't "Rogue who's good at sneaking and nature".

It's easy for a rogue to be good at anything. Just use expertise and you're done.

Please look at post 76 for the full context of my post. We were discussing the rogue scout.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ancalagon]

Back on topic: The most recent published version of the arcane archer did have every arrow become a +1 arrow. That isn't very "flashy" but it's significant .

(No clue if it was retained)

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ancalagon]

Am I the only one sick of hearing we don't need X subclass just take Y Background or BM/Champ. If these people were listened to we would never see another damn subclass again. Subclasses allow for greater mechanical representation for a niche or flavour and this is what some of us want to see and consider just adding a background or flavourless mush that are BM/Champ to be boring or mechanically not far enough.

Well, time/page spent designing sub-classes we didn't need is time *not* spent designing sub-classes we *did* need - I refer you again to the comparison between arcane archer and scout-rogue. Furthermore, the more options you have, the more the odds of an unforseen combo being game-breaking increase.

As far as BM/Champ being flavourless mush, it's because it's up to *you* to add flavor - the only limit is your imagination.

 

[Mephista]

So. Did anyone else feel like the elf story felt a lot like a Ranger? Bow magic, ambushes and sniping, hunting down a favored enemy... could very well have just been a Stalker from the revised Ranger with some new spells.