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

[Parmandur]

The product page on the website even says "Over 25 new subclasses." Can't be more confirmed than that.

Okay, I just checked, Crawford just posted "the count continues to be over 25" and linked the product description: reckon you are right. They may have been undecided on how many would make it in when they had to provide the blurbs, bit it looks like over 25: so more classes will get three new, neat.

 

[guachi]

My issue is the only material i have from the old days is an original copy of unearth arcana

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I bought my Guide to Humanoids cheap off of ebay for $5.36 shipped. You could also buy basically anything from dndclassics for $5 or $10 or less when it's on sale. E.g, I got everything Planescape, including the 2e PHB and DMG, for $15 a few months ago.

 

[guachi]

It is confirmed we will see Scout. Each class other than Wizard gets (at least)* 2 new subclasses, and all the subclasses are from past UA (all of this confirmed by Crawford). Rogue only got 2 subclasses, inquisitive and scout. Therefor both are in the book.

Edit for clarification.

Rogue/Scout just doesn't make as much sense as Fighter/Scout. Fighter/Scout fixes a problem many people have complained about - lack of ability in the Exploration pillar. No one anywhere complains Rogues can't do Exploration. What a missed opportunity and failure.

 

[GarrettKP]

Rogue/Scout just doesn't make as much sense as Fighter/Scout. Fighter/Scout fixes a problem many people have complained about - lack of ability in the Exploration pillar. No one anywhere complains Rogues can't do Exploration. What a missed opportunity and failure.

You may think of it as a failure, but if it is it is a failure of the player base, not Wizards of the Coast. The Players are the ones who gave feedback on UA. And they said no to the Fighter Scout, and said yes to the Rogue Scout.

 

[Morrus]

You may think of it as a failure, but if it is it is a failure of the player base, not Wizards of the Coast. The Players are the ones who gave feedback on UA. And they said no to the Fighter Scout, and said yes to the Rogue Scout.

Surveys only provide advice; WotC doesn't design by committee.

 

[gyor]

Surveys only provide advice; WotC doesn't design by committee.

True, but they do take the feed back seriously and seem to lean towards taking the feedback, listening to Mike Mearls say it was the design team that actually had push back against the current design, but they went with what the feedback wanted suggests suggests the feedback has alot of influence on these subclasses.

 

[Morrus]

True, but they do take the feed back seriously and seem to lean towards taking the feedback, listening to Mike Mearls say it was the design team that actually had push back against the current design, but they went with what the feedback wanted suggests suggests the feedback has alot of influence on these subclasses.

And I'm sure they go against some feedback, too. As I said, it's advice, but it's not a design brief. They aren't beholden to it.

Can you imagine a game that actually was designed by public vote? It'd be the most average, blandest game ever written.

 

[gyor]

We will likely learn more about the decision of Rogue Scout over Fighter Scout in the Scouts video.

As for what comes next, I'm betting it will be a subclass for the Barbarian, or Paladin or Monk.

 

[ferratus]

Depending on what its abilities are you might be able to use the scout as a fighter subclass even if it is a rogue subclass. I've done it before with certain subclasses that don't rely hugely on class abilities. Totem Barbarian build tacked onto a ranger, assassin tacked on to a fighter, etc.

It is pretty easy to do if you move features around to empty levels and cut and replace what doesn't fit. Haven't broken the game yet.

 

[Parmandur]

The Scout's design space is "Ranger without magic;" this can be done with Fighter or Rogue, guess they figured Rogue was a better fit (skills, expertise, etc.)?