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

[hejtmane]

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.

There is no reason for me to go look for that stuff. I played 2e like twice; i have no desire or care about 2e through 4e with no experience on history or attachment etc. All my time playing this game was D&D and 1e before 5e so if I am looking for old content I am looking for really really old stuff. I have no understanding of any of the D&D realms other than Dragon Lance and that was because I read the books way back in the day. I read while over 300 fantasy books I think the only series I have read from the D&D world are Dragon Lance, Drizzt and Highwayman.

I really have no idea what Ebrron, Dark Sun and many other things people talk about when people start talking about it I just shrug and move on in the old days we did all custom campaigns and I still do custom campaigns. Hence so far I like what 5e is doing and will continue to buy 5e stuff fits into what we are playing

 

[Azzy]

As an alpha tester, I can attest to this. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had some specific ideas on how to improve the monstrous races included in Volo's, and yet the versions that made it into the book are virtually unchanged from the draft versions they sent us.

Out of curiousity, can you tell us what feedback you gave them, or does that fall under your NDA?

 

[guachi]

The thing about lots of the 2e stuff is that it's basically edition independent. Creative Campaigning, for example, is worthwhile no matter what version of D&D you play. If you aren't considering it because it says "2nd Edition" on it, that's your loss.

 

[Azzy]

It doesn't take much looking at all on this board to see complaint after complaint about the weakness of the fighter in the Exploration pillar.

This goes back to views on forums not necessarily reflecting the opinions of the greater D&D fanbase. Just because something is seen as a problem here doesn't mean that majority of D&D players feel the same way.

 

[Ancalagon]

I am comparing the original and the revised version... wow did "archer lore" ever take a hit. Seeing how this was a significant appeal of the class...

Banishing arrow is *super* potent. You get to damage someone *and* shut them down for a full round.

 

[pukunui]

Out of curiousity, can you tell us what feedback you gave them, or does that fall under your NDA?

Well, in the context of the arcane archer, I can only remember three things:
- make the basic arrows magical but without the +1 bonus
- make the arcane shot limit 1 + Int mod / rest
- change "mind-scrambling arrow" back to "beguiling arrow"

I think I may have also expressed some dissatisfaction with the options requiring both an attack roll and a saving throw.

 

[guachi]

I've been on enough message boards over the last 25 years to know that big fans of something are far more likely to spot problems than casual fans are.

It's the job of developers to know whom to listen to when looking for those problem spots in a product.

Another conclusion to draw is that the developers believe "bad in Exploration" is a feature and not a bug.

 

[Eubani]

It's amazing that the members of a forums view is of diminished worth or not that of the unspoken majority when it differs from the view of the poster.

 

[Alexemplar]

If that were the case, Mearls and Crawford etc. would have no value. I have to assume there was some artistic input.

I assume some artistic input as well. However, their stated goal was a return to previous influence, they had the biggest public playtest/player input process ever in D&D's development, and I'm very sure there were internal/outside pressures to not repeat the same "mistakes" of 4e that constrained more ambitious/non-"traditionally D&D" design choices.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Since we are talking a lot about the scout, maybe we're not looking at this from the perspective the designers are.

Fighter Scout "fixes a problem" but Rogue Scout is a more natural fit.


If the design team was making new classes under the perspective of "what problems do we need to fix" then the Fighter Scout would be a natural fit, but that isn't how they've designed the majority of the subclasses. They ask the question "what versions of X class have we not made yet"

If someone had asked me to make a Scout before the UA came out, I would have gone either Ranger or Rogue, because to my mind scout's specialize in hiding from the enemy and finding the enemy. Both the Ranger and the Rogue are good at those types of sneaky tactics, both can work in a wilderness setting, so it follows kind of naturally.

This isn't to say a Fighter Scout can't work, or that a stealthy sneaky fighter can't work, they totally do, but it isn't the obvious "baked potato" fit. Rogue is.