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

[Guest 6801328]

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.

That worked great for GWM/Polearm, huh?

 

[gyor]

That doesn't mean we need it

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

We don't NEED anything in XGTE. It's about want, desire, and interesting niches.

 

[Ancalagon]

We don't NEED anything in XGTE. It's about want, desire, and interesting niches.

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.

 

[GarrettKP]

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 said UA is not balanced for Multiclassing and that they will balance with Multiclassing in mind before official release.

 

[Patrick Withrow]

I had such high hopes for the arcane archer, but without any actual spellcasting it is just lame. A ranger with the archer or close quarters combat style who learns arrow based spells is better in almost every way. Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Fire Arrow, Lightning Arrow, conjure volley etc... The ranger can duplicate most of the AA abilities with the added versatility of the rest of the ranger's spell list. Furthermore, the ranger has enough spell slots to use for arrows at Lv15 that even the best AA class feature is rendered only slightly better. Lame! I would pick a ranger for my arcane archer every time! They need to give the AA spell casting, imbue arrow, and elemental arrow damage!

 

[gyor]

I had such high hopes for the arcane archer, but without any actual spellcasting it is just lame. A ranger with the archer or close quarters combat style who learns arrow based spells is better in almost every way. Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Fire Arrow, Lightning Arrow, conjure volley etc... The ranger can duplicate most of the AA abilities with the added versatility of the rest of the ranger's spell list. Furthermore, the ranger has enough spell slots to use for arrows at Lv15 that even the best AA class feature is rendered only slightly better. Lame! I would pick a ranger for my arcane archer every time! They need to give the AA spell casting, imbue arrow, and elemental arrow damage!

You know you can have the Arcane Archer take the Ritual Caster Feat.

People who take AA do so for a none spell based magical fighter something different from a Elderich Knight Archer.

 

[Patrick Withrow]

True, but that's hardly a replacement for actual spellcasting. Rituals are good for pre-battle buffs, but hardly an answer for the versatility a true spell caster has in battle

 

[gyor]

True, but that's hardly a replacement for actual spellcasting. Rituals are good for pre-battle buffs, but hardly an answer for the versatility a true spell caster has in battle

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.

 

[Eubani]

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.

 

[Mistwell]

I had such high hopes for the arcane archer, but without any actual spellcasting it is just lame. A ranger with the archer or close quarters combat style who learns arrow based spells is better in almost every way. Hail of Thorns, Hunter's Mark, Fire Arrow, Lightning Arrow, conjure volley etc... The ranger can duplicate most of the AA abilities with the added versatility of the rest of the ranger's spell list. Furthermore, the ranger has enough spell slots to use for arrows at Lv15 that even the best AA class feature is rendered only slightly better. Lame! I would pick a ranger for my arcane archer every time! They need to give the AA spell casting, imbue arrow, and elemental arrow damage!

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?