Why do people keep saying Eldritch Knight is melee? That is simply not true.
Because it is. Another thing is that you can take the mechanical corset from the subclass to do something else. But the concept is of a melee warrior who relies on a little magic.
And if you don't agree with that, we should at least agree that for most people that is the concept. Search "Eldritch Knight" on Google, and see how many images you get of an Eldritch Knight with a bow or crossbow.
bow or crossbow is 2/20 weapons. There is a lot more at play in a Google result than you claim.
And why would we agree most people think that? because two people agree with you?
lastly, its not all about knight, eldritch modifies knight, magic makes the knight not really all about melee. I see in Google tons of images with the knight poised to throw some magical energy.
which is the big flaw even if you accept that knights and ranged fighting are opposites, its the eldritch part definitely has connotations of ranged.
Why do people keep saying Eldritch Knight is melee? That is simply not true.
SO a Knight is a fighter that uses a Bow or Cross bow.
A rogue does not have to sneak around or use a dagger or rapier to strike from the shadows. He can be in broad daylight, out in the open and snipe at targets with a bow that are engaged with his teammates. But that does not fit the concept of a rogue. (To me)
I will admit an eldritch knight does not HAVE to be melee but who sounds more like a melee fighter and who sounds more like a ranged fighter? Knight or Archer?
the idea isnt who sounds more like a ranged character, the idea is what two classes form strong opposites in theme, or playstyle. I fully agree An Arcane Archer is more coded as a ranged character, but that doesnt mean eldritch knight makes a great opposite. By that standard, AA is the opposite of every other fighter sub class. In fact out of the other subclasses, its one of the least opposite ones. They both use magic, they both have expanded range.
BM, or Champion, or Psi warrior are more 'melee' than EK. These subclasses are cousins, not opposing pairs
EKs biggest opposite, imo is champion. EK adds wizard to fighter, Aka Magical Academics. Champion builds on the physical Athlete side.
nerd vs jock, magic vs mundane, resource versus passives and even simple versus complex.
brawler was in opposition to BM, planner versus improviser
there isnt really a great opposing pair in the options they have left
I think that the EK's War Bond should allow that weapon to be used as a spellcasting focus... including using the weapon's bonus with the attack, damage, and save DC of spells cast through the weapon/ammunition.
So, if you cast firebolt through your bow, the attack and damage benefit from your War Bond weapon's bonuses. Same if you cast shocking grasp through your sword or halberd (or whip).
I think that would go a long way to letting the Arcane Archer blend into the EK. Especially if there are/were spells available to the EK that take the place of the Arcane Archer's special abilities.
I think that the EK's War Bond should allow that weapon to be used as a spellcasting focus... including using the weapon's bonus with the attack, damage, and save DC of spells cast through the weapon/ammunition.
So, if you cast firebolt through your bow, the attack and damage benefit from your War Bond weapon's bonuses. Same if you cast shocking grasp through your sword or halberd (or whip).
I think that would go a long way to letting the Arcane Archer blend into the EK. Especially if there are/were spells available to the EK that take the place of the Arcane Archer's special abilities.
While I wouldn’t do it for Save DC because then EK would dump Int. I would do it for Attack roll spells. I really like that idea. That would mean if your Str or Dex are higher than you Int, which they likely would be, you could use the better attack roll. Making spells like shocking grasp, lightning lure and others better for melee EK and spells like fire bolt and ray of frost more usable by ranged EK.
I think that the EK's War Bond should allow that weapon to be used as a spellcasting focus... including using the weapon's bonus with the attack, damage, and save DC of spells cast through the weapon/ammunition.
So, if you cast firebolt through your bow, the attack and damage benefit from your War Bond weapon's bonuses. Same if you cast shocking grasp through your sword or halberd (or whip).
I think that would go a long way to letting the Arcane Archer blend into the EK. Especially if there are/were spells available to the EK that take the place of the Arcane Archer's special abilities.
While I wouldn’t do it for Save DC because then EK would dump Int. I would do it for Attack roll spells. I really like that idea. That would mean if your Str or Dex are higher than you Int, which they likely would be, you could use the better attack roll. Making spells like shocking grasp, lightning lure and others better for melee EK and spells like fire bolt and ray of frost more usable by ranged EK.
I get what you're saying, but it's not at all related to what I was saying. I didn't say substitute ability score modifiers (which seems to be what you're saying). I said you add the weapon's bonus (like +1 for a +1 sword) to your spell's attack/damage/saveDC.
I have a +2 Sword that I'm using as my War Bond weapon. I use it as my spellcasting focus to cast Firebolt. The Sword's +2 is applied to the attack and damage rolls for Firebolt... not my Str bonus.
So then I use it to cast lightning bolt. My +2 save DC goes up by 2, due the Sword's +2 ... making it harder for targets to save against the lighting bolt.
There exist spellcasting focuses that increase attack, damage, and sometimes DCs for the caster. But they aren't usually (that I recall) related to weapons, nor that allow a weapon's bonus to be used as such even if the weapon is otherwise usable as a spellcasting focus.
Okay I understand what you meant now. I like the misunderstanding version better, lol. Their is very few things that add damage to spells, but just Attack roll and DC is pretty common now a days, that would be fine.
Why do people keep saying Eldritch Knight is melee? That is simply not true.
SO a Knight is a fighter that uses a Bow or Cross bow.
A rogue does not have to sneak around or use a dagger or rapier to strike from the shadows. He can be in broad daylight, out in the open and snipe at targets with a bow that are engaged with his teammates. But that does not fit the concept of a rogue. (To me)
I will admit an eldritch knight does not HAVE to be melee but who sounds more like a melee fighter and who sounds more like a ranged fighter? Knight or Archer?
the idea isnt who sounds more like a ranged character, the idea is what two classes form strong opposites in theme, or playstyle. I fully agree An Arcane Archer is more coded as a ranged character, but that doesnt mean eldritch knight makes a great opposite. By that standard, AA is the opposite of every other fighter sub class. In fact out of the other subclasses, its one of the least opposite ones. They both use magic, they both have expanded range.
BM, or Champion, or Psi warrior are more 'melee' than EK. These subclasses are cousins, not opposing pairs
EKs biggest opposite, imo is champion. EK adds wizard to fighter, Aka Magical Academics. Champion builds on the physical Athlete side.
nerd vs jock, magic vs mundane, resource versus passives and even simple versus complex.
brawler was in opposition to BM, planner versus improviser
there isnt really a great opposing pair in the options they have left
I'm gonna disagree here - nothing in the Champion in any way shifts the focus towards melee or missile combat - and several combat Fighter/Archer builds use the Champion subclass for the extended crit range (pairs well with Elven Accuracy), while the Eldritch Knight ability to pop off a cantrip in place of a single attack with the attack action pairs much better with melee than with archery, due to the melee attack cantrips not having a missile weapon equivalent.
Why do people keep saying Eldritch Knight is melee? That is simply not true.
SO a Knight is a fighter that uses a Bow or Cross bow.
A rogue does not have to sneak around or use a dagger or rapier to strike from the shadows. He can be in broad daylight, out in the open and snipe at targets with a bow that are engaged with his teammates. But that does not fit the concept of a rogue. (To me)
I will admit an eldritch knight does not HAVE to be melee but who sounds more like a melee fighter and who sounds more like a ranged fighter? Knight or Archer?
the idea isnt who sounds more like a ranged character, the idea is what two classes form strong opposites in theme, or playstyle. I fully agree An Arcane Archer is more coded as a ranged character, but that doesnt mean eldritch knight makes a great opposite. By that standard, AA is the opposite of every other fighter sub class. In fact out of the other subclasses, its one of the least opposite ones. They both use magic, they both have expanded range.
BM, or Champion, or Psi warrior are more 'melee' than EK. These subclasses are cousins, not opposing pairs
EKs biggest opposite, imo is champion. EK adds wizard to fighter, Aka Magical Academics. Champion builds on the physical Athlete side.
nerd vs jock, magic vs mundane, resource versus passives and even simple versus complex.
brawler was in opposition to BM, planner versus improviser
there isnt really a great opposing pair in the options they have left
I'm gonna disagree here - nothing in the Champion in any way shifts the focus towards melee or missile combat - and several combat Fighter/Archer builds use the Champion subclass for the extended crit range (pairs well with Elven Accuracy), while the Eldritch Knight ability to pop off a cantrip in place of a single attack with the attack action pairs much better with melee than with archery, due to the melee attack cantrips not having a missile weapon equivalent.
You’re using two melee attack cantrips that aren’t even guaranteed to be in the new PHB meaning some players won’t have access to them to claim that EK is better suited for melee. In the absence of those cantrips melee and ranged builds are equal. Even including them the Ranged build still has viable cantrip option each turn, but they aren’t as clear cut automatic damage boost like BB and GFB. They are control boost.
Why do people keep saying Eldritch Knight is melee? That is simply not true.
SO a Knight is a fighter that uses a Bow or Cross bow.
A rogue does not have to sneak around or use a dagger or rapier to strike from the shadows. He can be in broad daylight, out in the open and snipe at targets with a bow that are engaged with his teammates. But that does not fit the concept of a rogue. (To me)
I will admit an eldritch knight does not HAVE to be melee but who sounds more like a melee fighter and who sounds more like a ranged fighter? Knight or Archer?
the idea isnt who sounds more like a ranged character, the idea is what two classes form strong opposites in theme, or playstyle. I fully agree An Arcane Archer is more coded as a ranged character, but that doesnt mean eldritch knight makes a great opposite. By that standard, AA is the opposite of every other fighter sub class. In fact out of the other subclasses, its one of the least opposite ones. They both use magic, they both have expanded range.
BM, or Champion, or Psi warrior are more 'melee' than EK. These subclasses are cousins, not opposing pairs
EKs biggest opposite, imo is champion. EK adds wizard to fighter, Aka Magical Academics. Champion builds on the physical Athlete side.
nerd vs jock, magic vs mundane, resource versus passives and even simple versus complex.
brawler was in opposition to BM, planner versus improviser
there isnt really a great opposing pair in the options they have left
I'm gonna disagree here - nothing in the Champion in any way shifts the focus towards melee or missile combat - and several combat Fighter/Archer builds use the Champion subclass for the extended crit range (pairs well with Elven Accuracy), while the Eldritch Knight ability to pop off a cantrip in place of a single attack with the attack action pairs much better with melee than with archery, due to the melee attack cantrips not having a missile weapon equivalent.
nothing in 90% of fighter classes suggest melee.
im saying that melee versus ranged is not a proper dichotomy for fighter because they arent really designed to be primarily melee. Im saying champion is better opposite pair, because it is an opposite in other ways, namely magic versus mundane, brain versus brawn, simple versus complex.
also Ek existed before melee cantrips, and they arent the only option, toll of the dead for example does 4d12, true strike can use any weapon now. and there are also AOE cantrips that can do more damage in the right situations. The fact that melee is an option doesnt mean the subclass is designed to be more melee than any other subclass of fighter. Fighter is designed such that almost all the subclasses can be excellent at ranged play.
The fighter is definitely designed primarily to go into melee, with the option to go Ranged if you want. But mainly it is a melee class. Many of its features are to better endure the punishment of being on the front line. Many of their combat styles are designed for melee, with a few "neutral" and only one (two maybe) specific to going Ranged.
You can go with ranged weapons, obviously, and it's designed for that. You can switch between ranged and melee if you want. And in neither case will you lose effectiveness. But the design obviously assumes that most players are going to melee. And that's why it has the possibility of going with heavy armor. That is why it has many features to make it more resistant. And that's why most of their combat styles are designed for melee.
The fighter is definitely designed primarily to go into melee, with the option to go Ranged if you want. But mainly it is a melee class. Many of its features are to better endure the punishment of being on the front line. Many of their combat styles are designed for melee, with a few "neutral" and only one (two maybe) specific to going Ranged.
You can go with ranged weapons, obviously, and it's designed for that. You can switch between ranged and melee if you want. And in neither case will you lose effectiveness. But the design obviously assumes that most players are going to melee. And that's why it has the possibility of going with heavy armor. That is why it has many features to make it more resistant. And that's why most of their combat styles are designed for melee.
survivability in the game is determined by mitigation, max health, recovery and risk required to be effective.
having an option to melee requires you to be able to go into melee. Also almost all classes have strong survivability other than monk and rogue. And monk is literally the only class that needs to be within 5ft(unarmed attacks are 5ft) every turn in order to be effective. (even barbarian has reach weapons) So how melee you are isnt decided by how defensive you are.
the most survivable class in the game is cleric or druid And they can use ranged fairly well and exclusively, without losing damage. Also, wizards are HIGHLY survivable if they choose. Most classes just have different means of achieving survivability
this game currently does not say melee coded = high survivability.
Also, fighter is literally the best mundane ranged damage in the game, so if fighter isnt designed for ranged, no one is, who isnt using magic.
The fighter is definitely designed primarily to go into melee, with the option to go Ranged if you want. But mainly it is a melee class. Many of its features are to better endure the punishment of being on the front line. Many of their combat styles are designed for melee, with a few "neutral" and only one (two maybe) specific to going Ranged.
You can go with ranged weapons, obviously, and it's designed for that. You can switch between ranged and melee if you want. And in neither case will you lose effectiveness. But the design obviously assumes that most players are going to melee. And that's why it has the possibility of going with heavy armor. That is why it has many features to make it more resistant. And that's why most of their combat styles are designed for melee.
It is simply not true. They were designed to do both melee and ranged combat. An example of a class designed for melee is a Paladin. Paladin doesn’t have a ranged fighting style and many of it’s features only work in melee. You could use a bow, but you lose those features. A fighter has a ranged fighting style option and most of its features work just as well at range as they do in melee. It’s weird that you would claim the fighter is primarily designed for melee when the PHB tells you that Archer builds is an option for fighter. Only one fighter subclass struggles to have a ranged build and that’s Cavalier, because it has an Str based feature and has features that only work within 5ft of enemies.
But the fighter is designed to use ranged weapons if he wants. Nobody says otherwise. In fact I've already said it before.
About survival, I said it in relation to features like second wind, whose reason for being is to assume that the fighter is going to receive a lot of damage. And he's going to take a lot of damage because he's supposed to be on the front line. Druid Survival was a non-targeting effect when the class was designed, which is why they changed it. The survival of the cleric is not sought either. It's a survival that comes from being a healer, whose goal is to heal others. Second wind is a feature whose only objective (2014) is to heal the fighter himself. It's a feature designed specifically to make the fighter more durable, just like the barbarian's damage resistance.
In no case am I saying that the fighter is designed only to be in a melee. Quite the opposite. The fighter is designed to attack from a distance if he wants. But its a design that assumes that the majority of fighters are going to be in melee. Ranged fighters are an option, a viable option by design and intent. But the class favors melé. That's why it has more options to be in melee than ranged.
But the fighter is designed to use ranged weapons if he wants. Nobody says otherwise. In fact I've already said it before.
About survival, I said it in relation to features like second wind, whose reason for being is to assume that the fighter is going to receive a lot of damage. And he's going to take a lot of damage because he's supposed to be on the front line. Druid Survival was a non-targeting effect when the class was designed, which is why they changed it. The survival of the cleric is not sought either. It's a survival that comes from being a healer, whose goal is to heal others. Second wind is a feature whose only objective (2014) is to heal the fighter himself. It's a feature designed specifically to make the fighter more durable, just like the barbarian's damage resistance.
In no case am I saying that the fighter is designed only to be in a melee. Quite the opposite. The fighter is designed to attack from a distance if he wants. But its a design that assumes that the majority of fighters are going to be in melee. Ranged fighters are an option, a viable option by design and intent. But the class favors melé. That's why it has more options to be in melee than ranged.
the person its the most efficient to cure, is the person with the highest mitigation, clerics mitigation is equal to fighters, but they also have spells that boost it. And wizard has a ton of self only defensive features that make them virtually untouchable.
shield, thats a wizard spell for self.
mirror images, wizard spell for sell
blink wizard spell for self
blur wizard spell for self.
tensor transformation, wizard spell for self, the list goes on.
clerics altruism doesnt mean they are not more survivable than fighters, and as survivable as fighters even while they boost them. Wizards are more survivable for self. Survival and melee don't go hand in hand, so claiming the existence of second wind means fighter is designed for mleee, suggests wizard is designed for melee.
it also doesnt explain monk, who has low survivability and is highly melee.
But the fighter is designed to use ranged weapons if he wants. Nobody says otherwise. In fact I've already said it before.
About survival, I said it in relation to features like second wind, whose reason for being is to assume that the fighter is going to receive a lot of damage. And he's going to take a lot of damage because he's supposed to be on the front line. Druid Survival was a non-targeting effect when the class was designed, which is why they changed it. The survival of the cleric is not sought either. It's a survival that comes from being a healer, whose goal is to heal others. Second wind is a feature whose only objective (2014) is to heal the fighter himself. It's a feature designed specifically to make the fighter more durable, just like the barbarian's damage resistance.
In no case am I saying that the fighter is designed only to be in a melee. Quite the opposite. The fighter is designed to attack from a distance if he wants. But its a design that assumes that the majority of fighters are going to be in melee. Ranged fighters are an option, a viable option by design and intent. But the class favors melé. That's why it has more options to be in melee than ranged.
False, it has more melee options because there are more variety of melee options that can’t be covered by one style. Archery fighting style covers 90% of ranged combat. They created thrown weapon fighting style to cover the other 10%. Great weapon, dueling, unarmed and two weapon fighting styles cover the melee styles. They each do a different thing. Their is no point it getting multiple because they don’t stack with each other. Their aren’t more because you are supposed to fight in melee. The design doesn’t make assumptions. It allows each person to choose what they want to do. Also this debate is moving away from the original argument. All fighters have potential to be ranged combatants. Which at some level you just agreed with. That means Eldritch Knight is not a melee subclass. Since the Eldritch Knight is not a melee subclass the Arcane Archer which is a oddly a ranged focused subclass is not the Eldritch Knight’s opposite.
To be fair, those styles COULD be covered with one fighting style if it were worded that way. They could easily break archery into bows and crossbows separately if they wanted to.
Regardless, I think the melee/ranged argument is kind of irrelevant for determining what the 4th fighter subclass will be. I am very confident in my belief that it will not be arcane archer. I believe that because I don't think that arcane archer is in a good place for design, and I think it lacks wide appeal. I don't think that WOTC knows how to fix the design. I don't believe that ranged/melee will factor into their decision.
I think they are going to pick whatever subclass is in the best mechanical shape AND has the broadest appeal to the general playerbase. I think they are going to avoid niche subclasses, and save those for additional supplements. The two that stand out as generalists are Samurai and Cavalier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
There could be more ranged fighting styles. There could be the "sniper", for example. And that he ignored covers or who knows. There could be the "blank range" style, which would eliminate the disadvantage of being 5 feet away. There could be "Piercing Shot" that ignores resistance to piercing damage or something less broken. And, anyway, a lot more ranged fighting styles could exists. If they don't exist, it's not because Archery covers 90% of the possibilities, it's because the designers, for whatever reason, don't want to.
There could be more ranged fighting styles. There could be the "sniper", for example. And that he ignored covers or who knows. There could be the "blank range" style, which would eliminate the disadvantage of being 5 feet away. There could be "Piercing Shot" that ignores resistance to piercing damage or something less broken. And, anyway, a lot more ranged fighting styles could exists. If they don't exist, it's not because Archery covers 90% of the possibilities, it's because the designers, for whatever reason, don't want to.
So archery would work for every weapon you used one of your made fighting styles on. Dueling does not work on a two handed weapon. Great weapon fighting does not work with a one handed weapon. Two weapon fighting does nothing if you aren’t using two weapons, unarmed fighting does not help if you hit with a weapon. If you took your made up “sniper” you could also take “archery.” So like I said Archery covers 90% of ranged combat. Yes they could have made separate fighting styles for each ranged weapon, but they didn’t do that for melee weapons either. They made separate style to accommodate the ways you use the weapons. Fighter is not melee focused by design. Unless you were the 5e designer I’m going to have to ask you to stop saying that. Also if you are the 5e fighter designer I will let you know that if your goal was to make a melee focus combatant that could be ranged, you failed. You made all rounder that can equally fight in melee or ranged.
The two that stand out as generalists are Samurai and Cavalier.
The problem with the samurai is that the name is culturally specific. The problem with cavalier is that most people don't want to deal with mounted combat (and it tends to amount to "okay, your horse died as collateral damage, now you get to walk like everyone else"). Both could be reworked without a lot of work, but they aren't at zero work.
Looking at the existing fighter subclasses from the core books:
Arcane Archer: most people who want a spellcasting archer are satisfied with a ranger.
Cavalier: I think there's demand for both 'mounted combatant' and 'protection-focused fighter', but they're an uneasy fit together. Cavalier does a better job of implementing the second than the first but the name is pretty explicitly about mounted combat. I would want to either rebuild the class so it actually is about mounted combat, or rename it and replace 'born to the saddle' with a more relevant feature.
Psi Warrior: I don't think the core books have a lot of interest in 'psi' effects, though I know there's people who want it. It's otherwise reasonably functional.
Rune Knight: there's certainly demand for playing giant size characters, but with the new goliath it might be unnecessary.
Samurai: the name is culturally specific, they'd want to rename it. If your goal is to actually play a courtly fighter, there's better choices; its remaining features are functional but fairly bland.
Of options in non-core books
Echo Knight and Gunslinger are out due to being partnered content.
Purple Dragon Knight, if renamed, does represent a concept people want (the leadership character), but doesn't do a very good job at it.
There could be more ranged fighting styles. There could be the "sniper", for example. And that he ignored covers or who knows. There could be the "blank range" style, which would eliminate the disadvantage of being 5 feet away. There could be "Piercing Shot" that ignores resistance to piercing damage or something less broken. And, anyway, a lot more ranged fighting styles could exists. If they don't exist, it's not because Archery covers 90% of the possibilities, it's because the designers, for whatever reason, don't want to.
So archery would work for every weapon you used one of your made fighting styles on. Dueling does not work on a two handed weapon. Great weapon fighting does not work with a one handed weapon. Two weapon fighting does nothing if you aren’t using two weapons, unarmed fighting does not help if you hit with a weapon. If you took your made up “sniper” you could also take “archery.” So like I said Archery covers 90% of ranged combat. Yes they could have made separate fighting styles for each ranged weapon, but they didn’t do that for melee weapons either. They made separate style to accommodate the ways you use the weapons. Fighter is not melee focused by design. Unless you were the 5e designer I’m going to have to ask you to stop saying that. Also if you are the 5e fighter designer I will let you know that if your goal was to make a melee focus combatant that could be ranged, you failed. You made all rounder that can equally fight in melee or ranged.
I don't understand why you answer me so aggressively. And no, I am not a 5e designer nor do I claim to be. But it is obvious that the fighter is designed to be in the front row, but that it also allows a ranged fighter to be played. That is, you can become many types of fighter, most of them melee. And you can also be a ranged fighter too. But that comes later. It's an "Also." What you will see the most, the first objective of the class, is to make you a character that goes with a melee weapon. Think about it another way. A fighter can be a str or dex, and both work. But it is mainly designed to go to str. That's why its competition in str saves (and not in dex). Or put another way: The design assumes that the majority of fighters will go with a melee weapon, and that they will choose str. There are other possibilities, of course. And they are viable. But the main objective of the class is that. There is no balance between melee fighters options and ranged fighter options. The fighter options are mainly melee, and you "also" have the option to do it ranged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
bow or crossbow is 2/20 weapons. There is a lot more at play in a Google result than you claim.
And why would we agree most people think that? because two people agree with you?
lastly, its not all about knight, eldritch modifies knight, magic makes the knight not really all about melee. I see in Google tons of images with the knight poised to throw some magical energy.
which is the big flaw even if you accept that knights and ranged fighting are opposites, its the eldritch part definitely has connotations of ranged.
the idea isnt who sounds more like a ranged character, the idea is what two classes form strong opposites in theme, or playstyle. I fully agree An Arcane Archer is more coded as a ranged character, but that doesnt mean eldritch knight makes a great opposite. By that standard, AA is the opposite of every other fighter sub class. In fact out of the other subclasses, its one of the least opposite ones. They both use magic, they both have expanded range.
BM, or Champion, or Psi warrior are more 'melee' than EK. These subclasses are cousins, not opposing pairs
EKs biggest opposite, imo is champion. EK adds wizard to fighter, Aka Magical Academics. Champion builds on the physical Athlete side.
nerd vs jock, magic vs mundane, resource versus passives and even simple versus complex.
brawler was in opposition to BM, planner versus improviser
there isnt really a great opposing pair in the options they have left
I think that the EK's War Bond should allow that weapon to be used as a spellcasting focus... including using the weapon's bonus with the attack, damage, and save DC of spells cast through the weapon/ammunition.
So, if you cast firebolt through your bow, the attack and damage benefit from your War Bond weapon's bonuses. Same if you cast shocking grasp through your sword or halberd (or whip).
I think that would go a long way to letting the Arcane Archer blend into the EK. Especially if there are/were spells available to the EK that take the place of the Arcane Archer's special abilities.
While I wouldn’t do it for Save DC because then EK would dump Int. I would do it for Attack roll spells. I really like that idea. That would mean if your Str or Dex are higher than you Int, which they likely would be, you could use the better attack roll. Making spells like shocking grasp, lightning lure and others better for melee EK and spells like fire bolt and ray of frost more usable by ranged EK.
I get what you're saying, but it's not at all related to what I was saying. I didn't say substitute ability score modifiers (which seems to be what you're saying). I said you add the weapon's bonus (like +1 for a +1 sword) to your spell's attack/damage/saveDC.
I have a +2 Sword that I'm using as my War Bond weapon. I use it as my spellcasting focus to cast Firebolt. The Sword's +2 is applied to the attack and damage rolls for Firebolt... not my Str bonus.
So then I use it to cast lightning bolt. My +2 save DC goes up by 2, due the Sword's +2 ... making it harder for targets to save against the lighting bolt.
There exist spellcasting focuses that increase attack, damage, and sometimes DCs for the caster. But they aren't usually (that I recall) related to weapons, nor that allow a weapon's bonus to be used as such even if the weapon is otherwise usable as a spellcasting focus.
Okay I understand what you meant now. I like the misunderstanding version better, lol. Their is very few things that add damage to spells, but just Attack roll and DC is pretty common now a days, that would be fine.
I'm gonna disagree here - nothing in the Champion in any way shifts the focus towards melee or missile combat - and several combat Fighter/Archer builds use the Champion subclass for the extended crit range (pairs well with Elven Accuracy), while the Eldritch Knight ability to pop off a cantrip in place of a single attack with the attack action pairs much better with melee than with archery, due to the melee attack cantrips not having a missile weapon equivalent.
You’re using two melee attack cantrips that aren’t even guaranteed to be in the new PHB meaning some players won’t have access to them to claim that EK is better suited for melee. In the absence of those cantrips melee and ranged builds are equal. Even including them the Ranged build still has viable cantrip option each turn, but they aren’t as clear cut automatic damage boost like BB and GFB. They are control boost.
nothing in 90% of fighter classes suggest melee.
im saying that melee versus ranged is not a proper dichotomy for fighter because they arent really designed to be primarily melee. Im saying champion is better opposite pair, because it is an opposite in other ways, namely magic versus mundane, brain versus brawn, simple versus complex.
also Ek existed before melee cantrips, and they arent the only option, toll of the dead for example does 4d12, true strike can use any weapon now. and there are also AOE cantrips that can do more damage in the right situations. The fact that melee is an option doesnt mean the subclass is designed to be more melee than any other subclass of fighter. Fighter is designed such that almost all the subclasses can be excellent at ranged play.
The fighter is definitely designed primarily to go into melee, with the option to go Ranged if you want. But mainly it is a melee class. Many of its features are to better endure the punishment of being on the front line. Many of their combat styles are designed for melee, with a few "neutral" and only one (two maybe) specific to going Ranged.
You can go with ranged weapons, obviously, and it's designed for that. You can switch between ranged and melee if you want. And in neither case will you lose effectiveness. But the design obviously assumes that most players are going to melee. And that's why it has the possibility of going with heavy armor. That is why it has many features to make it more resistant. And that's why most of their combat styles are designed for melee.
survivability in the game is determined by mitigation, max health, recovery and risk required to be effective.
having an option to melee requires you to be able to go into melee. Also almost all classes have strong survivability other than monk and rogue. And monk is literally the only class that needs to be within 5ft(unarmed attacks are 5ft) every turn in order to be effective. (even barbarian has reach weapons) So how melee you are isnt decided by how defensive you are.
the most survivable class in the game is cleric or druid And they can use ranged fairly well and exclusively, without losing damage. Also, wizards are HIGHLY survivable if they choose. Most classes just have different means of achieving survivability
this game currently does not say melee coded = high survivability.
Also, fighter is literally the best mundane ranged damage in the game, so if fighter isnt designed for ranged, no one is, who isnt using magic.
It is simply not true. They were designed to do both melee and ranged combat. An example of a class designed for melee is a Paladin. Paladin doesn’t have a ranged fighting style and many of it’s features only work in melee. You could use a bow, but you lose those features. A fighter has a ranged fighting style option and most of its features work just as well at range as they do in melee. It’s weird that you would claim the fighter is primarily designed for melee when the PHB tells you that Archer builds is an option for fighter. Only one fighter subclass struggles to have a ranged build and that’s Cavalier, because it has an Str based feature and has features that only work within 5ft of enemies.
But the fighter is designed to use ranged weapons if he wants. Nobody says otherwise. In fact I've already said it before.
About survival, I said it in relation to features like second wind, whose reason for being is to assume that the fighter is going to receive a lot of damage. And he's going to take a lot of damage because he's supposed to be on the front line. Druid Survival was a non-targeting effect when the class was designed, which is why they changed it. The survival of the cleric is not sought either. It's a survival that comes from being a healer, whose goal is to heal others. Second wind is a feature whose only objective (2014) is to heal the fighter himself. It's a feature designed specifically to make the fighter more durable, just like the barbarian's damage resistance.
In no case am I saying that the fighter is designed only to be in a melee. Quite the opposite. The fighter is designed to attack from a distance if he wants. But its a design that assumes that the majority of fighters are going to be in melee. Ranged fighters are an option, a viable option by design and intent. But the class favors melé. That's why it has more options to be in melee than ranged.
the person its the most efficient to cure, is the person with the highest mitigation, clerics mitigation is equal to fighters, but they also have spells that boost it. And wizard has a ton of self only defensive features that make them virtually untouchable.
shield, thats a wizard spell for self.
mirror images, wizard spell for sell
blink wizard spell for self
blur wizard spell for self.
tensor transformation, wizard spell for self, the list goes on.
clerics altruism doesnt mean they are not more survivable than fighters, and as survivable as fighters even while they boost them. Wizards are more survivable for self. Survival and melee don't go hand in hand, so claiming the existence of second wind means fighter is designed for mleee, suggests wizard is designed for melee.
it also doesnt explain monk, who has low survivability and is highly melee.
False, it has more melee options because there are more variety of melee options that can’t be covered by one style. Archery fighting style covers 90% of ranged combat. They created thrown weapon fighting style to cover the other 10%. Great weapon, dueling, unarmed and two weapon fighting styles cover the melee styles. They each do a different thing. Their is no point it getting multiple because they don’t stack with each other. Their aren’t more because you are supposed to fight in melee. The design doesn’t make assumptions. It allows each person to choose what they want to do.
Also this debate is moving away from the original argument. All fighters have potential to be ranged combatants. Which at some level you just agreed with. That means Eldritch Knight is not a melee subclass. Since the Eldritch Knight is not a melee subclass the Arcane Archer which is a oddly a ranged focused subclass is not the Eldritch Knight’s opposite.
To be fair, those styles COULD be covered with one fighting style if it were worded that way. They could easily break archery into bows and crossbows separately if they wanted to.
Regardless, I think the melee/ranged argument is kind of irrelevant for determining what the 4th fighter subclass will be. I am very confident in my belief that it will not be arcane archer. I believe that because I don't think that arcane archer is in a good place for design, and I think it lacks wide appeal. I don't think that WOTC knows how to fix the design. I don't believe that ranged/melee will factor into their decision.
I think they are going to pick whatever subclass is in the best mechanical shape AND has the broadest appeal to the general playerbase. I think they are going to avoid niche subclasses, and save those for additional supplements. The two that stand out as generalists are Samurai and Cavalier.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
There could be more ranged fighting styles. There could be the "sniper", for example. And that he ignored covers or who knows. There could be the "blank range" style, which would eliminate the disadvantage of being 5 feet away. There could be "Piercing Shot" that ignores resistance to piercing damage or something less broken. And, anyway, a lot more ranged fighting styles could exists. If they don't exist, it's not because Archery covers 90% of the possibilities, it's because the designers, for whatever reason, don't want to.
So archery would work for every weapon you used one of your made fighting styles on. Dueling does not work on a two handed weapon. Great weapon fighting does not work with a one handed weapon. Two weapon fighting does nothing if you aren’t using two weapons, unarmed fighting does not help if you hit with a weapon. If you took your made up “sniper” you could also take “archery.” So like I said Archery covers 90% of ranged combat. Yes they could have made separate fighting styles for each ranged weapon, but they didn’t do that for melee weapons either. They made separate style to accommodate the ways you use the weapons. Fighter is not melee focused by design. Unless you were the 5e designer I’m going to have to ask you to stop saying that. Also if you are the 5e fighter designer I will let you know that if your goal was to make a melee focus combatant that could be ranged, you failed. You made all rounder that can equally fight in melee or ranged.
The problem with the samurai is that the name is culturally specific. The problem with cavalier is that most people don't want to deal with mounted combat (and it tends to amount to "okay, your horse died as collateral damage, now you get to walk like everyone else"). Both could be reworked without a lot of work, but they aren't at zero work.
Looking at the existing fighter subclasses from the core books:
Of options in non-core books
I don't understand why you answer me so aggressively.
And no, I am not a 5e designer nor do I claim to be. But it is obvious that the fighter is designed to be in the front row, but that it also allows a ranged fighter to be played. That is, you can become many types of fighter, most of them melee. And you can also be a ranged fighter too. But that comes later. It's an "Also." What you will see the most, the first objective of the class, is to make you a character that goes with a melee weapon.
Think about it another way. A fighter can be a str or dex, and both work. But it is mainly designed to go to str. That's why its competition in str saves (and not in dex). Or put another way: The design assumes that the majority of fighters will go with a melee weapon, and that they will choose str. There are other possibilities, of course. And they are viable. But the main objective of the class is that. There is no balance between melee fighters options and ranged fighter options. The fighter options are mainly melee, and you "also" have the option to do it ranged.