The playtest mostly has Subclasses with opposing concepts. With Brawler gone I thought...
Champion: Fewer options
Battle Master: More options
Eldridge Knight: Mix of Magic and Melee
Arcane Archer: Mix of Magic and Ranged
I think this is more likely - they seem to be using paired concepts with the subclasses so far, and Cavalier doesn't pair up with Eldritch Knight the way Arcane Archer does. Brawler at least seemed a thematic opposite of EK, the street fighter vs the mystic fighter. Other possibilities might be the Psi-Warrior or the Rune Knight.
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.
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.
I would agree with all fighters. I’ve seen very few ranged fighters. Most are melee in my experience
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.
Just because people don’t play ranged fighters doesn’t mean they melee only. That’s like saying Rangers are Ranged only just because the majority of people you see play them only use bows. It’s simply not true. In the case of Eldritch Knight their isn’t a single feature that states you need to be melee. Other then Booming blade and green flame blade their is 0 reason to play melee EK over a Ranged EK. Honestly in 5e that isn’t even a good reason to play melee over ranged. In 5eR it will be beneficial because you get one cantrip as an attack per round so BB and GFB will boost DPR, but that still doesn’t lock you in as a melee class. The concept is a fighter who can use magic. A fighter is not a melee class. I don’t care about images that people draw. Just because many players limit Fighters to melee only doesn’t mean design does. Actually it’s funny that while EK can be both melee and ranged Arcane Archer is actually ****** by trying to be melee. EK can use its features while using ranged weapons, but Arcane Archer loses the ability to use its’s features if you equip any weapon other than a bow. Arcane Archer is a supplement subclass at best and needs a lot of work before it’s even as good as Champion Fighter.
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?
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?
While Archer sounds more like a ranged fighter the reality is that EK is just as good at being ranged and AA is a trap. You literally take your fighter that can be effective in melee or at range and reduce them to features that only work with bows. The AA doesn’t even improve your ranged combat greatly compared to other fighters. Did you know most BM maneuvers with Bows. Actually the only fighters that don’t offer better features for archery that AA are Cavalier because it wants to be close to its opponents and has STR requirements for one feature and Psi Warrior because it needs to be within 30 ft of its targets which limits your range. What is funny is I actually like the Arcane Archer, but compared to most fighters it’s trash. Most Dex fighters who fight with a bow can switch to a rapier or short sword and still use their features, but not the AA. It loses its features if it is forced into melee. So while Arcane Archer is clearly ranged there is nothing that makes Eldritch Knight melee only.
As I’ve said before, look at the art in the Fighter sections of books; the only image of a Fighter using a bow in them I’ve found some in a class/subclass section was for the Arcane Archer. I do think mechanically Fighters are equally valid for ranged or melee, but conceptually there’s clearly a strong bias to picture them as melee first. Which is why I think putting in Arcane Archer now will help remind people that ranged is an option.
As I’ve said before, look at the art in the Fighter sections of books; the only image of a Fighter using a bow in them I’ve found some in a class/subclass section was for the Arcane Archer. I do think mechanically Fighters are equally valid for ranged or melee, but conceptually there’s clearly a strong bias to picture them as melee first. Which is why I think putting in Arcane Archer now will help remind people that ranged is an option.
The first paragraph of the fighter description in the PHB includes an archer that is not an arcane archer. Arcane Archer sucks because while every other Dex fighter can switch to melee weapon and keep using their features if the Arcane Archer switches to melee it loses all of its subclass features.
a) does the name "Knight" in "Eldritch Knight" imply more of a melee character? yes. But it's an implication only that is not represented in any mechanical way. b) does the mechanics of the EK limit them to melee (such as spell selection limiting or de-emphasizing ranged spells, giving a bonus to melee ones, etc.), or emphasize them as a melee character? no.
The thematic preference of Fighters for melee and not ranged, with ranged being picked up more by the tracker dude (avoiding the class name because many people mistakenly think it means "ranged attacker") is just a choice most players make. It's not represented in the mechanics, other than almost no representation for ranged attack based characters in the Fighter's group of subclasses. (and the main one that is present in 5e is kinda lamely written)
The Fighter needs a (mundane) Archer subclass (whose mechanics make it flexible to any ranged or thrown weapon build). The Arcane Archer needs a better write-up. I wouldn't want to see any official lean for the EK to actually have a mechanical melee emphasis until those two things are resolved. But I think it would make more sense to roll the Arcane Archer into the Eldritch Knight, rename it something like Arcane Warrior, and give it some sense of channeling magic through a signature weapon. The "Eldritch Knight" would just be a build of the Arcane Warrior that picked melee for their signature weapon(s), and Arcane Archer would just be an Arcane Warrior that picked ranged for their signature weapon(s).
All fighters can be archers and can be very good at that type of fighting. It’s not about what they can or can’t do because they can do both. But when someone says fighter, no matter the subclass, most people will think melee.
I am a wizard. I will run up to the target and hit him with my staff.
I am a knight. I will stay in the back and shoot my bow.
Both characters can do that but. When you hear 'knight' do you picture a warrior in armor fighting his foe toe to toe, or staying 30' or more away from his foe shooting arrows? Do you picture a 'wizard' at the rear of the party throwing spells or running up to a monster to hit it with his staff?
Should they just remove Arcane archer and Eldrich knight from the game and have one subclass that combines arcane magic with Ranged weapon attacks and melee Weapon attacks thus making this discussion moot. Since a fighter can focus on either ranged (DEX focus) or melee (STR or DEX focused) based on weapon choice
-----------------
Or have All weapon attacks from EK be limited to melee weapon attacks and weapon attacks from AA be limited to ranged weapons. Thus, giving definitive separation between melee and ranged.
--------------
Just my thoughts on the subject and reaction from thread.
I am a wizard. I will run up to the target and hit him with my staff.
I am a knight. I will stay in the back and shoot my bow.
Both characters can do that but. When you hear 'knight' do you picture a warrior in armor fighting his foe toe to toe, or staying 30' or more away from his foe shooting arrows? Do you picture a 'wizard' at the rear of the party throwing spells or running up to a monster to hit it with his staff?
Should they just remove Arcane archer and Eldrich knight from the game and have one subclass that combines arcane magic with Ranged weapon attacks and melee Weapon attacks thus making this discussion moot. Since a fighter can focus on either ranged (DEX focus) or melee (STR or DEX focused) based on weapon choice
-----------------
Or have All weapon attacks from EK be limited to melee weapon attacks and weapon attacks from AA be limited to ranged weapons. Thus, giving definitive separation between melee and ranged.
--------------
Just my thoughts on the subject and reaction from thread.
The wizard literally loses effectiveness in your example. The actual difference is I am a Wizard I am going to use this spell with the range of touch or I am a Wizard I’m going to use this spell with an attack roll at range. Now imagine a Wizard subclass that only had features that improve ranged Wizard spells that have an attack roll. That would be equal to Arcane Archer compared to base fighter. It’s not about EK vs AA, it’s the fact that EK can do both melee and ranged and AA can not. Why should they limit EK because AA is crappy. Just make AA better by losing the Archer restrictions on all of its features. The other option is to introduce it later in a supplement as the crappy fighter it is. I actually like AA. I have played one as is and had fun. That doesn’t mean it’s not literally worse than all other fighters because of the way it’s designed.
Why does AA need to turn generic? We’ve already got Rune Knight and Psi-Warrior for explicit magical powers that are weapon agnostic. Let the people who want to use bows have their special class; as much as Fighter is supposed to be equal opportunity, melee builds really do get more attention and support (how many fighting styles support some form of melee weapon build as opposed to ranged?).
Give me something like this Arcane Archer and I might be okay with it.
Arcane Archer Lore
Same as XGE, but include woodcarving tools
Arcane Strike
At 3rd level you gain two Arcane Strike options. Once per turn when you attack with a weapon as part of the Attack action, you can apply one of your Arcane Strike options to that attack. You decide to use the option when you hit a creature, unless the option doesn’t involve an attack roll. You have two uses of this ability, and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a short or long rest. Also if you have no uses of this ability you may use an action to expend a use of second wind to regain one use of Arcane Strike.
You gain an additional Arcane Strike option of your choice when you reach certain levels in this class: 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th level.
Magic Arrow
At 7th level, you gain the ability to infuse arrows with magic. Whenever you fire a nonmagical arrow or bolt and deal damage you can change the damage type. The damage can be Acid, Cold, Fire, Force, or Lightning. The magic fades from the arrow or bolt immediately after it hits or misses its target.
Curving Strike
At 7th level, you learn how to direct an errant attack toward a new target. When you make an attack roll and miss, you can use a bonus action to reroll the attack roll against a different target within the weapons range and within 60 feet of the original target.
Ever-Ready Strike
Starting at 10th level, your magical ability improves and is available whenever battle starts. You now have 3 uses of Arcane Strike. Additionally If you roll initiative and have no uses of Arcane Attack remaining, you regain one use of it.
Craft Arcane Arrow
Starting at 15th level, if you have woodcarving tools with you when you complete a long rest you may infuse one Arrow or Bolt with a Fireball spell. The spell remains in the Arrow or Bolt until you complete a long rest or you or another creature uses a Magic Action to break it, throw it or fire it from an appropriate weapon. If you break it the spell is centered on you, if you throw it the spell has a range of 30ft instead of it’s normal range, and if you fire it from an appropriate weapon the spell has the weapon’s range instead of its normal range. When you infuse the Arrow or Bolt you may choose to alter the damage type of the Fireball spell. You may choose it’s normal damage type of Fire or Acid, Cold, Force, or Lightning. If the Arrow or Bolt is destroyed the magic is harmlessly released.
Why does AA need to turn generic? We’ve already got Rune Knight and Psi-Warrior for explicit magical powers that are weapon agnostic. Let the people who want to use bows have their special class; as much as Fighter is supposed to be equal opportunity, melee builds really do get more attention and support (how many fighting styles support some form of melee weapon build as opposed to ranged?).
I doesn’t need to turn generic. Leave it as is, but then don’t put it in the primary must have book. Let it live as a weaker fighter in supplement books. Also the fighting styles all represent different fighting styles. So that was an unfair example. How many different ranged fighting styles are there? The same amount of different ways you can fight at range.
Why do people keep saying Eldritch Knight is melee? That is simply not true.
That ability to mix a cantrip with the rest of the melee attacks works much better with Booming Blade or some other melee focused cantrip than with a ranged one. The EK "can" do things other than mix magic and melee combat, but that is what they do best.
Now the Champion? They might work equally well as either an ranged or a melee combatant.
Why do people keep saying Eldritch Knight is melee? That is simply not true.
That ability to mix a cantrip with the rest of the melee attacks works much better with Booming Blade or some other melee focused cantrip than with a ranged one. The EK "can" do things other than mix magic and melee combat, but that is what they do best.
Now the Champion? They might work equally well as either an ranged or a melee combatant.
That is literally a feature of 5eR and not true of the current EK. It also still doesn’t limit the use of the feature for a ranged EK in 5eR. Eldritch Knight just isn’t a melee class. In 5eR you could be a Ranged EK and use Cantrips like Ray of Frost to keep enemies from reaching you, Frostbite to imposed Disadvantage on their next attack, Infestation to force movement great if they were using cover, or Toll the Dead for slight damage increase that might be a nerf if you roll bad. In truth Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade are just really good because they don’t require a Spellcasting stat to hit and deal your weapon damage. There is no ranged equivalent, but it still doesn’t make EK a melee subclass. The only forced melee subclass I can think of is the Cavalier.
In the end, I don’t think it really matters. AA most likely will not be in the 2024 PHB. It just needs too much work. And considering they are throwing Mercy Monk in there (if they stay from what was mentioned in the UA) then I could see Rune Knight the flip side of Eldritch Knight, just from a Rune vs Eldritch/Arcane Knights
Why do people keep saying Eldritch Knight is melee? That is simply not true.
That ability to mix a cantrip with the rest of the melee attacks works much better with Booming Blade or some other melee focused cantrip than with a ranged one. The EK "can" do things other than mix magic and melee combat, but that is what they do best.
So, you're saying (assuming equally good enchantments on both weapons, and assuming the 1DD version of the EK): shooting a bow 3 times, and then casting a ranged cantrip ... isn't as effective as swinging a sword 3 times and then casting a melee cantrip?
I think that the difference isn't in "am I a ranged EK vs a melee EK". I think the difference is in the exact weapon ... and the exact cantrip (because there will be better or worse choices within each set of cantrips). It isn't going to be a general "EKs are more melee than ranged" type conclusion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this is more likely - they seem to be using paired concepts with the subclasses so far, and Cavalier doesn't pair up with Eldritch Knight the way Arcane Archer does. Brawler at least seemed a thematic opposite of EK, the street fighter vs the mystic fighter. Other possibilities might be the Psi-Warrior or the Rune Knight.
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.
I would agree with all fighters. I’ve seen very few ranged fighters. Most are melee in my experience
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Just because people don’t play ranged fighters doesn’t mean they melee only. That’s like saying Rangers are Ranged only just because the majority of people you see play them only use bows. It’s simply not true. In the case of Eldritch Knight their isn’t a single feature that states you need to be melee. Other then Booming blade and green flame blade their is 0 reason to play melee EK over a Ranged EK. Honestly in 5e that isn’t even a good reason to play melee over ranged. In 5eR it will be beneficial because you get one cantrip as an attack per round so BB and GFB will boost DPR, but that still doesn’t lock you in as a melee class. The concept is a fighter who can use magic. A fighter is not a melee class. I don’t care about images that people draw. Just because many players limit Fighters to melee only doesn’t mean design does. Actually it’s funny that while EK can be both melee and ranged Arcane Archer is actually ****** by trying to be melee. EK can use its features while using ranged weapons, but Arcane Archer loses the ability to use its’s features if you equip any weapon other than a bow. Arcane Archer is a supplement subclass at best and needs a lot of work before it’s even as good as Champion Fighter.
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?
While Archer sounds more like a ranged fighter the reality is that EK is just as good at being ranged and AA is a trap. You literally take your fighter that can be effective in melee or at range and reduce them to features that only work with bows. The AA doesn’t even improve your ranged combat greatly compared to other fighters. Did you know most BM maneuvers with Bows. Actually the only fighters that don’t offer better features for archery that AA are Cavalier because it wants to be close to its opponents and has STR requirements for one feature and Psi Warrior because it needs to be within 30 ft of its targets which limits your range. What is funny is I actually like the Arcane Archer, but compared to most fighters it’s trash. Most Dex fighters who fight with a bow can switch to a rapier or short sword and still use their features, but not the AA. It loses its features if it is forced into melee.
So while Arcane Archer is clearly ranged there is nothing that makes Eldritch Knight melee only.
As I’ve said before, look at the art in the Fighter sections of books; the only image of a Fighter using a bow in them I’ve found some in a class/subclass section was for the Arcane Archer. I do think mechanically Fighters are equally valid for ranged or melee, but conceptually there’s clearly a strong bias to picture them as melee first. Which is why I think putting in Arcane Archer now will help remind people that ranged is an option.
The first paragraph of the fighter description in the PHB includes an archer that is not an arcane archer. Arcane Archer sucks because while every other Dex fighter can switch to melee weapon and keep using their features if the Arcane Archer switches to melee it loses all of its subclass features.
a) does the name "Knight" in "Eldritch Knight" imply more of a melee character? yes. But it's an implication only that is not represented in any mechanical way.
b) does the mechanics of the EK limit them to melee (such as spell selection limiting or de-emphasizing ranged spells, giving a bonus to melee ones, etc.), or emphasize them as a melee character? no.
The thematic preference of Fighters for melee and not ranged, with ranged being picked up more by the tracker dude (avoiding the class name because many people mistakenly think it means "ranged attacker") is just a choice most players make. It's not represented in the mechanics, other than almost no representation for ranged attack based characters in the Fighter's group of subclasses. (and the main one that is present in 5e is kinda lamely written)
The Fighter needs a (mundane) Archer subclass (whose mechanics make it flexible to any ranged or thrown weapon build). The Arcane Archer needs a better write-up. I wouldn't want to see any official lean for the EK to actually have a mechanical melee emphasis until those two things are resolved. But I think it would make more sense to roll the Arcane Archer into the Eldritch Knight, rename it something like Arcane Warrior, and give it some sense of channeling magic through a signature weapon. The "Eldritch Knight" would just be a build of the Arcane Warrior that picked melee for their signature weapon(s), and Arcane Archer would just be an Arcane Warrior that picked ranged for their signature weapon(s).
All fighters can be archers and can be very good at that type of fighting. It’s not about what they can or can’t do because they can do both. But when someone says fighter, no matter the subclass, most people will think melee.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I am a wizard. I will run up to the target and hit him with my staff.
I am a knight. I will stay in the back and shoot my bow.
Both characters can do that but. When you hear 'knight' do you picture a warrior in armor fighting his foe toe to toe, or staying 30' or more away from his foe shooting arrows? Do you picture a 'wizard' at the rear of the party throwing spells or running up to a monster to hit it with his staff?
Should they just remove Arcane archer and Eldrich knight from the game and have one subclass that combines arcane magic with Ranged weapon attacks and melee Weapon attacks thus making this discussion moot. Since a fighter can focus on either ranged (DEX focus) or melee (STR or DEX focused) based on weapon choice
-----------------
Or have All weapon attacks from EK be limited to melee weapon attacks and weapon attacks from AA be limited to ranged weapons. Thus, giving definitive separation between melee and ranged.
--------------
Just my thoughts on the subject and reaction from thread.
The wizard literally loses effectiveness in your example. The actual difference is I am a Wizard I am going to use this spell with the range of touch or I am a Wizard I’m going to use this spell with an attack roll at range. Now imagine a Wizard subclass that only had features that improve ranged Wizard spells that have an attack roll. That would be equal to Arcane Archer compared to base fighter. It’s not about EK vs AA, it’s the fact that EK can do both melee and ranged and AA can not. Why should they limit EK because AA is crappy. Just make AA better by losing the Archer restrictions on all of its features. The other option is to introduce it later in a supplement as the crappy fighter it is. I actually like AA. I have played one as is and had fun. That doesn’t mean it’s not literally worse than all other fighters because of the way it’s designed.
Why does AA need to turn generic? We’ve already got Rune Knight and Psi-Warrior for explicit magical powers that are weapon agnostic. Let the people who want to use bows have their special class; as much as Fighter is supposed to be equal opportunity, melee builds really do get more attention and support (how many fighting styles support some form of melee weapon build as opposed to ranged?).
Give me something like this Arcane Archer and I might be okay with it.
Arcane Archer Lore
Same as XGE, but include woodcarving tools
Arcane Strike
At 3rd level you gain two Arcane Strike options. Once per turn when you attack with a weapon as part of the Attack action, you can apply one of your Arcane Strike options to that attack. You decide to use the option when you hit a creature, unless the option doesn’t involve an attack roll. You have two uses of this ability, and you regain all expended uses of it when you finish a short or long rest. Also if you have no uses of this ability you may use an action to expend a use of second wind to regain one use of Arcane Strike.
You gain an additional Arcane Strike option of your choice when you reach certain levels in this class: 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th level.
Magic Arrow
At 7th level, you gain the ability to infuse arrows with magic. Whenever you fire a nonmagical arrow or bolt and deal damage you can change the damage type. The damage can be Acid, Cold, Fire, Force, or Lightning. The magic fades from the arrow or bolt immediately after it hits or misses its target.
Curving Strike
At 7th level, you learn how to direct an errant attack toward a new target. When you make an attack roll and miss, you can use a bonus action to reroll the attack roll against a different target within the weapons range and within 60 feet of the original target.
Ever-Ready Strike
Starting at 10th level, your magical ability improves and is available whenever battle starts. You now have 3 uses of Arcane Strike. Additionally If you roll initiative and have no uses of Arcane Attack remaining, you regain one use of it.
Craft Arcane Arrow
Starting at 15th level, if you have woodcarving tools with you when you complete a long rest you may infuse one Arrow or Bolt with a Fireball spell. The spell remains in the Arrow or Bolt until you complete a long rest or you or another creature uses a Magic Action to break it, throw it or fire it from an appropriate weapon. If you break it the spell is centered on you, if you throw it the spell has a range of 30ft instead of it’s normal range, and if you fire it from an appropriate weapon the spell has the weapon’s range instead of its normal range. When you infuse the Arrow or Bolt you may choose to alter the damage type of the Fireball spell. You may choose it’s normal damage type of Fire or Acid, Cold, Force, or Lightning. If the Arrow or Bolt is destroyed the magic is harmlessly released.
I doesn’t need to turn generic. Leave it as is, but then don’t put it in the primary must have book. Let it live as a weaker fighter in supplement books. Also the fighting styles all represent different fighting styles. So that was an unfair example. How many different ranged fighting styles are there? The same amount of different ways you can fight at range.
That ability to mix a cantrip with the rest of the melee attacks works much better with Booming Blade or some other melee focused cantrip than with a ranged one. The EK "can" do things other than mix magic and melee combat, but that is what they do best.
Now the Champion? They might work equally well as either an ranged or a melee combatant.
That is literally a feature of 5eR and not true of the current EK. It also still doesn’t limit the use of the feature for a ranged EK in 5eR. Eldritch Knight just isn’t a melee class. In 5eR you could be a Ranged EK and use Cantrips like Ray of Frost to keep enemies from reaching you, Frostbite to imposed Disadvantage on their next attack, Infestation to force movement great if they were using cover, or Toll the Dead for slight damage increase that might be a nerf if you roll bad. In truth Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade are just really good because they don’t require a Spellcasting stat to hit and deal your weapon damage. There is no ranged equivalent, but it still doesn’t make EK a melee subclass. The only forced melee subclass I can think of is the Cavalier.
In the end, I don’t think it really matters. AA most likely will not be in the 2024 PHB. It just needs too much work. And considering they are throwing Mercy Monk in there (if they stay from what was mentioned in the UA) then I could see Rune Knight the flip side of Eldritch Knight, just from a Rune vs Eldritch/Arcane Knights
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
So, you're saying (assuming equally good enchantments on both weapons, and assuming the 1DD version of the EK): shooting a bow 3 times, and then casting a ranged cantrip ... isn't as effective as swinging a sword 3 times and then casting a melee cantrip?
I think that the difference isn't in "am I a ranged EK vs a melee EK". I think the difference is in the exact weapon ... and the exact cantrip (because there will be better or worse choices within each set of cantrips). It isn't going to be a general "EKs are more melee than ranged" type conclusion.