Why should every sniper, trick-shot artist, or magical gunslinger, be a woodsman or eco-warrior?
That would be more convincing if it weren't for
Arcane Archer Lore
At 3rd level, you learn magical theory or some of the secrets of nature — typical for practitioners of this elven martial tradition. You choose to gain proficiency in either the Arcana or the Nature skill, and you choose to learn either the prestidigitation or the druidcraft cantrip.
Choosing the 'secrets of nature' path is pretty much just admitting "I want to play a ranger but I don't want to use the ranger class".
I would have no issues with a class that handles the trick-shot archer better (your other examples are perfectly adequately handled by existing classes) but why shackle it to 'arcane' stuff?
It’s because Irrelevant_guy made a false claim that Rangers are designed to be ranged combatants to try to prove that fighters are designed to be melee combatants. In truth he has already admitted that he isn’t a part of the 5e design team and I can’t figure out why he is still pushing these false narratives. The design of both Fighter and Ranger is to be able to use both melee and ranged combat equally effectively. Multiple people have already explained this to him, but he continues to push his assumptions as objective truth. I would be okay with it if he were pulling up new information from the books to support his claim and then others had to rebuttal, but so far he makes the unsupported claim and someone shoots it down. He semi agrees with them, but makes the claim again. Wash and repeat.
The idea that a ranger is 'designed' to be a ranged damage dealer is frankly comical. There's far too much evidence to the contrary. What stands out most to me is how dual wield was handled. In previous editions of the game, scimitars were D8 strength based, slashing weapons. Suddenly, 5e rolls around, and...scimitars have been demoted to d6 weapons. With finesse. Why might that be? So that fans of a certain dark elf ranger from popular fiction set in a D&D intellectual property world could build their 2x scimitar character concept right out of the box. If they remained a D8 weapon, then DW would crap all over 2h and sword and board mechanically. Dropping it down to a D6 in one hand and a D6 in the other hand is quite comparable with the 2h sword's 2d6. It needed to be finesse as that certain dark elf ranger is famously dexterous as opposed to strong. So, it's easy to see where concessions were made to ranger specifically, as melee.
Then there's the whole range thing. Longbows being dexterity based is 100% a concession to elves historically getting a + bonus to their dexterity scores AND to their legacy as being superior archers. Anyone who's tried to pull a 120lb longbow will tell you that dexterity is not what they were using to do so. My hope is that when 6e eventually rolls around, Long and Shortbows will be turned into strength weapons, while crossbows (which use a machines to create the leverage used to fire their bolts) stay dexterity based.
So let's not pretend there's some world in which the designers INTENDED rangers to be ranged. Not a single ranger I ever saw all the way back to 2e was ever primarily an archer. We were all melee fighters who also pulled out bows from time to time. The whole rangers are intended to be ranged thing comes from players who realized that rangers simply work better in 5e at range than they do in melee. You can still make a solid melee ranger if you want to, and the game is designed to support that.
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.
It’s because Irrelevant_guy made a false claim that Rangers are designed to be ranged combatants to try to prove that fighters are designed to be melee combatants. In truth he has already admitted that he isn’t a part of the 5e design team and I can’t figure out why he is still pushing these false narratives. The design of both Fighter and Ranger is to be able to use both melee and ranged combat equally effectively. Multiple people have already explained this to him, but he continues to push his assumptions as objective truth. I would be okay with it if he were pulling up new information from the books to support his claim and then others had to rebuttal, but so far he makes the unsupported claim and someone shoots it down. He semi agrees with them, but makes the claim again. Wash and repeat.
I sincerely believe that you do not understand what I write. It's probably because I'm not a native, and I don't know how to explain it. But in no case have I said that the fighter is not designed to use ranged weapons or that he is better with melee weapons. We are going to do a fictional exercise, and we are going to say that of the 4 fighters that can be made, one is ranged. Obviously that ratio is invented, I have not done the calculations. But you get the idea, right? This is what I say. That the fighter is mainly a melee fighter, not that he is better at melee, or that he is not good with ranged weapons.
You have more options to go melee. And its design assumes that the average player is going to use it in melee. Which also happens in the real game.
Well, technically speaking Cavalier is more equestrian-specific than Knight, because the former comes from the word for horse or horseman in French, while the latter comes from a word that originally meant young man in Old English. Now, both words have certainly altered in meaning over the years (since, for example, Knave comes from the same word as Knight), and their original connotations may (arguably) have changed significantly, but if we are talking technicalities, then Cavalier (or Chevalier as you have suggested) are both specifically related to horses.
Knight has meant someone who is a mounted warrior since the 1300s and continued to mean that well into the present day. Cavalier stopped having that association in the 1590s and became a word to refer to the Royalists during the English Civil War and evolved from there to mean a type of style and attitude of a sort of roguish nobleman. Now it just means someone with a callous attitude.
Yet we have in this very thread an argument that Eldritch Knight, by virtue of using the term knight, should focus on footed combat. I don't see any real reason Chevalier or Cavalier can't refer to a class that isn't always mounted just because the terms used to refer to mounted combatants in a now archaic use of the word.
Far more crucial, to me, would be aligning with a term with more Chivalric connotations to better reflect the gallant, defensive archetype. But that's just me.
Knight has meant someone who is a mounted warrior since the 1300s and continued to mean that well into the present day. Cavalier stopped having that association in the 1590s and became a word to refer to the Royalists during the English Civil War and evolved from there to mean a type of style and attitude of a sort of roguish nobleman.
The problem is that cavalier is obviously similar to cavalry, which is unambiguously associated with mounted combat. Just changing to chevalier, even though it's the same root word, would in fact help.
"Anyone who's tried to pull a 120lb longbow will tell you that dexterity is not what they were using to do so. " How to say you've never used a bow. This is so stupid. Yes I think bodybuilders are deadly with a bow. Definitely perfect aiming and dAmAge. Archery is all about stamina and eye full body coordination. Longbow are no exception. So yes dex is perfectly legit.
It’s because Irrelevant_guy made a false claim that Rangers are designed to be ranged combatants to try to prove that fighters are designed to be melee combatants. In truth he has already admitted that he isn’t a part of the 5e design team and I can’t figure out why he is still pushing these false narratives. The design of both Fighter and Ranger is to be able to use both melee and ranged combat equally effectively. Multiple people have already explained this to him, but he continues to push his assumptions as objective truth. I would be okay with it if he were pulling up new information from the books to support his claim and then others had to rebuttal, but so far he makes the unsupported claim and someone shoots it down. He semi agrees with them, but makes the claim again. Wash and repeat.
I sincerely believe that you do not understand what I write. It's probably because I'm not a native, and I don't know how to explain it. But in no case have I said that the fighter is not designed to use ranged weapons or that he is better with melee weapons. We are going to do a fictional exercise, and we are going to say that of the 4 fighters that can be made, one is ranged. Obviously that ratio is invented, I have not done the calculations. But you get the idea, right? This is what I say. That the fighter is mainly a melee fighter, not that he is better at melee, or that he is not good with ranged weapons.
You have more options to go melee. And its design assumes that the average player is going to use it in melee. Which also happens in the real game.
This is the problem. Of the 4 fighters all of them could be ranged or melee. Players might mainly use melee fighters, but that has nothing to do with the design. If I make a car and I start giving them away in two colors. Red and Blue. If more people take the red colored one it doesn’t mean that I designed the car to be red. The design of the fighter is to be able to use both melee and ranged combat. The players typically choose to use it in melee. This is different than the Barbarian and Paladin which are designed to be primarily melee combatants. Both can use ranged weapons, but have multiple features that wouldn’t work effectively with a ranged weapon.
"Anyone who's tried to pull a 120lb longbow will tell you that dexterity is not what they were using to do so. " How to say you've never used a bow. This is so stupid. Yes I think bodybuilders are deadly with a bow. Definitely perfect aiming and dAmAge. Archery is all about stamina and eye full body coordination. Longbow are no exception. So yes dex is perfectly legit.
In the real world all weapons involve both strength and coordination (and armor doesn't make you harder to hit) and an archer who expects to use a war bow is going to be very strong, but this is D&D and people like their skinny noodle-armed archers.
"Anyone who's tried to pull a 120lb longbow will tell you that dexterity is not what they were using to do so. " How to say you've never used a bow. This is so stupid. Yes I think bodybuilders are deadly with a bow. Definitely perfect aiming and dAmAge. Archery is all about stamina and eye full body coordination. Longbow are no exception. So yes dex is perfectly legit.
In the real world all weapons involve both strength and coordination (and armor doesn't make you harder to hit) and an archer who expects to use a war bow is going to be very strong, but this is D&D and people like their skinny noodle-armed archers.
I think it just makes it easier for stat arrays. They could make all “to hit” rolls Dexterity and just melee damage Strength. Then ranged weapons would be Dexterity to damage since it is more about where you hit, but require at least 12 Str for normal range on short bow and 14 for long range and at least a 13 for short range on a long bow and 15 for long range. Javalines range would be based on your strength. This is so complex it would never happen.
I think it just makes it easier for stat arrays. They could make all “to hit” rolls Dexterity and just melee damage Strength. Then ranged weapons would be Dexterity to damage since it is more about where you hit, but require at least 12 Str for normal range on short bow and 14 for long range and at least a 13 for short range on a long bow and 15 for long range. Javalines range would be based on your strength. This is so complex it would never happen.
Plenty of game systems have done something similar and it really isn't all that hard, but it would be pretty clearly Not D&D.
In other editions of D&D, bows added nothing to damage. Only some specific bows, such as the compound bow, allowed you to add your str. In 5e it has been simplified.
"Anyone who's tried to pull a 120lb longbow will tell you that dexterity is not what they were using to do so. " How to say you've never used a bow. This is so stupid. Yes I think bodybuilders are deadly with a bow. Definitely perfect aiming and dAmAge. Archery is all about stamina and eye full body coordination. Longbow are no exception. So yes dex is perfectly legit.
(a) I suppose bodybuilders also don't tend to be particularly good with a sword. (In dnd you also need proficiency)
(b) The stronger you are, the stronger your bow can be. With STR 8 you might be able to pull a 40lbs bow, with STR 20 maybe 400lbs (might be exaggerated)
(c) If you are stronger, you can hold the bow at draw length with less effort, giving you a steadier aim. You could argue that this is a CON feat, rather than STR but it has nothing to do with DEX.
I think it just makes it easier for stat arrays. They could make all “to hit” rolls Dexterity and just melee damage Strength. Then ranged weapons would be Dexterity to damage since it is more about where you hit, but require at least 12 Str for normal range on short bow and 14 for long range and at least a 13 for short range on a long bow and 15 for long range. Javalines range would be based on your strength. This is so complex it would never happen.
As above, if it is about where you hit, aiming is the important part (STR or maybe CON). If anything else, it should be WIS.
That said, since a rule system where a few ability scores define a persons capabilities, it is to be expected that this breaks at one point or another and will always be imperfect. Debating over which imperfect implementation captures realism slightly better hardly will lead to better game design.
Why should every sniper, trick-shot artist, or magical gunslinger, be a woodsman or eco-warrior?
That would be more convincing if it weren't for
Arcane Archer Lore
At 3rd level, you learn magical theory or some of the secrets of nature — typical for practitioners of this elven martial tradition. You choose to gain proficiency in either the Arcana or the Nature skill, and you choose to learn either the prestidigitation or the druidcraft cantrip.
Choosing the 'secrets of nature' path is pretty much just admitting "I want to play a ranger but I don't want to use the ranger class".
I would have no issues with a class that handles the trick-shot archer better (your other examples are perfectly adequately handled by existing classes) but why shackle it to 'arcane' stuff?
Even if you eliminate the Nature+Druidcraft side of that, and say "that guy has to be a Ranger", that still leaves the Arcana+Prestidigitation choice(s). (and I _am_ ok with eliminating the Nature+Druidcraft option ... in my comment in the Artificer thread, I pretty much eliminate that by eliminating that whole sub-feature.
And I don't think (magical) trick-shot is the only one of the examples I gave that fits an Arcane Archer, and isn't better done by another class+subclass. Magic Sniper (yes, I said "sniper" and put magic elsewhere, but the Arcane in Arcane Archer, as well as some of their Arcane Shots, pins it to magical and not just a really good mundane sniper), and Magic Gunslinger (among official classes) seem to both be what the Arcane Archer is going for ... and I don't know what class+subclass combo better suits it. The Arcane Trickster can be effective at being a Sniper, but their magic isn't specific to their ability as a sniper: their effectiveness as a sniper is exactly the same as the non-magic subclasses of the Rogue.
Sniper (non-magical)? I'll concede that a Rogue (Assassin) is a great sniper. But I also should have prefaced Sniper with Magical... so let me re-ask that as: who's a better conceptual fit for a Magical Sniper than a revised Arcane Archer? And who's a better fit for a Magical Gunslinger than a revised Arcane Archer?
Sniper (non-magical)? I'll concede that a Rogue (Assassin) is a great sniper. But I also should have prefaced Sniper with Magical... so let me re-ask that as: who's a better conceptual fit for a Magical Sniper than a revised Arcane Archer?
And who's a better fit for a Magical Gunslinger than a revised Arcane Archer?
Why should every sniper, trick-shot artist, or magical gunslinger, be a woodsman or eco-warrior?
That would be more convincing if it weren't for
Arcane Archer Lore
At 3rd level, you learn magical theory or some of the secrets of nature — typical for practitioners of this elven martial tradition. You choose to gain proficiency in either the Arcana or the Nature skill, and you choose to learn either the prestidigitation or the druidcraft cantrip.
Choosing the 'secrets of nature' path is pretty much just admitting "I want to play a ranger but I don't want to use the ranger class".
I would have no issues with a class that handles the trick-shot archer better (your other examples are perfectly adequately handled by existing classes) but why shackle it to 'arcane' stuff?
Even if you eliminate the Nature+Druidcraft side of that, and say "that guy has to be a Ranger", that still leaves the Arcana+Prestidigitation choice(s). (and I _am_ ok with eliminating the Nature+Druidcraft option ... in my comment in the Artificer thread, I pretty much eliminate that by eliminating that whole sub-feature.
And I don't think (magical) trick-shot is the only one of the examples I gave that fits an Arcane Archer, and isn't better done by another class+subclass. Magic Sniper (yes, I said "sniper" and put magic elsewhere, but the Arcane in Arcane Archer, as well as some of their Arcane Shots, pins it to magical and not just a really good mundane sniper), and Magic Gunslinger (among official classes) seem to both be what the Arcane Archer is going for ... and I don't know what class+subclass combo better suits it. The Arcane Trickster can be effective at being a Sniper, but their magic isn't specific to their ability as a sniper: their effectiveness as a sniper is exactly the same as the non-magic subclasses of the Rogue.
Sniper (non-magical)? I'll concede that a Rogue (Assassin) is a great sniper. But I also should have prefaced Sniper with Magical... so let me re-ask that as: who's a better conceptual fit for a Magical Sniper than a revised Arcane Archer? And who's a better fit for a Magical Gunslinger than a revised Arcane Archer?
revised could mean anything. Can't really speak on who is better until i see the revision, and it would have to be an official one, because while im sure i could make a revision that is a great magical sniper/slinger, the current AA isnt one, and there is no reason to believe the designers intend to make one.
Sniper (non-magical)? I'll concede that a Rogue (Assassin) is a great sniper. But I also should have prefaced Sniper with Magical... so let me re-ask that as: who's a better conceptual fit for a Magical Sniper than a revised Arcane Archer?
And who's a better fit for a Magical Gunslinger than a revised Arcane Archer?
A ranger accomplishes both goals just fine.
Part of the whole premise of this discussion is: no, they don't. They have too much invested in being a woodsman to fit non-woodsman archers. The only reason people pick Ranger for it isn't that it's a good way to accomplish that goal. It's because the alternative (the 5e Arcane Archer) sucks.
Gunslingers are typically depicted as urban, not out-in-nature... as would a magical gunslinger. Percy makes a good model of a "magical gunslinger". But, for Percy, Ranger is a horrible fit.
Same with a (magical) sniper: you could do the MCU version of Hawkeye as an Artificer(Arcane Archer), where all of his special arrows are infused items, arcane shots, and spells-via-shots ... but we don't see him ever see him as an ultra-woodsman. He's more of an urban sniper. Again, Ranger is a horrible fit here.
After a couple days of thought the Arcane Archer should probably a Wizard subclass. If you look at the history of the prestige class it was a way to merge an arcane spellcaster with a martial archer. The 5e version didn’t offer spell slots at all because the class would have just been an eldritch knight plays shots. As a Wizard subclass it sits next to bladesinger but gets to be different. The weapon restriction of a bow use doesn’t come off as a minus to the Wizard like it is for a fighter.
3rd level Arcane Shot- You can use a bow, crossbow or firearm as a Spellcasting focus. As a Magic action you can cast any ranged attack roll spell/cantrip through the weapon as if it was ammunition for the weapon. The spells range becomes the weapons range, you may use your Dexterity for the attack roll and if you do you add your Dexterity to one damage roll of the spell. 3rd Level Magic Arrow- when you hit with a ranged weapon attack you may change the damage type to that of any prepared spell you have instead of the weapon’s normal damage. 6th Level Rapid Shot- If you use Arcane Shot to cast a cantrip you may make a ranged weapon attack with the same action. 6th Level Curving Shot- If you miss a creature with an Arcane Shot or an attack with with ranged weapon you may use your bonus action to attempt hit another creature within 60 ft of the original target. 10th Level Bursting Shot- You may use Arcane Shot to deliver an instantaneous area of effect spell (like fireball or vitriolic sphere) as long as they don’t have a range of self. Make an attack roll against a target within the weapons range using your Intelligence or Dexterity Modifier. A target hit by the attack roll has disadvantage on any saves associated with the spell and if you used Dexterity the target takes additional damage equal to your Dexterity modifier. This additional damage is Force or the same type as the spell, your choice when you hit. The spell activates centered on the target. If you miss the spell activates centered 5ft from the target in a space of the DM’s choice. 14th Level Improved Rapid Shot- If you use Arcane Shot you may make a ranged weapon attack with the same action. If you cast a cantrip and hit a target you have advantage on your next weapon attack against that target until the end of your turn.
Or something like this. More importantly as a Wizard there is no hope of Arcane Archer making the PHB 2024 since the 4 Wizards are already selected, but I still think something like this is best for the subclass.
I completely agree with you. I've always felt that blade pact warlock fit the bill of an arcane archer much better than...what we got. I think 1/3 progression, with the eldritch smitiness from blade lock might have been interesting. I think that ship has sailed though. I don't really know how to go about fixing arcane archer without treading on other class's toes.
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.
I completely agree with you. I've always felt that blade pact warlock fit the bill of an arcane archer much better than...what we got. I think 1/3 progression, with the eldritch smitiness from blade lock might have been interesting. I think that ship has sailed though. I don't really know how to go about fixing arcane archer without treading on other class's toes.
I wouldn’t worry too much about the last part: the purpose of many subclasses is to (lightly) step on the toes of another class. Like a light-multiclass.
After a couple days of thought the Arcane Archer should probably a Wizard subclass.
Why not a bard subclass? Bards have two martial subclasses, but Swords is pure melee and Valor can go either way. A dedicated ranged martial subclass would round them out, and I think it'd suit the bard fantasy really well. Just take some of the flavor of the daring, swashbuckling Swords Bard who entertains with flourishes and feats of skill and replace it with trick shot archery with lots of acrobatic maneuvers and flashy magic arrows.
They could have something like the Sword Bard flourishes or Battlemaster Maneuvers but made into Trick Shots that let them loose an arrow while using other actions like Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Use Object, etc. They could also be given something like an innate Climb Speed to simulate combining their archery and acrobatics into some parkour-like abilities.
Then add Arcane Shots like what you suggested so they can mix their magic and mundane combat prowess together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That would be more convincing if it weren't for
Choosing the 'secrets of nature' path is pretty much just admitting "I want to play a ranger but I don't want to use the ranger class".
I would have no issues with a class that handles the trick-shot archer better (your other examples are perfectly adequately handled by existing classes) but why shackle it to 'arcane' stuff?
The idea that a ranger is 'designed' to be a ranged damage dealer is frankly comical. There's far too much evidence to the contrary. What stands out most to me is how dual wield was handled. In previous editions of the game, scimitars were D8 strength based, slashing weapons. Suddenly, 5e rolls around, and...scimitars have been demoted to d6 weapons. With finesse. Why might that be? So that fans of a certain dark elf ranger from popular fiction set in a D&D intellectual property world could build their 2x scimitar character concept right out of the box. If they remained a D8 weapon, then DW would crap all over 2h and sword and board mechanically. Dropping it down to a D6 in one hand and a D6 in the other hand is quite comparable with the 2h sword's 2d6. It needed to be finesse as that certain dark elf ranger is famously dexterous as opposed to strong. So, it's easy to see where concessions were made to ranger specifically, as melee.
Then there's the whole range thing. Longbows being dexterity based is 100% a concession to elves historically getting a + bonus to their dexterity scores AND to their legacy as being superior archers. Anyone who's tried to pull a 120lb longbow will tell you that dexterity is not what they were using to do so. My hope is that when 6e eventually rolls around, Long and Shortbows will be turned into strength weapons, while crossbows (which use a machines to create the leverage used to fire their bolts) stay dexterity based.
So let's not pretend there's some world in which the designers INTENDED rangers to be ranged. Not a single ranger I ever saw all the way back to 2e was ever primarily an archer. We were all melee fighters who also pulled out bows from time to time. The whole rangers are intended to be ranged thing comes from players who realized that rangers simply work better in 5e at range than they do in melee. You can still make a solid melee ranger if you want to, and the game is designed to support that.
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
I sincerely believe that you do not understand what I write. It's probably because I'm not a native, and I don't know how to explain it. But in no case have I said that the fighter is not designed to use ranged weapons or that he is better with melee weapons. We are going to do a fictional exercise, and we are going to say that of the 4 fighters that can be made, one is ranged. Obviously that ratio is invented, I have not done the calculations. But you get the idea, right? This is what I say. That the fighter is mainly a melee fighter, not that he is better at melee, or that he is not good with ranged weapons.
You have more options to go melee. And its design assumes that the average player is going to use it in melee. Which also happens in the real game.
Knight has meant someone who is a mounted warrior since the 1300s and continued to mean that well into the present day. Cavalier stopped having that association in the 1590s and became a word to refer to the Royalists during the English Civil War and evolved from there to mean a type of style and attitude of a sort of roguish nobleman. Now it just means someone with a callous attitude.
Yet we have in this very thread an argument that Eldritch Knight, by virtue of using the term knight, should focus on footed combat. I don't see any real reason Chevalier or Cavalier can't refer to a class that isn't always mounted just because the terms used to refer to mounted combatants in a now archaic use of the word.
Far more crucial, to me, would be aligning with a term with more Chivalric connotations to better reflect the gallant, defensive archetype. But that's just me.
The problem is that cavalier is obviously similar to cavalry, which is unambiguously associated with mounted combat. Just changing to chevalier, even though it's the same root word, would in fact help.
"Anyone who's tried to pull a 120lb longbow will tell you that dexterity is not what they were using to do so. "
How to say you've never used a bow. This is so stupid.
Yes I think bodybuilders are deadly with a bow. Definitely perfect aiming and dAmAge.
Archery is all about stamina and eye full body coordination. Longbow are no exception.
So yes dex is perfectly legit.
This is the problem. Of the 4 fighters all of them could be ranged or melee. Players might mainly use melee fighters, but that has nothing to do with the design. If I make a car and I start giving them away in two colors. Red and Blue. If more people take the red colored one it doesn’t mean that I designed the car to be red. The design of the fighter is to be able to use both melee and ranged combat. The players typically choose to use it in melee. This is different than the Barbarian and Paladin which are designed to be primarily melee combatants. Both can use ranged weapons, but have multiple features that wouldn’t work effectively with a ranged weapon.
In the real world all weapons involve both strength and coordination (and armor doesn't make you harder to hit) and an archer who expects to use a war bow is going to be very strong, but this is D&D and people like their skinny noodle-armed archers.
I think it just makes it easier for stat arrays. They could make all “to hit” rolls Dexterity and just melee damage Strength. Then ranged weapons would be Dexterity to damage since it is more about where you hit, but require at least 12 Str for normal range on short bow and 14 for long range and at least a 13 for short range on a long bow and 15 for long range. Javalines range would be based on your strength. This is so complex it would never happen.
Plenty of game systems have done something similar and it really isn't all that hard, but it would be pretty clearly Not D&D.
In other editions of D&D, bows added nothing to damage. Only some specific bows, such as the compound bow, allowed you to add your str. In 5e it has been simplified.
(a) I suppose bodybuilders also don't tend to be particularly good with a sword. (In dnd you also need proficiency)
(b) The stronger you are, the stronger your bow can be. With STR 8 you might be able to pull a 40lbs bow, with STR 20 maybe 400lbs (might be exaggerated)
(c) If you are stronger, you can hold the bow at draw length with less effort, giving you a steadier aim. You could argue that this is a CON feat, rather than STR but it has nothing to do with DEX.
As above, if it is about where you hit, aiming is the important part (STR or maybe CON). If anything else, it should be WIS.
That said, since a rule system where a few ability scores define a persons capabilities, it is to be expected that this breaks at one point or another and will always be imperfect. Debating over which imperfect implementation captures realism slightly better hardly will lead to better game design.
Even if you eliminate the Nature+Druidcraft side of that, and say "that guy has to be a Ranger", that still leaves the Arcana+Prestidigitation choice(s). (and I _am_ ok with eliminating the Nature+Druidcraft option ... in my comment in the Artificer thread, I pretty much eliminate that by eliminating that whole sub-feature.
And I don't think (magical) trick-shot is the only one of the examples I gave that fits an Arcane Archer, and isn't better done by another class+subclass. Magic Sniper (yes, I said "sniper" and put magic elsewhere, but the Arcane in Arcane Archer, as well as some of their Arcane Shots, pins it to magical and not just a really good mundane sniper), and Magic Gunslinger (among official classes) seem to both be what the Arcane Archer is going for ... and I don't know what class+subclass combo better suits it. The Arcane Trickster can be effective at being a Sniper, but their magic isn't specific to their ability as a sniper: their effectiveness as a sniper is exactly the same as the non-magic subclasses of the Rogue.
Sniper (non-magical)? I'll concede that a Rogue (Assassin) is a great sniper. But I also should have prefaced Sniper with Magical... so let me re-ask that as: who's a better conceptual fit for a Magical Sniper than a revised Arcane Archer?
And who's a better fit for a Magical Gunslinger than a revised Arcane Archer?
A ranger accomplishes both goals just fine.
revised could mean anything. Can't really speak on who is better until i see the revision, and it would have to be an official one, because while im sure i could make a revision that is a great magical sniper/slinger, the current AA isnt one, and there is no reason to believe the designers intend to make one.
Part of the whole premise of this discussion is: no, they don't. They have too much invested in being a woodsman to fit non-woodsman archers. The only reason people pick Ranger for it isn't that it's a good way to accomplish that goal. It's because the alternative (the 5e Arcane Archer) sucks.
Gunslingers are typically depicted as urban, not out-in-nature... as would a magical gunslinger. Percy makes a good model of a "magical gunslinger". But, for Percy, Ranger is a horrible fit.
Same with a (magical) sniper: you could do the MCU version of Hawkeye as an Artificer(Arcane Archer), where all of his special arrows are infused items, arcane shots, and spells-via-shots ... but we don't see him ever see him as an ultra-woodsman. He's more of an urban sniper. Again, Ranger is a horrible fit here.
After a couple days of thought the Arcane Archer should probably a Wizard subclass. If you look at the history of the prestige class it was a way to merge an arcane spellcaster with a martial archer. The 5e version didn’t offer spell slots at all because the class would have just been an eldritch knight plays shots. As a Wizard subclass it sits next to bladesinger but gets to be different. The weapon restriction of a bow use doesn’t come off as a minus to the Wizard like it is for a fighter.
3rd level Arcane Shot- You can use a bow, crossbow or firearm as a Spellcasting focus. As a Magic action you can cast any ranged attack roll spell/cantrip through the weapon as if it was ammunition for the weapon. The spells range becomes the weapons range, you may use your Dexterity for the attack roll and if you do you add your Dexterity to one damage roll of the spell.
3rd Level Magic Arrow- when you hit with a ranged weapon attack you may change the damage type to that of any prepared spell you have instead of the weapon’s normal damage.
6th Level Rapid Shot- If you use Arcane Shot to cast a cantrip you may make a ranged weapon attack with the same action.
6th Level Curving Shot- If you miss a creature with an Arcane Shot or an attack with with ranged weapon you may use your bonus action to attempt hit another creature within 60 ft of the original target.
10th Level Bursting Shot- You may use Arcane Shot to deliver an instantaneous area of effect spell (like fireball or vitriolic sphere) as long as they don’t have a range of self. Make an attack roll against a target within the weapons range using your Intelligence or Dexterity Modifier. A target hit by the attack roll has disadvantage on any saves associated with the spell and if you used Dexterity the target takes additional damage equal to your Dexterity modifier. This additional damage is Force or the same type as the spell, your choice when you hit. The spell activates centered on the target. If you miss the spell activates centered 5ft from the target in a space of the DM’s choice.
14th Level Improved Rapid Shot- If you use Arcane Shot you may make a ranged weapon attack with the same action. If you cast a cantrip and hit a target you have advantage on your next weapon attack against that target until the end of your turn.
Or something like this. More importantly as a Wizard there is no hope of Arcane Archer making the PHB 2024 since the 4 Wizards are already selected, but I still think something like this is best for the subclass.
I completely agree with you. I've always felt that blade pact warlock fit the bill of an arcane archer much better than...what we got. I think 1/3 progression, with the eldritch smitiness from blade lock might have been interesting. I think that ship has sailed though. I don't really know how to go about fixing arcane archer without treading on other class's toes.
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
I wouldn’t worry too much about the last part: the purpose of many subclasses is to (lightly) step on the toes of another class. Like a light-multiclass.
Why not a bard subclass? Bards have two martial subclasses, but Swords is pure melee and Valor can go either way. A dedicated ranged martial subclass would round them out, and I think it'd suit the bard fantasy really well. Just take some of the flavor of the daring, swashbuckling Swords Bard who entertains with flourishes and feats of skill and replace it with trick shot archery with lots of acrobatic maneuvers and flashy magic arrows.
They could have something like the Sword Bard flourishes or Battlemaster Maneuvers but made into Trick Shots that let them loose an arrow while using other actions like Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Use Object, etc. They could also be given something like an innate Climb Speed to simulate combining their archery and acrobatics into some parkour-like abilities.
Then add Arcane Shots like what you suggested so they can mix their magic and mundane combat prowess together.