While I agree that the term “collective imagination” has connotations of some of the more fringe/fictional psychological concepts, I would also say that the subclass specifically being called “Eldritch Knight” does probably tend to invoke a fairly literal sword and sorcery image over archery and magic. Also, I’d argue there’s more spells that support that image on the Wizard/Arcane list over spells that can support actually intertwining bows and magic there.
It could, but I could also easily imagine it as an order of wizards bound by a code of ethics.
I’m not saying it’s the only possibility, but if you polled a group of random people what image first comes to mind when they see the word “knight”, do you really think heavy armor with a sword/lance and shield wouldn’t be the lead by a good margin? This isn’t about absolutes, just dominant tropes and trends.
what if you polled people on eldritch? would they think of melee?
the point is eldritch knight isnt really a heavily melee concept relative to other subclass concepts. Its actually mote evocative of not just being melee, than a champion, battlemaster,
by this definition rune knight, and echo knight even cavelier which is also a knight is exactly as good an opposite as eldritch knight for AA. (which generally means its not really a good opposing pair)
eldritch knight is far from the most melee seeming/actual fighter subclass.
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow. Whether most people imagine the Eldritch Knight with a bow or a melee weapon, there is no doubt. Then, whether it is the 4th subclass or not, that is up to each individual. I think it is the most possible option due to the logic of the pairs, but we will see.
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow.
Google 'medieval warrior' to see how many you find with a bow (I used that search because more generic searches produce a bunch of irrelevant hits like jet planes). I had to go through 25 before I found one with a bow. The reality is that archers in general are a small niche and magical archers are essentially nonexistent, so if you're trying to model important character archetypes there's no reason to include the arcane archer at all.
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow.
Google 'medieval warrior' to see how many you find with a bow (I used that search because more generic searches produce a bunch of irrelevant hits like jet planes). I had to go through 25 before I found one with a bow. The reality is that archers in general are a small niche and magical archers are essentially nonexistent, so if you're trying to model important character archetypes there's no reason to include the arcane archer at all.
No, that is *why* you make a subclass specifically to help promote a ranged setup, because the concept is clearly niche enough that being technically covered by Fighter doesn’t support it the way it does various melee configurations.
No, that is *why* you make a subclass specifically to help promote a ranged setup, because the concept is clearly niche enough that being technically covered by Fighter doesn’t support it the way it does various melee configurations.
The point is, you make subclasses to support things people actually want to do. People who want to play a spellcasting archer play a ranger.
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow. Whether most people imagine the Eldritch Knight with a bow or a melee weapon, there is no doubt. Then, whether it is the 4th subclass or not, that is up to each individual. I think it is the most possible option due to the logic of the pairs, but we will see.
first of Google results are not shared, they modify the results by factors of what they think the specific person is looking for.
second, Google doesnt show truth, and your making a negative inference based on it is even less so.
'no one thinks of children when they think of basketball players' go ahead Google it.
passing isnt important basketball, Google basketball player, you'll rarely see an image of them passing
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow.
Google 'medieval warrior' to see how many you find with a bow (I used that search because more generic searches produce a bunch of irrelevant hits like jet planes). I had to go through 25 before I found one with a bow. The reality is that archers in general are a small niche and magical archers are essentially nonexistent, so if you're trying to model important character archetypes there's no reason to include the arcane archer at all.
No, that is *why* you make a subclass specifically to help promote a ranged setup, because the concept is clearly niche enough that being technically covered by Fighter doesn’t support it the way it does various melee configurations.
That's exactly the point. The rest is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow.
Google 'medieval warrior' to see how many you find with a bow (I used that search because more generic searches produce a bunch of irrelevant hits like jet planes). I had to go through 25 before I found one with a bow. The reality is that archers in general are a small niche and magical archers are essentially nonexistent, so if you're trying to model important character archetypes there's no reason to include the arcane archer at all.
No, that is *why* you make a subclass specifically to help promote a ranged setup, because the concept is clearly niche enough that being technically covered by Fighter doesn’t support it the way it does various melee configurations.
the existence of AA doesnt mean archers are not supported well by other sub classes. There are many different reasons subclasses are chosen
some classes are made because they are trying to fill an iconic fantasy, others are just because someone thought it was cool, some want to create a certain playstyle, some fit in with certain themes/locations.
Factually, BM supports Archery better than AA. its stronger, and more versatile. AA wants to create a certain playstyle and theme/flavor. They are emphasizing the magic part, they also want to support it in a different way. curving shots, line attacks, etc. Its more defined by its magicness than its archery.
Its weird that yall are having this discussion and completely dropping half of the name from each definition when deciding its identity.
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow.
Google 'medieval warrior' to see how many you find with a bow (I used that search because more generic searches produce a bunch of irrelevant hits like jet planes). I had to go through 25 before I found one with a bow. The reality is that archers in general are a small niche and magical archers are essentially nonexistent, so if you're trying to model important character archetypes there's no reason to include the arcane archer at all.
No, that is *why* you make a subclass specifically to help promote a ranged setup, because the concept is clearly niche enough that being technically covered by Fighter doesn’t support it the way it does various melee configurations.
That's exactly the point. The rest is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
its actually factually incorrect. The BM is better in damage, versatility and uptime in archery. You also are ignoring the arcane aspect when that is the unique differentiation factor from the base class.
The real question for the core books is "does it fill an empty niche, and if so, how popular is that niche". I would argue that the capabilities of the arcane archer are sufficiently crowded by the battle master (for the archery part), the eldritch knight (for the arcane part), and the ranger (for the spellcasting archer who shoots weird arrows that do special things part) that there's just not a lot of reason for the subclass to exist, and certainly not to get a prominent position in the core rulebooks.
The real question for the core books is "does it fill an empty niche, and if so, how popular is that niche". I would argue that the capabilities of the arcane archer are sufficiently crowded by the battle master (for the archery part), the eldritch knight (for the arcane part), and the ranger (for the spellcasting archer who shoots weird arrows that do special things part) that there's just not a lot of reason for the subclass to exist, and certainly not to get a prominent position in the core rulebooks.
The thing is, I think when new players (and that a lot of the target audience) pick up and read over the descriptions, they don't read over the battlemaster and think archer is an option for it. At least, that's been my experience, both in person and on these boards, where people are shocked that most BM powers work at range and had never considered it as an option. Yes, those of us with rules knowledge can see so many of their maneuvers apply to a weapon attack, and we immediately know that means melee or ranged -- and probably go a step further and start to imagine the tactical implications of when it would be more beneficial. But newer players don't get that right away.
And if you don't think archer is a popular niche, well, Legolas, Katniss Everdeen, Hawkeye, the other Hawkeye, the Green Arrow and lots of others would like to have a talk with you. heck Omega from the Bad Batch has a space bow that shoots laser arrows. Archers are crazy popular.
If that means AA goes in the books, or should go in, I don't know. I could see a refreshed samurai working pretty well, as a non-magical counterpart to the EK. Or Cavalier, as its one of the few subclasses that truly fills a draw-aggro tank kind of role, and the ribbon abilities help fill the mounted niche. Either way, I'd expect something from Xanathar's or earlier. The more recent stuff is close enough to the new design philosophy that it doesn't need much updating.
And if you don't think archer is a popular niche, well, Legolas, Katniss Everdeen, Hawkeye, the other Hawkeye, the Green Arrow and lots of others would like to have a talk with you. heck Omega from the Bad Batch has a space bow that shoots laser arrows. Archers are crazy popular.
There are a lot of fictional characters; the fact that you can name a half dozen doesn't mean it's particularly popular. In any case, I wasn't saying archer isn't a significant niche, I was saying arcane archer isn't a significant niche. Most of those are mundane fighters who you'd model as a scout rogue or battle master fighter, Legolas might be a ranger, the variants of Hawkeye and the Green Arrow who used silly arrows don't really correspond to anything in D&D.
Would an easy fix for AA be that at 3rd level they can imbue their ammunition with arcane energy. Their ammunition can do 1d4 acid, cold, fire, lightning damage in addition to the weapon damage and scales at later levels. Their 7th level feature can, if they choose, ignore the ammunition property and a magical arrow automatically appears when they attack and does force damage (think Hank from the old D&D cartoon). Plus the rest of their features with maybe one additional use of their arcane shots.
Sorry, not exactly on topic but we’ve been talking AA and I didn’t want to start another thread.
The real question for the core books is "does it fill an empty niche, and if so, how popular is that niche". I would argue that the capabilities of the arcane archer are sufficiently crowded by the battle master (for the archery part), the eldritch knight (for the arcane part), and the ranger (for the spellcasting archer who shoots weird arrows that do special things part) that there's just not a lot of reason for the subclass to exist, and certainly not to get a prominent position in the core rulebooks.
The thing is, I think when new players (and that a lot of the target audience) pick up and read over the descriptions, they don't read over the battlemaster and think archer is an option for it. At least, that's been my experience, both in person and on these boards, where people are shocked that most BM powers work at range and had never considered it as an option. Yes, those of us with rules knowledge can see so many of their maneuvers apply to a weapon attack, and we immediately know that . melee or ranged -- and probably go a step further and start to imagine the tactical implications of when it would be more beneficial. But newer players don't get that right away.
And if you don't think archer is a popular niche, well, Legolas, Katniss Everdeen, Hawkeye, the other Hawkeye, the Green Arrow and lots of others would like to have a talk with you. heck Omega from the Bad Batch has a space bow that shoots laser arrows. Archers are crazy popular.
If that means AA goes in the books, or should go in, I don't know. I could see a refreshed samurai working pretty well, as a non-magical counterpart to the EK. Or Cavalier, as its one of the few subclasses that truly fills a draw-aggro tank kind of role, and the ribbon abilities help fill the mounted niche. Either way, I'd expect something from Xanathar's or earlier. The more recent stuff is close enough to the new design philosophy that it doesn't need much updating.
legolass and Katniss wouldn't really be arcane archer types.
Arcane archer doesnt really exemplify archery, it exemplifies magic( or gadgets). it can curve arrows, shoot line attacks, poison, entangle etc.
this is the trick arrow guy concept. Hawkeye. Not the general archer trope (Robin hood, Legolas, etc) Its apparently 6th in popularity so its not uninteresting to people. But can this go in abook with no real changes, and compete with onednd design?
my feeling is the trade off in specializing in this, is you only get three masteries, push topple and vex. topple is anti long range, so basically push and vex. in exchange you get two uses per SR? Doesnt really feel like enough meat for a sub to me.
The real question for the core books is "does it fill an empty niche, and if so, how popular is that niche". I would argue that the capabilities of the arcane archer are sufficiently crowded by the battle master (for the archery part), the eldritch knight (for the arcane part), and the ranger (for the spellcasting archer who shoots weird arrows that do special things part) that there's just not a lot of reason for the subclass to exist, and certainly not to get a prominent position in the core rulebooks.
Artificer, Ranger, and Warlock all make better magical archers than Arcane Archer does. Even a Valor Bard can be played as a magical archer. The AA is just a bad unnecessary subclass.
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow. Whether most people imagine the Eldritch Knight with a bow or a melee weapon, there is no doubt. Then, whether it is the 4th subclass or not, that is up to each individual. I think it is the most possible option due to the logic of the pairs, but we will see.
There were more archers under "Eldritch Knight" than under "fantasy fighter" or "fantasy warrior" so I don't know what your point is? Archers are generally unpopular because they are by far the least cinematic character type, and in many game systems they are less powerful than melee characters.
Would an easy fix for AA be that at 3rd level they can imbue their ammunition with arcane energy. Their ammunition can do 1d4 acid, cold, fire, lightning damage in addition to the weapon damage and scales at later levels. Their 7th level feature can, if they choose, ignore the ammunition property and a magical arrow automatically appears when they attack and does force damage (think Hank from the old D&D cartoon). Plus the rest of their features with maybe one additional use of their arcane shots.
Sorry, not exactly on topic but we’ve been talking AA and I didn’t want to start another thread.
I doubt AA will be in the PHB though
The problem I have with AA is more about how it’s features trap you in one playstyle. Even a Str based fighter can throw a dagger or javelin for some range and use their subclass features, but an AA can’t switch to a rapier or dagger and benefit from any of its features.
The problem I have with AA is more about how it’s features trap you in one playstyle. Even a Str based fighter can throw a dagger or javelin for some range and use their subclass features, but an AA can’t switch to a rapier or dagger and benefit from any of its features.
Honestly, I would just take turn all the arcane shot abilities into bonus action smite spells; put the ones that feel appropriate for rangers on that list, put the rest on the wizard list so it they be used by Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters (and probably remove the ranged weapon restriction where possible).
Would an easy fix for AA be that at 3rd level they can imbue their ammunition with arcane energy. Their ammunition can do 1d4 acid, cold, fire, lightning damage in addition to the weapon damage and scales at later levels. Their 7th level feature can, if they choose, ignore the ammunition property and a magical arrow automatically appears when they attack and does force damage (think Hank from the old D&D cartoon). Plus the rest of their features with maybe one additional use of their arcane shots.
Sorry, not exactly on topic but we’ve been talking AA and I didn’t want to start another thread.
I doubt AA will be in the PHB though
The problem I have with AA is more about how it’s features trap you in one playstyle. Even a Str based fighter can throw a dagger or javelin for some range and use their subclass features, but an AA can’t switch to a rapier or dagger and benefit from any of its features.
you can only benefit from its features twice every SR anyway, so most of the time you aren't using its features.I guess you can make a BA attack once per round if you miss a shot, but thats still not requiring multiple arrow attacks per turn, there are simpler ways to make an ranged attack with a BA,
Would an easy fix for AA be that at 3rd level they can imbue their ammunition with arcane energy. Their ammunition can do 1d4 acid, cold, fire, lightning damage in addition to the weapon damage and scales at later levels. Their 7th level feature can, if they choose, ignore the ammunition property and a magical arrow automatically appears when they attack and does force damage (think Hank from the old D&D cartoon). Plus the rest of their features with maybe one additional use of their arcane shots.
Sorry, not exactly on topic but we’ve been talking AA and I didn’t want to start another thread.
I doubt AA will be in the PHB though
The problem I have with AA is more about how it’s features trap you in one playstyle. Even a Str based fighter can throw a dagger or javelin for some range and use their subclass features, but an AA can’t switch to a rapier or dagger and benefit from any of its features.
Good point. Maybe just give them a feature that let them use the bow in melee without disadvantage. Or some kind of free disengage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
what if you polled people on eldritch? would they think of melee?
the point is eldritch knight isnt really a heavily melee concept relative to other subclass concepts. Its actually mote evocative of not just being melee, than a champion, battlemaster,
by this definition rune knight, and echo knight even cavelier which is also a knight is exactly as good an opposite as eldritch knight for AA. (which generally means its not really a good opposing pair)
eldritch knight is far from the most melee seeming/actual fighter subclass.
But there is no need to guess or hypothesize. Google "Eldritch knight" to see how many you find with a bow.
Whether most people imagine the Eldritch Knight with a bow or a melee weapon, there is no doubt. Then, whether it is the 4th subclass or not, that is up to each individual. I think it is the most possible option due to the logic of the pairs, but we will see.
Google 'medieval warrior' to see how many you find with a bow (I used that search because more generic searches produce a bunch of irrelevant hits like jet planes). I had to go through 25 before I found one with a bow. The reality is that archers in general are a small niche and magical archers are essentially nonexistent, so if you're trying to model important character archetypes there's no reason to include the arcane archer at all.
No, that is *why* you make a subclass specifically to help promote a ranged setup, because the concept is clearly niche enough that being technically covered by Fighter doesn’t support it the way it does various melee configurations.
The point is, you make subclasses to support things people actually want to do. People who want to play a spellcasting archer play a ranger.
first of Google results are not shared, they modify the results by factors of what they think the specific person is looking for.
second, Google doesnt show truth, and your making a negative inference based on it is even less so.
'no one thinks of children when they think of basketball players' go ahead Google it.
passing isnt important basketball, Google basketball player, you'll rarely see an image of them passing
Its nonsense.
That's exactly the point. The rest is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
the existence of AA doesnt mean archers are not supported well by other sub classes. There are many different reasons subclasses are chosen
some classes are made because they are trying to fill an iconic fantasy, others are just because someone thought it was cool, some want to create a certain playstyle, some fit in with certain themes/locations.
Factually, BM supports Archery better than AA. its stronger, and more versatile. AA wants to create a certain playstyle and theme/flavor. They are emphasizing the magic part, they also want to support it in a different way. curving shots, line attacks, etc. Its more defined by its magicness than its archery.
Its weird that yall are having this discussion and completely dropping half of the name from each definition when deciding its identity.
its actually factually incorrect. The BM is better in damage, versatility and uptime in archery. You also are ignoring the arcane aspect when that is the unique differentiation factor from the base class.
The real question for the core books is "does it fill an empty niche, and if so, how popular is that niche". I would argue that the capabilities of the arcane archer are sufficiently crowded by the battle master (for the archery part), the eldritch knight (for the arcane part), and the ranger (for the spellcasting archer who shoots weird arrows that do special things part) that there's just not a lot of reason for the subclass to exist, and certainly not to get a prominent position in the core rulebooks.
The thing is, I think when new players (and that a lot of the target audience) pick up and read over the descriptions, they don't read over the battlemaster and think archer is an option for it. At least, that's been my experience, both in person and on these boards, where people are shocked that most BM powers work at range and had never considered it as an option. Yes, those of us with rules knowledge can see so many of their maneuvers apply to a weapon attack, and we immediately know that means melee or ranged -- and probably go a step further and start to imagine the tactical implications of when it would be more beneficial. But newer players don't get that right away.
And if you don't think archer is a popular niche, well, Legolas, Katniss Everdeen, Hawkeye, the other Hawkeye, the Green Arrow and lots of others would like to have a talk with you. heck Omega from the Bad Batch has a space bow that shoots laser arrows. Archers are crazy popular.
If that means AA goes in the books, or should go in, I don't know. I could see a refreshed samurai working pretty well, as a non-magical counterpart to the EK. Or Cavalier, as its one of the few subclasses that truly fills a draw-aggro tank kind of role, and the ribbon abilities help fill the mounted niche. Either way, I'd expect something from Xanathar's or earlier. The more recent stuff is close enough to the new design philosophy that it doesn't need much updating.
There are a lot of fictional characters; the fact that you can name a half dozen doesn't mean it's particularly popular. In any case, I wasn't saying archer isn't a significant niche, I was saying arcane archer isn't a significant niche. Most of those are mundane fighters who you'd model as a scout rogue or battle master fighter, Legolas might be a ranger, the variants of Hawkeye and the Green Arrow who used silly arrows don't really correspond to anything in D&D.
Would an easy fix for AA be that at 3rd level they can imbue their ammunition with arcane energy. Their ammunition can do 1d4 acid, cold, fire, lightning damage in addition to the weapon damage and scales at later levels. Their 7th level feature can, if they choose, ignore the ammunition property and a magical arrow automatically appears when they attack and does force damage (think Hank from the old D&D cartoon). Plus the rest of their features with maybe one additional use of their arcane shots.
Sorry, not exactly on topic but we’ve been talking AA and I didn’t want to start another thread.
I doubt AA will be in the PHB though
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
legolass and Katniss wouldn't really be arcane archer types.
Arcane archer doesnt really exemplify archery, it exemplifies magic( or gadgets). it can curve arrows, shoot line attacks, poison, entangle etc.
this is the trick arrow guy concept. Hawkeye. Not the general archer trope (Robin hood, Legolas, etc) Its apparently 6th in popularity so its not uninteresting to people. But can this go in abook with no real changes, and compete with onednd design?
my feeling is the trade off in specializing in this, is you only get three masteries, push topple and vex. topple is anti long range, so basically push and vex. in exchange you get two uses per SR? Doesnt really feel like enough meat for a sub to me.
Artificer, Ranger, and Warlock all make better magical archers than Arcane Archer does. Even a Valor Bard can be played as a magical archer. The AA is just a bad unnecessary subclass.
There were more archers under "Eldritch Knight" than under "fantasy fighter" or "fantasy warrior" so I don't know what your point is? Archers are generally unpopular because they are by far the least cinematic character type, and in many game systems they are less powerful than melee characters.
The problem I have with AA is more about how it’s features trap you in one playstyle. Even a Str based fighter can throw a dagger or javelin for some range and use their subclass features, but an AA can’t switch to a rapier or dagger and benefit from any of its features.
Honestly, I would just take turn all the arcane shot abilities into bonus action smite spells; put the ones that feel appropriate for rangers on that list, put the rest on the wizard list so it they be used by Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters (and probably remove the ranged weapon restriction where possible).
you can only benefit from its features twice every SR anyway, so most of the time you aren't using its features.I guess you can make a BA attack once per round if you miss a shot, but thats still not requiring multiple arrow attacks per turn, there are simpler ways to make an ranged attack with a BA,
Good point. Maybe just give them a feature that let them use the bow in melee without disadvantage. Or some kind of free disengage.