I don't think they know how to fix the arcane archer
The problem is that there's just not really much design space between Battlemaster and Ranger to really carve out a niche for Arcane Archer. Really they just need to add the curving shots feature to Battlemaster or a Ranger sub-class and retire Arcane Archer IMO.
Battlemaster is already fantastic for a Dexterity build Fighter who can thrive at any range, which has always made Arcane Archer feel a bit redundant, and Ranger is generally better at the being "arcane" part if that's what you want.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I agree with you. I feel like arcane archer should have been a ranger subclass that added some arcane firepower to the typical ranger spell list. That ship clearly sailed a long time ago though.
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.
while some people may want different organization of classes, or not like certain subclasses, the destruction of subclasses or swapping of main classes they are attached to isn't on the table. They want the subclass options people have in side books to still be valuable. Destruction is not an option for this type of content. content going forward can only be reworks and new things.
That said AA doesnt have to be in the phb, though it does have to exist.
my vote is new subclass, or resurrect brawler, though it won't happen, I think classes need something new and interesting, And subclass wise, fighter is pretty similar to before. a few tweaks and fixes. Using an almost verbatim subclass from another book isnt that useful to me. I suppose it gives more people access to that subclass, but it is overall, not improving/expanding the game. If they want to give more people access put it in the SRD.
while some people may want different organization of classes, or not like certain subclasses, the destruction of subclasses or swapping of main classes they are attached to isn't on the table. They want the subclass options people have in side books to still be valuable. Destruction is not an option for this type of content. content going forward can only be reworks and new things.
That said AA doesnt have to be in the phb, though it does have to exist.
my vote is new subclass, or resurrect brawler, though it won't happen, I think classes need something new and interesting, And subclass wise, fighter is pretty similar to before. a few tweaks and fixes. Using an almost verbatim subclass from another book isnt that useful to me. I suppose it gives more people access to that subclass, but it is overall, not improving/expanding the game. If they want to give more people access put it in the SRD.
I highly doubt that this will be true. True Strike is clearly a replacement to BB/GFB, Undead warlock is clearly a replacement to Undying, several of the UA subclasses have absorbed features of the less popular non-PHB subclasses particularly in the Monk. While all the current subclasses will continue to exist and be usable b/c of "backwards compatibility" there is no promise that everything in every book currently published for 5e will get a revised version. And really they shouldn't do a revised version of all of them, because some are just bad and the designers shouldn't be shackled to the mistakes of the past.
That said AA doesnt have to be in the phb, though it does have to exist.
It'll still exist as legacy content, but there's no requirement for it to be updated.
As Agilemind says, there's plenty of precedent for new sub-classes taking features from or reimagining earlier options that were underwhelming, and that can absolutely involve jumping to another class, it just won't be called Arcane Archer, it'll be the Mystical Marksman or something. 😝
The main thing is that if there exists a niche for it, and Wizards of the Coast agrees, then there might be something released to cover it, but it doesn't have to be Arcane Archer specifically. I've always felt it's very much a sub-class that has some nice ideas, but never really carved out a place for itself when other options for building the same type of character are either more flexible, or more powerful (or both).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Using an almost verbatim subclass from another book isnt that useful to me.
I mean, just because they pull in a subclass from outside core doesn't mean it won't get any changes; look at Swashbuckler Rogue and Glory Paladin for example. I think our best bet is to just wait and see.
Having said that - if they pulled in Psi Warrior it would probably be just fine as-is.
I highly doubt that this will be true. True Strike is clearly a replacement to BB/GFB, Undead warlock is clearly a replacement to Undying, several of the UA subclasses have absorbed features of the less popular non-PHB subclasses particularly in the Monk. While all the current subclasses will continue to exist and be usable b/c of "backwards compatibility" there is no promise that everything in every book currently published for 5e will get a revised version. And really they shouldn't do a revised version of all of them, because some are just bad and the designers shouldn't be shackled to the mistakes of the past.
It'll still exist as legacy content, but there's no requirement for it to be updated.
As Agilemind says, there's plenty of precedent for new sub-classes taking features from or reimagining earlier options that were underwhelming, and that can absolutely involve jumping to another class, it just won't be called Arcane Archer, it'll be the Mystical Marksman or something. 😝
The main thing is that if there exists a niche for it, and Wizards of the Coast agrees, then there might be something released to cover it, but it doesn't have to be Arcane Archer specifically. I've always felt it's very much a sub-class that has some nice ideas, but never really carved out a place for itself when other options for building the same type of character are either more flexible, or more powerful (or both).
I don't think BB/GFB are getting "replaced," nor do I think AA will get a legacy tag - Tasha's and Xanathar's are supposed to explicitly be legal with 2024.
It'll still exist as legacy content, but there's no requirement for it to be updated.
As Agilemind says, there's plenty of precedent for new sub-classes taking features from or reimagining earlier options that were underwhelming, and that can absolutely involve jumping to another class, it just won't be called Arcane Archer, it'll be the Mystical Marksman or something. 😝
The main thing is that if there exists a niche for it, and Wizards of the Coast agrees, then there might be something released to cover it, but it doesn't have to be Arcane Archer specifically. I've always felt it's very much a sub-class that has some nice ideas, but never really carved out a place for itself when other options for building the same type of character are either more flexible, or more powerful (or both).
I don't think BB/GFB are getting "replaced," nor do I think AA will get a legacy tag - Tasha's and Xanathar's are supposed to explicitly be legal with 2024.
I mean, just look at the pattern over the last few years. First they changed the wording of BB & GFB to block some of the OP combos - making them "Self" spells to block Twinning, and adding a costly material component to block combo with Shadow Blade. They must know that those spells are very poorly balanced and are creating a strong bias towards Gish characters over any other character build. The new True Strike easily fills the same role as GFB/BB but is a clear step down from BB/GFB in terms of DPR potential. Plus the wording that requires you to use your spell casting ability modifier rather than your STR or DEX (instead of making it optional like Shillelagh) but also not locking you into a single-fighting style by working with ranged attack, is very suggestive to me that they are trying to avoid the BB-melee-Rogue build being so disproportionately powerful compared to all other options.
I don't think BB/GFB are getting "replaced," nor do I think AA will get a legacy tag - Tasha's and Xanathar's are supposed to explicitly be legal with 2024.
I didn't really mean legacy in the same sense as Volo's Guide etc., but more just that they can simply leave it as-is and never update it – if they provide superior alternatives it'll just be forgotten about. Similar to how they treated Undying Warlock by "replacing" it with Undead Warlock; you can still play as Undying, but there just isn't really much reason to anymore.
Though it is certainly possible that a new Xanathar's book could replace the current one in the same way as Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse replaced previous ones; in the same way you could keep using the then "legacy" content so long as you already have it, it just won't be available for new players to purchase. After all, they've only said it'll be compatible, not that everything will be updated or remain in print.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I don't think they know how to fix the arcane archer
I still think it should be moved to the Artificer (it's channeling magic through devices: that's an Artificer thing; and it would also reinforce that the Artificer doesn't HAVE to be skinned in the steampunk genre, nor be about guns, nor anything else post-fantasy technology minded -- it's about someone who's magic is primarily expressed through items).
Then generalize it to throwing and ranged weapons (comparable a Kensei, you start with one or two, and then add more as you get subclass milestones).
Then the fix to the extremely limited uses is that you empower the Arcane Shots with your spell slots instead of some special resource. And instead of the damage from Arcane Shots going up arbitrarily at some level, it depends on the level of the spell slot used.
The name I have in mind for the Artificer version of the subclass is "Eldritch Sniper."
while some people may want different organization of classes, or not like certain subclasses, the destruction of subclasses or swapping of main classes they are attached to isn't on the table. They want the subclass options people have in side books to still be valuable. Destruction is not an option for this type of content. content going forward can only be reworks and new things.
That said AA doesnt have to be in the phb, though it does have to exist.
my vote is new subclass, or resurrect brawler, though it won't happen, I think classes need something new and interesting, And subclass wise, fighter is pretty similar to before. a few tweaks and fixes. Using an almost verbatim subclass from another book isnt that useful to me. I suppose it gives more people access to that subclass, but it is overall, not improving/expanding the game. If they want to give more people access put it in the SRD.
I highly doubt that this will be true. True Strike is clearly a replacement to BB/GFB, Undead warlock is clearly a replacement to Undying, several of the UA subclasses have absorbed features of the less popular non-PHB subclasses particularly in the Monk. While all the current subclasses will continue to exist and be usable b/c of "backwards compatibility" there is no promise that everything in every book currently published for 5e will get a revised version. And really they shouldn't do a revised version of all of them, because some are just bad and the designers shouldn't be shackled to the mistakes of the past.
undead isnt a replacement for undying? they both exist and have different design, theme and abilities. Undying is replicating lichdom, while undead is about being scary undead creature.
true strike isn't replacing BB or GFB, and its design is totally different, True strike works on all weapons, not just melee, doesnt require an actual weapon with a cost. By your standards
I said that they aren't subtracting in 5.5, they are only modifying and adding. All your examples are adding.
They explicitly said the intent of the phb is to be compatible with the other books, nothing is being removed.
I also never said they will or should revise everything, I said they can add OR revise. If they don't revise what is there stays. My point was I don't think they should import more than one subclass to the phb that doesnt need any changes, because its already fine, and exists. this is the new phb, so i think each class should have something new, or changed enough that it feels totally new.
I also said they aren't going to take away Arcane archer from fighter, or make a ranger subclass called arcane archer. They could make a similar theme subclass, but they aren't destroying with 5.5/2024
That said AA doesnt have to be in the phb, though it does have to exist.
It'll still exist as legacy content, but there's no requirement for it to be updated.
As Agilemind says, there's plenty of precedent for new sub-classes taking features from or reimagining earlier options that were underwhelming, and that can absolutely involve jumping to another class, it just won't be called Arcane Archer, it'll be the Mystical Marksman or something. 😝
The main thing is that if there exists a niche for it, and Wizards of the Coast agrees, then there might be something released to cover it, but it doesn't have to be Arcane Archer specifically. I've always felt it's very much a sub-class that has some nice ideas, but never really carved out a place for itself when other options for building the same type of character are either more flexible, or more powerful (or both).
never said or implied they had to revise everything or anything. I said they can only add OR revise, not destroy.
I was implying they can't destroy fighters existing subclasses, and that I would rather them make new subclasses than add subclasses from other books that need no changes
they can make new ranger subclasses with similar themes to existing classes, that I would call adding new content, as opposed to subtracting.
That said, Arcane Archerlike as a ranger similar to AA fighter seems fairly redundant to me. But its existence wouldn't bother me.
It'll still exist as legacy content, but there's no requirement for it to be updated.
As Agilemind says, there's plenty of precedent for new sub-classes taking features from or reimagining earlier options that were underwhelming, and that can absolutely involve jumping to another class, it just won't be called Arcane Archer, it'll be the Mystical Marksman or something. 😝
The main thing is that if there exists a niche for it, and Wizards of the Coast agrees, then there might be something released to cover it, but it doesn't have to be Arcane Archer specifically. I've always felt it's very much a sub-class that has some nice ideas, but never really carved out a place for itself when other options for building the same type of character are either more flexible, or more powerful (or both).
I don't think BB/GFB are getting "replaced," nor do I think AA will get a legacy tag - Tasha's and Xanathar's are supposed to explicitly be legal with 2024.
I mean, just look at the pattern over the last few years. First they changed the wording of BB & GFB to block some of the OP combos - making them "Self" spells to block Twinning, and adding a costly material component to block combo with Shadow Blade. They must know that those spells are very poorly balanced and are creating a strong bias towards Gish characters over any other character build. The new True Strike easily fills the same role as GFB/BB but is a clear step down from BB/GFB in terms of DPR potential. Plus the wording that requires you to use your spell casting ability modifier rather than your STR or DEX (instead of making it optional like Shillelagh) but also not locking you into a single-fighting style by working with ranged attack, is very suggestive to me that they are trying to avoid the BB-melee-Rogue build being so disproportionately powerful compared to all other options.
true strike is for casters who want to use a weapon. Regular wizard wants to use a weapon. Its weaker because it can be ranged, and doesnt require a non casting stat.
bb and gf are for weapon users who want to do a melee attack with magical effects. Its a different character who focused on dex / str than a guy using Int. Magic/meleemartial hybrid design here.
they all serve different purposes, if they wanted to fix it or nerf it, then they will add it to the phb with new rules. Thats the only way to 'fix' something. Maybe they internally plan to do that, but true strike isnt attempting to replace anything other than the old true strike.
I feel like one thing could fix it. It should have the equivalent to cantrips that have an always-up damage boost (with concentration), similar to hunter's mark, except you pick different damage types. Just use a bonus action to apply to each of your shots for a set amount of time before it has to be reupped. Leave the ability slots for the more powerful, one-off arrows.
Honestly, my favorite archer is just a battlemaster. You can find a good snipe spot and disarm, frighten, or distract select targets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem is that there's just not really much design space between Battlemaster and Ranger to really carve out a niche for Arcane Archer. Really they just need to add the curving shots feature to Battlemaster or a Ranger sub-class and retire Arcane Archer IMO.
Battlemaster is already fantastic for a Dexterity build Fighter who can thrive at any range, which has always made Arcane Archer feel a bit redundant, and Ranger is generally better at the being "arcane" part if that's what you want.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I agree with you. I feel like arcane archer should have been a ranger subclass that added some arcane firepower to the typical ranger spell list. That ship clearly sailed a long time ago though.
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
while some people may want different organization of classes, or not like certain subclasses, the destruction of subclasses or swapping of main classes they are attached to isn't on the table. They want the subclass options people have in side books to still be valuable. Destruction is not an option for this type of content. content going forward can only be reworks and new things.
That said AA doesnt have to be in the phb, though it does have to exist.
my vote is new subclass, or resurrect brawler, though it won't happen, I think classes need something new and interesting, And subclass wise, fighter is pretty similar to before. a few tweaks and fixes. Using an almost verbatim subclass from another book isnt that useful to me. I suppose it gives more people access to that subclass, but it is overall, not improving/expanding the game. If they want to give more people access put it in the SRD.
I highly doubt that this will be true. True Strike is clearly a replacement to BB/GFB, Undead warlock is clearly a replacement to Undying, several of the UA subclasses have absorbed features of the less popular non-PHB subclasses particularly in the Monk. While all the current subclasses will continue to exist and be usable b/c of "backwards compatibility" there is no promise that everything in every book currently published for 5e will get a revised version. And really they shouldn't do a revised version of all of them, because some are just bad and the designers shouldn't be shackled to the mistakes of the past.
It'll still exist as legacy content, but there's no requirement for it to be updated.
As Agilemind says, there's plenty of precedent for new sub-classes taking features from or reimagining earlier options that were underwhelming, and that can absolutely involve jumping to another class, it just won't be called Arcane Archer, it'll be the Mystical Marksman or something. 😝
The main thing is that if there exists a niche for it, and Wizards of the Coast agrees, then there might be something released to cover it, but it doesn't have to be Arcane Archer specifically. I've always felt it's very much a sub-class that has some nice ideas, but never really carved out a place for itself when other options for building the same type of character are either more flexible, or more powerful (or both).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean, just because they pull in a subclass from outside core doesn't mean it won't get any changes; look at Swashbuckler Rogue and Glory Paladin for example. I think our best bet is to just wait and see.
Having said that - if they pulled in Psi Warrior it would probably be just fine as-is.
I don't think BB/GFB are getting "replaced," nor do I think AA will get a legacy tag - Tasha's and Xanathar's are supposed to explicitly be legal with 2024.
I mean, just look at the pattern over the last few years. First they changed the wording of BB & GFB to block some of the OP combos - making them "Self" spells to block Twinning, and adding a costly material component to block combo with Shadow Blade. They must know that those spells are very poorly balanced and are creating a strong bias towards Gish characters over any other character build. The new True Strike easily fills the same role as GFB/BB but is a clear step down from BB/GFB in terms of DPR potential. Plus the wording that requires you to use your spell casting ability modifier rather than your STR or DEX (instead of making it optional like Shillelagh) but also not locking you into a single-fighting style by working with ranged attack, is very suggestive to me that they are trying to avoid the BB-melee-Rogue build being so disproportionately powerful compared to all other options.
If they wanted to block Rogues from using BB they easily could have, but they didn't. So we'll have to wait and see.
I didn't really mean legacy in the same sense as Volo's Guide etc., but more just that they can simply leave it as-is and never update it – if they provide superior alternatives it'll just be forgotten about. Similar to how they treated Undying Warlock by "replacing" it with Undead Warlock; you can still play as Undying, but there just isn't really much reason to anymore.
Though it is certainly possible that a new Xanathar's book could replace the current one in the same way as Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse replaced previous ones; in the same way you could keep using the then "legacy" content so long as you already have it, it just won't be available for new players to purchase. After all, they've only said it'll be compatible, not that everything will be updated or remain in print.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I still think it should be moved to the Artificer (it's channeling magic through devices: that's an Artificer thing; and it would also reinforce that the Artificer doesn't HAVE to be skinned in the steampunk genre, nor be about guns, nor anything else post-fantasy technology minded -- it's about someone who's magic is primarily expressed through items).
Then generalize it to throwing and ranged weapons (comparable a Kensei, you start with one or two, and then add more as you get subclass milestones).
Then the fix to the extremely limited uses is that you empower the Arcane Shots with your spell slots instead of some special resource. And instead of the damage from Arcane Shots going up arbitrarily at some level, it depends on the level of the spell slot used.
The name I have in mind for the Artificer version of the subclass is "Eldritch Sniper."
undead isnt a replacement for undying? they both exist and have different design, theme and abilities. Undying is replicating lichdom, while undead is about being scary undead creature.
true strike isn't replacing BB or GFB, and its design is totally different, True strike works on all weapons, not just melee, doesnt require an actual weapon with a cost. By your standards
I said that they aren't subtracting in 5.5, they are only modifying and adding. All your examples are adding.
They explicitly said the intent of the phb is to be compatible with the other books, nothing is being removed.
I also never said they will or should revise everything, I said they can add OR revise. If they don't revise what is there stays. My point was I don't think they should import more than one subclass to the phb that doesnt need any changes, because its already fine, and exists. this is the new phb, so i think each class should have something new, or changed enough that it feels totally new.
I also said they aren't going to take away Arcane archer from fighter, or make a ranger subclass called arcane archer. They could make a similar theme subclass, but they aren't destroying with 5.5/2024
never said or implied they had to revise everything or anything. I said they can only add OR revise, not destroy.
I was implying they can't destroy fighters existing subclasses, and that I would rather them make new subclasses than add subclasses from other books that need no changes
they can make new ranger subclasses with similar themes to existing classes, that I would call adding new content, as opposed to subtracting.
That said, Arcane Archerlike as a ranger similar to AA fighter seems fairly redundant to me. But its existence wouldn't bother me.
true strike is for casters who want to use a weapon. Regular wizard wants to use a weapon. Its weaker because it can be ranged, and doesnt require a non casting stat.
bb and gf are for weapon users who want to do a melee attack with magical effects. Its a different character who focused on dex / str than a guy using Int. Magic/meleemartial hybrid design here.
they all serve different purposes, if they wanted to fix it or nerf it, then they will add it to the phb with new rules. Thats the only way to 'fix' something. Maybe they internally plan to do that, but true strike isnt attempting to replace anything other than the old true strike.
I feel like one thing could fix it. It should have the equivalent to cantrips that have an always-up damage boost (with concentration), similar to hunter's mark, except you pick different damage types. Just use a bonus action to apply to each of your shots for a set amount of time before it has to be reupped. Leave the ability slots for the more powerful, one-off arrows.
Honestly, my favorite archer is just a battlemaster. You can find a good snipe spot and disarm, frighten, or distract select targets.