Because the Arcane Archer needs fixes I believe Cavalier or Rune Knight will likely be the 4th.
Cavalier also kind of needs some work. It's DEFINETLY in a better place than AA, but it still has some jank. Like the fact that they need both Strength and Con to use their features.
It also seems like popularity is a factor in what subclasses are added and I don't know if Cavalier is popular enough that it'd be added. But maybe I'm off base on this point.
Cavalier isn't terribly popular because there's a sense that it's Sentinel: The class, and that it's entirely built around mounted combat. Cavalier isn't sexy, but it's straightforward and very effective at what it does. I wish it would have been the pick over champion, tbh. I think Cavalier is a very straightforward class that works very well if you use it's features and works well enough if you do not remember they are there.
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.
If we want to guess which subclass will be the 4th, we would have to try to follow the weird logic of JC and the pairs of "opposites". I understand that a couple is the champion and the battlemaster. Then the other could perfectly be the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Archer. One goes in melee, and the other with ranged weapons. And both have to do with magic.
I have little doubt that it will be the Arcane Archer, really.
What makes Eldritch Knight melee? You can use all of its features at range or melee.
Yes of course. Nothing prevents you from using the bladesinger from a distance either. But they are subclasses that aim to represent the gish archetype. That is, a melee warrior with magic or a wizard who can melee.
So, beyond trying to split hairs, the Eldritch Knight is melee while the Arcane Archer is ranged.
If we want to guess which subclass will be the 4th, we would have to try to follow the weird logic of JC and the pairs of "opposites". I understand that a couple is the champion and the battlemaster. Then the other could perfectly be the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Archer. One goes in melee, and the other with ranged weapons. And both have to do with magic.
I have little doubt that it will be the Arcane Archer, really.
What makes Eldritch Knight melee? You can use all of its features at range or melee.
Yes of course. Nothing prevents you from using the bladesinger from a distance either. But they are subclasses that aim to represent the gish archetype. That is, a melee warrior with magic or a wizard who can melee.
So, beyond trying to split hairs, the Eldritch Knight is melee while the Arcane Archer is ranged.
The bladesinger yes, since they only get proficiency in one, one-handed melee weapon. But not the EK - the EK has been around far far longer than Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade (both of which were introduced to go with the Bladesinger not the EK). The original EK worked far better as a ranged combatant b/c there were hardly any melee cantrips, well actually ranged spells are just better than melee spells entirely.
Let's see if we understand what we are talking about. It's not about how the subclass works better or worse, it's about the archetype it wants to represent.
The Eldritch Knight was not intended for ranged use. It's not that he can't. It's not that it's better one way or another. The thing is that the archetype that he represents is not that. The ranged warrior archetype that is related to arcane magic is the Arcane Archer. Do you understand what I mean?
That's why I say that following the weird logic that JC explained to choose the subclasses, the logical pair for the Eldritch Knight is the Arcane Archer.
What about EK suggests the archetype is a melee combatant? Are you using the existence of the AA to infer that EK is the melee counterpart? Because that is backwards thinking because the EK existed before the AA. It was designed for a world were the AA did not exist. In fact of the three PHB2014 Fighters it is the one leasted associated with melee combat.
What about EK suggests the archetype is a melee combatant? Are you using the existence of the AA to infer that EK is the melee counterpart? Because that is backwards thinking because the EK existed before the AA. It was designed for a world were the AA did not exist. In fact of the three PHB2014 Fighters it is the one leasted associated with melee combat.
From my experience the vast majority of fighters I’ve seen have been melee, including EK. You can absolutely build any fighter for range and they can do it very well. But I think the iconic fighter is a melee fighter. So it isn’t EK specifically that says melee because their features apply to broth melee and ranged. But it’s typically what comes to mind.
Let's see if we understand what we are talking about. It's not about how the subclass works better or worse, it's about the archetype it wants to represent.
The Eldritch Knight was not intended for ranged use. It's not that he can't. It's not that it's better one way or another. The thing is that the archetype that he represents is not that. The ranged warrior archetype that is related to arcane magic is the Arcane Archer. Do you understand what I mean?
That's why I say that following the weird logic that JC explained to choose the subclasses, the logical pair for the Eldritch Knight is the Arcane Archer.
The archetype that eldritch knight is representing is a wizard knight. magic/martial.
it has nothing to do with range or melee
The archetypal Eldritch Knight combines the martial mastery common to all fighters with a careful study of magic. Eldritch Knights use magical techniques similar to those practiced by wizards. They focus their study on two of the eight schools of magic: abjuration and evocation. Abjuration spells grant an Eldritch Knight additional protection in battle, and evocation spells deal damage to many foes at once, extending the fighter's reach in combat. These knights learn a comparatively small number of spells, committing them to memory instead of keeping them in a spellbook.
they arent melee fantasy charachters.
the opposite of eldritch knight would be something that was purely non magical.fantasy wise. gameplay wise, the wizard is primarily about preparation, resource managment, and aoe. The opposite playstyle would probably excel versus single targets, require little prep, and not really use resources.
arcane archer seems through theme and gameplay to be fairly aligned with eldtricth knight. The big diffrence is its resource management is short rest, and its ranged magical attacks are unque and more limited.
to be honest i think they are going to kinda stretch the opposing theme thing for fighter, because they got rid of brawler, whatever they were doing before, brawler was thematically/gameplay wise the complement of something, Since nothing is really like brawler in fighter right now, whatever they pick probably wont fit in very well with their opposing theme concept.
What about EK suggests the archetype is a melee combatant? Are you using the existence of the AA to infer that EK is the melee counterpart? Because that is backwards thinking because the EK existed before the AA. It was designed for a world were the AA did not exist. In fact of the three PHB2014 Fighters it is the one leasted associated with melee combat.
From my experience the vast majority of fighters I’ve seen have been melee, including EK. You can absolutely build any fighter for range and they can do it very well. But I think the iconic fighter is a melee fighter. So it isn’t EK spEKecifically that says melee because their features apply to broth melee and ranged. But it’s typically what comes to mind.
EK is already more of a ranged class than a regular fighter though.
most spells are ranged. the melee option ones came later. so really this is one arcane magic ranged fighter versus another arcane magic fighter, but even more ranged. Conceptually they are not in opposition, gameplay wise they are not in opposition.
as i said in another post, i think they are going to hard fudge that connection for fighter with a bit of a reach, and just pick whatever they want, because they dont really have a great subclass that either is opposing fantasy, or one that is opposing gameplay style.
What about EK suggests the archetype is a melee combatant? Are you using the existence of the AA to infer that EK is the melee counterpart? Because that is backwards thinking because the EK existed before the AA. It was designed for a world were the AA did not exist. In fact of the three PHB2014 Fighters it is the one leasted associated with melee combat.
I don't feel like arguing the obvious. In the collective imagination, the Eldritch Knight is a melee warrior who does magic. If someone reads "Eldritch Knight" they're going to think about that. Nobody is going to imagine it at first with a bow. In fact, it is most likely that one imagines him with a sword surrounded by a magical aura in one hand, and a shield in the other. That's the fantasy that Eldritch Knight sells. The subclass that wants to represent a similar concept, but with a bow, is the Arcane Archer. Obviously someone can use the Eldritch Knight to play an "Arcane Archer" (I'm talking about the character concept, not the mechanics).
Then, on the other hand, the Arcane Archer is a character archetype that has been around since at least 3rd edition. I understand what you mean when you say that the EK was designed in a world where the AA did not exist. However, that is not entirely true. When the EK was designed, it was known that there was the possibility of designing an AA. The EK was not designed thinking that players were going to play it with a bow. Basically because in that case an Arcane Archer would have been designed (which already existed, like most 5e subclasses).
What about EK suggests the archetype is a melee combatant? Are you using the existence of the AA to infer that EK is the melee counterpart? Because that is backwards thinking because the EK existed before the AA. It was designed for a world were the AA did not exist. In fact of the three PHB2014 Fighters it is the one leasted associated with melee combat.
I don't feel like arguing the obvious. In the collective imagination, the Eldritch Knight is a melee warrior who does magic. If someone reads "Eldritch Knight" they're going to think about that. Nobody is going to imagine it at first with a bow. In fact, it is most likely that one imagines him with a sword surrounded by a magical aura in one hand, and a shield in the other. That's the fantasy that Eldritch Knight sells. The subclass that wants to represent a similar concept, but with a bow, is the Arcane Archer. Obviously someone can use the Eldritch Knight to play an "Arcane Archer" (I'm talking about the character concept, not the mechanics).
Then, on the other hand, the Arcane Archer is a character archetype that has been around since at least 3rd edition. I understand what you mean when you say that the EK was designed in a world where the AA did not exist. However, that is not entirely true. When the EK was designed, it was known that there was the possibility of designing an AA. The EK was not designed thinking that players were going to play it with a bow. Basically because in that case an Arcane Archer would have been designed (which already existed, like most 5e subclasses).
There is no such thing as collective imagination. I don’t like that you want to limit my imagination with your weaker concept of a fighter being melee only. Also stop making absolute statements like “no one.” You would have a better argument if you said “Most,” or “Many.” There is a high probability that someone looking to play a ranged character will and has looked at the Eldritch Knight and immediately imagined them with a Bow. The concept is a Fighter with magic. While many imagine fighters as knights with swords and shields the actual class concept is far more broad than that.
But what are you saying? I don't limit you at all. Do you remember how all this started? With me arguing that the 4th fighter will be the Arcane Archer because it is the ranged counterpart to the Eldritch Knight. Let's not lose that point. I don't care what you imagine or don't imagine, but you must be aware that there are some archetypes in the collective imagination, and that is what the D&D classes and subclasses try to represent. These archetypes are taken into account by the designers, obviously. So, following the weird logic of subclass pairings, the most logical thing is to think that in the designers' heads the Arcane Archer and the Eldritch Knight are perfect candidates for that pairing. The Eldritch Knight as a melee warrior related to arcane magic, and the Arcane Archer as a ranged warrior related to arcane magic. Then what each player does with that mechanical corset is up to each player. Do you want to play a magic-related ranged warrior with the mechanical corset of an Eldritch Knight? Nothing stops you.
In short, what you imagine is up to you. But there are some archetypes that work, and that are common to all people. That's why they work in literature, cinema, etc... Because people identify them quickly. Because they are shared by the community.
The eldritch knight isn't a common enough in fantasy to say it's a specific archetype, but the thing about the arcane archer is... to the degree there's a fantasy archetype behind the AA, an EK with a bow is better at filling that archetype than an AA. As a subclass, the AA simply has no reason for existence.
The eldritch knight isn't a common enough in fantasy to say it's a specific archetype, but the thing about the arcane archer is... to the degree there's a fantasy archetype behind the AA, an EK with a bow is better at filling that archetype than an AA. As a subclass, the AA simply has no reason for existence.
Except the EK doesn’t actually make magical attacks with a bow; they either make normal weapon attacks or cast a spell. The point of the AA is to integrate magical effects into attacking with a bow.
But what are you saying? I don't limit you at all. Do you remember how all this started? With me arguing that the 4th fighter will be the Arcane Archer because it is the ranged counterpart to the Eldritch Knight. Let's not lose that point. I don't care what you imagine or don't imagine, but you must be aware that there are some archetypes in the collective imagination, and that is what the D&D classes and subclasses try to represent. These archetypes are taken into account by the designers, obviously. So, following the weird logic of subclass pairings, the most logical thing is to think that in the designers' heads the Arcane Archer and the Eldritch Knight are perfect candidates for that pairing. The Eldritch Knight as a melee warrior related to arcane magic, and the Arcane Archer as a ranged warrior related to arcane magic. Then what each player does with that mechanical corset is up to each player. Do you want to play a magic-related ranged warrior with the mechanical corset of an Eldritch Knight? Nothing stops you.
In short, what you imagine is up to you. But there are some archetypes that work, and that are common to all people. That's why they work in literature, cinema, etc... Because people identify them quickly. Because they are shared by the community.
There is no such thing as collective imagination, stop saying that. We each imagine things individually which is why we use descriptions to align our imaginations. The Archetype of an Eldritch Knight is a fighter with magic. That archetype is only a D&D archetype. If you told that to someone who had no knowledge of D&D they might think Eldritch means Chuthulu. Also you are assuming a Fighter is melee and that is not true. Because your assumption is not true your pairing is also not perfect. Arcane Archer is a horrible subclass for the PHB as it is currently written. You talked about players doing what they want with the mechanically corset of the class, but they literally can’t with the AA. It allows 0 flexibility. It is a supplement only class as it is currently written. It is the only fighter that is hard locked into a single weapon type. If they expanded it to all ranged weapons it’s still bad because every other fighter could still do what it does, as they aren’t limited to melee. The best to complete the 4 is pairings is Rune Knight it offers a unique play style and could cover pairings Champion simple no magic/Battle Master complex, Eldritch Knight spell slot magic/Rune Knight no spell slot magic. All four of those can be used melee or ranged and cover multiple styles of play. I originally thought Cavalier, but was reminded they have a unnecessary Str requirement. If they keep up these pairings in supplements a book with Cavalier and Arcane Archer would be possible. As one forced you to be Str and melee and the other forces you to be Dex with a bow.
Except the EK doesn’t actually make magical attacks with a bow; they either make normal weapon attacks or cast a spell. The point of the AA is to integrate magical effects into attacking with a bow.
That's an argument for arcane ranged smite spells.
The eldritch knight isn't a common enough in fantasy to say it's a specific archetype, but the thing about the arcane archer is... to the degree there's a fantasy archetype behind the AA, an EK with a bow is better at filling that archetype than an AA. As a subclass, the AA simply has no reason for existence.
Except the EK doesn’t actually make magical attacks with a bow; they either make normal weapon attacks or cast a spell. The point of the AA is to integrate magical effects into attacking with a bow.
technically accurate, but overall both can make ranged magical attacks once per turn, if they want to. there isnt enough daylight between these two sub classes to call them opposing pairs in many ways.
They might add them anyway, but it won't be because it was the most pure pairing.
also pretty sure they were thinking brawler vs BM champion versus EK. prepared/strategic versus improviser/tactics, physical adept versus magic adept.
yall probably need to think of something in opposition to BM.
Physical adept versus magic adept doesn't make sense. All of the subclasses, beside EK, are physically adept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Except the EK doesn’t actually make magical attacks with a bow; they either make normal weapon attacks or cast a spell. The point of the AA is to integrate magical effects into attacking with a bow.
Originally EK didn't make magical attacks with either a sword or a bow, they either cast spells or attacked with weapons. In the most recent UA they can make magical weapon attacks either melee or ranged with NuTrue Strike. Arcane Archer is a mirror to Bladesinger.
What about EK suggests the archetype is a melee combatant? Are you using the existence of the AA to infer that EK is the melee counterpart? Because that is backwards thinking because the EK existed before the AA. It was designed for a world were the AA did not exist. In fact of the three PHB2014 Fighters it is the one leasted associated with melee combat.
I don't feel like arguing the obvious. In the collective imagination, the Eldritch Knight is a melee warrior who does magic. If someone reads "Eldritch Knight" they're going to think about that.
No it isn't. 5e is the first version of D&D I played and when I read "Eldritch Knight" I thought it was a Knight in service of an Eldritch being - i.e. a blade-lock.
The Arcane Warrior, i.e. a Fighter that combines magic with weapons, isn't even well represented by EK in 5e as the school and spell level limitations means the EK is basically just a Fighter that can cast Shield and Absorb Elements. Paladin is way better as an Arcane Warrior Archetype.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cavalier isn't terribly popular because there's a sense that it's Sentinel: The class, and that it's entirely built around mounted combat. Cavalier isn't sexy, but it's straightforward and very effective at what it does. I wish it would have been the pick over champion, tbh. I think Cavalier is a very straightforward class that works very well if you use it's features and works well enough if you do not remember they are there.
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
If only this was an option...
Yes of course. Nothing prevents you from using the bladesinger from a distance either. But they are subclasses that aim to represent the gish archetype. That is, a melee warrior with magic or a wizard who can melee.
So, beyond trying to split hairs, the Eldritch Knight is melee while the Arcane Archer is ranged.
The bladesinger yes, since they only get proficiency in one, one-handed melee weapon. But not the EK - the EK has been around far far longer than Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade (both of which were introduced to go with the Bladesinger not the EK). The original EK worked far better as a ranged combatant b/c there were hardly any melee cantrips, well actually ranged spells are just better than melee spells entirely.
Let's see if we understand what we are talking about. It's not about how the subclass works better or worse, it's about the archetype it wants to represent.
The Eldritch Knight was not intended for ranged use. It's not that he can't. It's not that it's better one way or another. The thing is that the archetype that he represents is not that. The ranged warrior archetype that is related to arcane magic is the Arcane Archer. Do you understand what I mean?
That's why I say that following the weird logic that JC explained to choose the subclasses, the logical pair for the Eldritch Knight is the Arcane Archer.
What about EK suggests the archetype is a melee combatant? Are you using the existence of the AA to infer that EK is the melee counterpart? Because that is backwards thinking because the EK existed before the AA. It was designed for a world were the AA did not exist. In fact of the three PHB2014 Fighters it is the one leasted associated with melee combat.
From my experience the vast majority of fighters I’ve seen have been melee, including EK. You can absolutely build any fighter for range and they can do it very well. But I think the iconic fighter is a melee fighter. So it isn’t EK specifically that says melee because their features apply to broth melee and ranged. But it’s typically what comes to mind.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The archetype that eldritch knight is representing is a wizard knight. magic/martial.
it has nothing to do with range or melee
The archetypal Eldritch Knight combines the martial mastery common to all fighters with a careful study of magic. Eldritch Knights use magical techniques similar to those practiced by wizards. They focus their study on two of the eight schools of magic: abjuration and evocation. Abjuration spells grant an Eldritch Knight additional protection in battle, and evocation spells deal damage to many foes at once, extending the fighter's reach in combat. These knights learn a comparatively small number of spells, committing them to memory instead of keeping them in a spellbook.
they arent melee fantasy charachters.
the opposite of eldritch knight would be something that was purely non magical.fantasy wise. gameplay wise, the wizard is primarily about preparation, resource managment, and aoe. The opposite playstyle would probably excel versus single targets, require little prep, and not really use resources.
arcane archer seems through theme and gameplay to be fairly aligned with eldtricth knight. The big diffrence is its resource management is short rest, and its ranged magical attacks are unque and more limited.
to be honest i think they are going to kinda stretch the opposing theme thing for fighter, because they got rid of brawler, whatever they were doing before, brawler was thematically/gameplay wise the complement of something, Since nothing is really like brawler in fighter right now, whatever they pick probably wont fit in very well with their opposing theme concept.
EK is already more of a ranged class than a regular fighter though.
most spells are ranged. the melee option ones came later. so really this is one arcane magic ranged fighter versus another arcane magic fighter, but even more ranged. Conceptually they are not in opposition, gameplay wise they are not in opposition.
as i said in another post, i think they are going to hard fudge that connection for fighter with a bit of a reach, and just pick whatever they want, because they dont really have a great subclass that either is opposing fantasy, or one that is opposing gameplay style.
I don't feel like arguing the obvious. In the collective imagination, the Eldritch Knight is a melee warrior who does magic. If someone reads "Eldritch Knight" they're going to think about that. Nobody is going to imagine it at first with a bow. In fact, it is most likely that one imagines him with a sword surrounded by a magical aura in one hand, and a shield in the other. That's the fantasy that Eldritch Knight sells. The subclass that wants to represent a similar concept, but with a bow, is the Arcane Archer. Obviously someone can use the Eldritch Knight to play an "Arcane Archer" (I'm talking about the character concept, not the mechanics).
Then, on the other hand, the Arcane Archer is a character archetype that has been around since at least 3rd edition. I understand what you mean when you say that the EK was designed in a world where the AA did not exist. However, that is not entirely true. When the EK was designed, it was known that there was the possibility of designing an AA. The EK was not designed thinking that players were going to play it with a bow. Basically because in that case an Arcane Archer would have been designed (which already existed, like most 5e subclasses).
There is no such thing as collective imagination. I don’t like that you want to limit my imagination with your weaker concept of a fighter being melee only. Also stop making absolute statements like “no one.” You would have a better argument if you said “Most,” or “Many.” There is a high probability that someone looking to play a ranged character will and has looked at the Eldritch Knight and immediately imagined them with a Bow. The concept is a Fighter with magic. While many imagine fighters as knights with swords and shields the actual class concept is far more broad than that.
But what are you saying? I don't limit you at all. Do you remember how all this started? With me arguing that the 4th fighter will be the Arcane Archer because it is the ranged counterpart to the Eldritch Knight. Let's not lose that point. I don't care what you imagine or don't imagine, but you must be aware that there are some archetypes in the collective imagination, and that is what the D&D classes and subclasses try to represent. These archetypes are taken into account by the designers, obviously. So, following the weird logic of subclass pairings, the most logical thing is to think that in the designers' heads the Arcane Archer and the Eldritch Knight are perfect candidates for that pairing. The Eldritch Knight as a melee warrior related to arcane magic, and the Arcane Archer as a ranged warrior related to arcane magic. Then what each player does with that mechanical corset is up to each player. Do you want to play a magic-related ranged warrior with the mechanical corset of an Eldritch Knight? Nothing stops you.
In short, what you imagine is up to you. But there are some archetypes that work, and that are common to all people. That's why they work in literature, cinema, etc... Because people identify them quickly. Because they are shared by the community.
The eldritch knight isn't a common enough in fantasy to say it's a specific archetype, but the thing about the arcane archer is... to the degree there's a fantasy archetype behind the AA, an EK with a bow is better at filling that archetype than an AA. As a subclass, the AA simply has no reason for existence.
Except the EK doesn’t actually make magical attacks with a bow; they either make normal weapon attacks or cast a spell. The point of the AA is to integrate magical effects into attacking with a bow.
There is no such thing as collective imagination, stop saying that. We each imagine things individually which is why we use descriptions to align our imaginations.
The Archetype of an Eldritch Knight is a fighter with magic. That archetype is only a D&D archetype. If you told that to someone who had no knowledge of D&D they might think Eldritch means Chuthulu. Also you are assuming a Fighter is melee and that is not true. Because your assumption is not true your pairing is also not perfect. Arcane Archer is a horrible subclass for the PHB as it is currently written. You talked about players doing what they want with the mechanically corset of the class, but they literally can’t with the AA. It allows 0 flexibility. It is a supplement only class as it is currently written. It is the only fighter that is hard locked into a single weapon type. If they expanded it to all ranged weapons it’s still bad because every other fighter could still do what it does, as they aren’t limited to melee.
The best to complete the 4 is pairings is Rune Knight it offers a unique play style and could cover pairings Champion simple no magic/Battle Master complex, Eldritch Knight spell slot magic/Rune Knight no spell slot magic. All four of those can be used melee or ranged and cover multiple styles of play. I originally thought Cavalier, but was reminded they have a unnecessary Str requirement. If they keep up these pairings in supplements a book with Cavalier and Arcane Archer would be possible. As one forced you to be Str and melee and the other forces you to be Dex with a bow.
That's an argument for arcane ranged smite spells.
technically accurate, but overall both can make ranged magical attacks once per turn, if they want to. there isnt enough daylight between these two sub classes to call them opposing pairs in many ways.
They might add them anyway, but it won't be because it was the most pure pairing.
also pretty sure they were thinking brawler vs BM champion versus EK. prepared/strategic versus improviser/tactics, physical adept versus magic adept.
yall probably need to think of something in opposition to BM.
Physical adept versus magic adept doesn't make sense. All of the subclasses, beside EK, are physically adept.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Originally EK didn't make magical attacks with either a sword or a bow, they either cast spells or attacked with weapons. In the most recent UA they can make magical weapon attacks either melee or ranged with NuTrue Strike. Arcane Archer is a mirror to Bladesinger.
No it isn't. 5e is the first version of D&D I played and when I read "Eldritch Knight" I thought it was a Knight in service of an Eldritch being - i.e. a blade-lock.
The Arcane Warrior, i.e. a Fighter that combines magic with weapons, isn't even well represented by EK in 5e as the school and spell level limitations means the EK is basically just a Fighter that can cast Shield and Absorb Elements. Paladin is way better as an Arcane Warrior Archetype.