In the 1st question I would have edited it like this: "Should Artificer be in 2024 PHB or DMG?" Thus, if they did not add it to the player's, at least the DMG would remain a possibility so that it remains optional at the discretion of the master and thus remains within the trio of basic books, not letting it die into oblivion.
I voted I think it should be in the phb, theoretically, but in reality they probably can't do it. they can't even do brawler with the time/resources they have. Whats the chance they could do artificer well? Id rather wait than them commit to a poor version to make the deadline.
as far as int, artificer is married to intelligence, its a core part of the class concept, and appears in various features,
The options available didn’t really cover my own thoughts. “Should” it be in the PHB? No, but it’d be nice if it were. Would I be “okay” if the Artificer had a flexible casting stat? Yes: having choices is nice, but I don’t think the Artificer needs that flexibility.
My best guess is that, in due course, there’ll be a Monsters of the Multiverse style book incorporating the subclasses, spells and other character options from Xanathar and Tasha that don’t make it into the new PHB, plus probably a few other options currently in other sourcebooks. That’s where I would expect to see an updated Artificer.
I think that the Arcane Archer should be moved to the Artificer instead of being a Fighter subclass. (and probably the Rune Knight, as well) I think that the Artificer is better placed for the PHB 2024 than the Monk is (and I build and play Monks quite a bit). I think the 2024 rules for crafting items (magical and not) should dovetail with the Artificer infusion rules.
I think that the Arcane Archer should be moved to the Artificer instead of being a Fighter subclass. (and probably the Rune Knight, as well) I think that the Artificer is better placed for the PHB 2024 than the Monk is (and I build and play Monks quite a bit). I think the 2024 rules for crafting items (magical and not) should dovetail with the Artificer infusion rules.
Artificer basically has to come after they decide the new ways itemization and crafting work. Since magic items, and fake magic items are a core functionality of their class.
Also the trick shot archers are more known for their skill with archery than the items they create. Artificer isnt a great base for a aweapon master, you'd spend a lot of effort just bringing them online with a sunless fighter/ranger. Also, I think the gadgeteer concept, if it were an archer wouldn't be hyper focused on archery. Closer to batman than green arrow.
In the 1st question I would have edited it like this: "Should Artificer be in 2024 PHB or DMG?" Thus, if they did not add it to the player's, at least the DMG would remain a possibility so that it remains optional at the discretion of the master and thus remains within the trio of basic books, not letting it die into oblivion.
In relation to this, I wonder what options there are besides the PHB or DMG to include the Artificer in such a way that it would be open to having new subclasses created for it. I guess my question is, could (or would) they possibly release the Artificer in a supplement, but then also add the basic Artificer class (including one subclass like the other classes) to the creative commons like the rest of the game and thus allow more freedom for including it in other publications and 3rd party products?
Arti is mostly fine as is. Except for Alchemist. That needs fixing. Either improve what's already there by eliminating the random roll and scaling the effects. Or revamp the subclass to be more of a grenadier, tossing pots with different effects. Smoke bombs, sticky bombs, acid & fire bombs. Healing bombs. Etc.
I think that the Arcane Archer should be moved to the Artificer instead of being a Fighter subclass. (and probably the Rune Knight, as well) I think that the Artificer is better placed for the PHB 2024 than the Monk is (and I build and play Monks quite a bit). I think the 2024 rules for crafting items (magical and not) should dovetail with the Artificer infusion rules.
Also the trick shot archers are more known for their skill with archery than the items they create. Artificer isnt a great base for a aweapon master, you'd spend a lot of effort just bringing them online with a sunless fighter/ranger. Also, I think the gadgeteer concept, if it were an archer wouldn't be hyper focused on archery. Closer to batman than green arrow.
Is an Arcane Archer a "trick-shot artist whose trick-shots are nearly magical"? Or a "spell-sword who has a bow instead of a sword, and their magical abilities include trick-shots"?
IMO: the title including "Arcane" implies more of the latter than the former. They invest Arcane energy in their ranged weapon, just like an Artificer invests Arcane energy into their gadgets/etc. That investment of arcane energy into their ranged weapon can work like an Artificer's infusions, and the special trick-shots can be either "spells", "subclass specific infusions", or "special subclass abilities comparable to what the Fighter version of the subclass has/had." And, IMO, I would give them the ability to cast damaging touch spells and weapon-attack spells (like green flame blade) via ammunition or thrown weapons (as one consequence of that: casting a Action touch attack spell, or Bonus Action touch attack spell, includes a single attack with their ranged weapon -- like the built-in melee attack that you get with Green Flame Blade, Booming Blade, or the new True Strike ... but applied to their ranged weapon and any touch spell or weapon attack spell; the consequence being that their casting action/bonus-action is wasted if the attack roll misses .. undecided if that also wastes the spell slot if it was a leveled spell). I think that would go a long way to making them a more viable subclass.
Throw in some of the ranger spells that work via/as/with ranged attacks, as the subclass spells (such as: ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, cordon of arrows, conjure barrage, lightning arrow, conjure volley ... plus another 2nd level, 3rd level, 4th level, and 5th level spell). Proficiency with all ranged weapons and thrown weapons (though, the only non-simple thrown weapon is the trident, so that's really just 1 that they don't already have). Then re-word the subclass features to reflect that it's not just bows&arrows (maybe like a Kensei, they pick so many weapon types at each subclass-level, and those are what their special abilities apply to; 2 at 3rd level, then 1 more at each subclass-level).
(Artificer subclass levels in 5e are 3, 5, 9 and 15)
3rd level: Move the Arcane Archer 3rd and 7th level "Arcane Shots" to 9th level. Drop the bonus skill. They can use a bonus action attack with one of their chosen ranged/thrown weapons (no other conditions: they can always use a bonus action to make such an attack). They pick 2 ranged/thrown weapons as their speical weapons. They can use those weapons as spellcasting focuses. If their weapon has magical bonuses, the bonuses apply to the attack/damage roll of any spell cast through their weapons as a spellcasting focus, or raise the Save DC of a spell cast through their weapons as a spellcasting focus. And the above thing about touch spells and cast-via-weapon spells being cast via the weapon/ammunition.
5th Level: Extra Attack, with the ability to substitute 1 attack to cast a cantrip. Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
9th level: Arcane Shot (all of the Arcane Archer's arcane shots for 3rd and 7th level: 3 shots known at 9th level, plus one more at each of 10th, 15th, and 18th levels). Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
15th level: Arcane Archer's "Ever-ready Shot". Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
What do you still think is lacking in that idea compared to trying to use the Ranger as a non-game-warden magical-archer? Then that same question applied to the Fighter as an Archer and/or magical-archer? (I would actually worry that it might be too much as an arcane archer, not less-than)
I mean, this character wont be running around in full plate ... but neither would an archer. It's not like their roll will be as a front-line type (nor should it be -- we're not talking about a Tanking Archer). They'll be able to make 3 attacks with their ranged weapon (compared to 2 that a ranger gets, or 4 that a fighter gets). Their damage potential with those 3 shots though... especially if you use one of those Attack action attacks to cast True Strike, Shocking Grasp, Green Flame Blade, or Booming Blade ... via your ranged weapon.
And in theory ... you could use 1 attack to cast True Strike, get in the base "bow" attack with it ... and combine it with Hail of Thorns.
In the 1st question I would have edited it like this: "Should Artificer be in 2024 PHB or DMG?" Thus, if they did not add it to the player's, at least the DMG would remain a possibility so that it remains optional at the discretion of the master and thus remains within the trio of basic books, not letting it die into oblivion.
In relation to this, I wonder what options there are besides the PHB or DMG to include the Artificer in such a way that it would be open to having new subclasses created for it. I guess my question is, could (or would) they possibly release the Artificer in a supplement, but then also add the basic Artificer class (including one subclass like the other classes) to the creative commons like the rest of the game and thus allow more freedom for including it in other publications and 3rd party products?
I think, reflecting on Gwar1's note that the Artificer might have to wait until the DMG, for the new/updated crafting rules ... that might make the most sense: put the Artificer into the DMG, along with the new/updated crafting rules.
I think that the Arcane Archer should be moved to the Artificer instead of being a Fighter subclass. (and probably the Rune Knight, as well) I think that the Artificer is better placed for the PHB 2024 than the Monk is (and I build and play Monks quite a bit). I think the 2024 rules for crafting items (magical and not) should dovetail with the Artificer infusion rules.
Also the trick shot archers are more known for their skill with archery than the items they create. Artificer isnt a great base for a aweapon master, you'd spend a lot of effort just bringing them online with a sunless fighter/ranger. Also, I think the gadgeteer concept, if it were an archer wouldn't be hyper focused on archery. Closer to batman than green arrow.
Is an Arcane Archer a "trick-shot artist whose trick-shots are nearly magical"? Or a "spell-sword who has a bow instead of a sword, and their magical abilities include trick-shots"?
IMO: the title including "Arcane" implies more of the latter than the former. They invest Arcane energy in their ranged weapon, just like an Artificer invests Arcane energy into their gadgets/etc. That investment of arcane energy into their ranged weapon can work like an Artificer's infusions, and the special trick-shots can be either "spells", "subclass specific infusions", or "special subclass abilities comparable to what the Fighter version of the subclass has/had." And, IMO, I would give them the ability to cast damaging touch spells and weapon-attack spells (like green flame blade) via ammunition or thrown weapons (as one consequence of that: casting a Action touch attack spell, or Bonus Action touch attack spell, includes a single attack with their ranged weapon -- like the built-in melee attack that you get with Green Flame Blade, Booming Blade, or the new True Strike ... but applied to their ranged weapon and any touch spell or weapon attack spell; the consequence being that their casting action/bonus-action is wasted if the attack roll misses .. undecided if that also wastes the spell slot if it was a leveled spell). I think that would go a long way to making them a more viable subclass.
Throw in some of the ranger spells that work via/as/with ranged attacks, as the subclass spells (such as: ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, cordon of arrows, conjure barrage, lightning arrow, conjure volley ... plus another 2nd level, 3rd level, 4th level, and 5th level spell). Proficiency with all ranged weapons and thrown weapons (though, the only non-simple thrown weapon is the trident, so that's really just 1 that they don't already have). Then re-word the subclass features to reflect that it's not just bows&arrows (maybe like a Kensei, they pick so many weapon types at each subclass-level, and those are what their special abilities apply to; 2 at 3rd level, then 1 more at each subclass-level).
(Artificer subclass levels in 5e are 3, 5, 9 and 15)
3rd level: Move the Arcane Archer 3rd and 7th level "Arcane Shots" to 9th level. Drop the bonus skill. They can use a bonus action attack with one of their chosen ranged/thrown weapons (no other conditions: they can always use a bonus action to make such an attack). They pick 2 ranged/thrown weapons as their speical weapons. They can use those weapons as spellcasting focuses. If their weapon has magical bonuses, the bonuses apply to the attack/damage roll of any spell cast through their weapons as a spellcasting focus, or raise the Save DC of a spell cast through their weapons as a spellcasting focus. And the above thing about touch spells and cast-via-weapon spells being cast via the weapon/ammunition.
5th Level: Extra Attack, with the ability to substitute 1 attack to cast a cantrip. Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
9th level: Arcane Shot (all of the Arcane Archer's arcane shots for 3rd and 7th level: 3 shots known at 9th level, plus one more at each of 10th, 15th, and 18th levels). Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
15th level: Arcane Archer's "Ever-ready Shot". Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
What do you still think is lacking in that idea compared to trying to use the Ranger as a non-game-warden magical-archer? Then that same question applied to the Fighter as an Archer and/or magical-archer? (I would actually worry that it might be too much as an arcane archer, not less-than)
I mean, this character wont be running around in full plate ... but neither would an archer. It's not like their roll will be as a front-line type (nor should it be -- we're not talking about a Tanking Archer). They'll be able to make 3 attacks with their ranged weapon (compared to 2 that a ranger gets, or 4 that a fighter gets). Their damage potential with those 3 shots though... especially if you use one of those Attack action attacks to cast True Strike, Shocking Grasp, Green Flame Blade, or Booming Blade ... via your ranged weapon.
And in theory ... you could use 1 attack to cast True Strike, get in the base "bow" attack with it ... and combine it with Hail of Thorns.
I would say, if someone says arcane archer, they need to be both magical, and really good/thematic at archery. otherwise why be limited to archery. why not arcane attacker, or arcane warrior, or better yet arcane marksman, as that limits it to ranged play, and not just a couple weapons.
if it isnt heavily tied to the martial aspect, it may as well be a wizard.
my problem with artificer as a base, isnt that its impossible, but just that most of the mental concept of the base class, is tied up in the inventiveness and item creation aspects of the thing. Whereas, for the concept of an arcane archer/marksman, the source of the arcane part isnt important or class defining. No one cares if hawkeye makes his own arrows or buys them. Would people want a Hawkeye/gene starwind/rowen of ronin warriors class of whom, 50% of their design budget is around creating items (infusions) and choosing magic items/gadgets?
I think fighter, wizard, or ranger would probably be a better base.
I think one could maybe make a magical gun smith out of artificer, but then i would probably give them more item/infusion interactions. The making, or customizing of the weapons would need to be a big part of the fantasy.
I think that the Arcane Archer should be moved to the Artificer instead of being a Fighter subclass. (and probably the Rune Knight, as well) I think that the Artificer is better placed for the PHB 2024 than the Monk is (and I build and play Monks quite a bit). I think the 2024 rules for crafting items (magical and not) should dovetail with the Artificer infusion rules.
Also the trick shot archers are more known for their skill with archery than the items they create. Artificer isnt a great base for a aweapon master, you'd spend a lot of effort just bringing them online with a sunless fighter/ranger. Also, I think the gadgeteer concept, if it were an archer wouldn't be hyper focused on archery. Closer to batman than green arrow.
Is an Arcane Archer a "trick-shot artist whose trick-shots are nearly magical"? Or a "spell-sword who has a bow instead of a sword, and their magical abilities include trick-shots"?
IMO: the title including "Arcane" implies more of the latter than the former. They invest Arcane energy in their ranged weapon, just like an Artificer invests Arcane energy into their gadgets/etc. That investment of arcane energy into their ranged weapon can work like an Artificer's infusions, and the special trick-shots can be either "spells", "subclass specific infusions", or "special subclass abilities comparable to what the Fighter version of the subclass has/had." And, IMO, I would give them the ability to cast damaging touch spells and weapon-attack spells (like green flame blade) via ammunition or thrown weapons (as one consequence of that: casting a Action touch attack spell, or Bonus Action touch attack spell, includes a single attack with their ranged weapon -- like the built-in melee attack that you get with Green Flame Blade, Booming Blade, or the new True Strike ... but applied to their ranged weapon and any touch spell or weapon attack spell; the consequence being that their casting action/bonus-action is wasted if the attack roll misses .. undecided if that also wastes the spell slot if it was a leveled spell). I think that would go a long way to making them a more viable subclass.
Throw in some of the ranger spells that work via/as/with ranged attacks, as the subclass spells (such as: ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, cordon of arrows, conjure barrage, lightning arrow, conjure volley ... plus another 2nd level, 3rd level, 4th level, and 5th level spell). Proficiency with all ranged weapons and thrown weapons (though, the only non-simple thrown weapon is the trident, so that's really just 1 that they don't already have). Then re-word the subclass features to reflect that it's not just bows&arrows (maybe like a Kensei, they pick so many weapon types at each subclass-level, and those are what their special abilities apply to; 2 at 3rd level, then 1 more at each subclass-level).
(Artificer subclass levels in 5e are 3, 5, 9 and 15)
3rd level: Move the Arcane Archer 3rd and 7th level "Arcane Shots" to 9th level. Drop the bonus skill. They can use a bonus action attack with one of their chosen ranged/thrown weapons (no other conditions: they can always use a bonus action to make such an attack). They pick 2 ranged/thrown weapons as their speical weapons. They can use those weapons as spellcasting focuses. If their weapon has magical bonuses, the bonuses apply to the attack/damage roll of any spell cast through their weapons as a spellcasting focus, or raise the Save DC of a spell cast through their weapons as a spellcasting focus. And the above thing about touch spells and cast-via-weapon spells being cast via the weapon/ammunition.
5th Level: Extra Attack, with the ability to substitute 1 attack to cast a cantrip. Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
9th level: Arcane Shot (all of the Arcane Archer's arcane shots for 3rd and 7th level: 3 shots known at 9th level, plus one more at each of 10th, 15th, and 18th levels). Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
15th level: Arcane Archer's "Ever-ready Shot". Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
What do you still think is lacking in that idea compared to trying to use the Ranger as a non-game-warden magical-archer? Then that same question applied to the Fighter as an Archer and/or magical-archer? (I would actually worry that it might be too much as an arcane archer, not less-than)
I mean, this character wont be running around in full plate ... but neither would an archer. It's not like their roll will be as a front-line type (nor should it be -- we're not talking about a Tanking Archer). They'll be able to make 3 attacks with their ranged weapon (compared to 2 that a ranger gets, or 4 that a fighter gets). Their damage potential with those 3 shots though... especially if you use one of those Attack action attacks to cast True Strike, Shocking Grasp, Green Flame Blade, or Booming Blade ... via your ranged weapon.
And in theory ... you could use 1 attack to cast True Strike, get in the base "bow" attack with it ... and combine it with Hail of Thorns.
I would say, if someone says arcane archer, they need to be both magical, and really good/thematic at archery.
In what way is the subclass I proposed limited in archery, or not good with archery? What can they not do, or not compensate for, via their proposed abilities? They get a better ROF than a Ranger-as-Archer, and have a rather high damage potential via combining their spells with their archery. And then throw in the trick-shots via their Arcane Shots. How are they not living up to both sides of what you said: "they need to be both magical, and really good[..] at archery"?
Since I didn't post any fluff/lore with it, the thematic part is non-sequitur, and it could just as easily be described in the same way that a College of Swords Bard is described as a specialized swordsman, or a bladesinger is described as an elite melee combatant. Just because it's not written (yet) when doing an exploration of the mechanics, doesn't mean it wont be in the final result.
The reason for using the Artificer is that Artificers channel their magic through their tools (in this case: a tool of war: a weapon). Just like the Armorer channels their magic through a suit of armor. The Arcane Archer can be an Artificer who is:
channeling their magic through their ranged weapon ("they need to be magical"), and
excels with that ranged weapon ("and really good at archery") via Arcane Shots.
That does both of the things you said, once the fluff/lore is written for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Realized I can’t properly do one poll for Spellcasting in general and the best option is to just do one for each class individually.
In the 1st question I would have edited it like this: "Should Artificer be in 2024 PHB or DMG?"
Thus, if they did not add it to the player's, at least the DMG would remain a possibility so that it remains optional at the discretion of the master and thus remains within the trio of basic books, not letting it die into oblivion.
I voted I think it should be in the phb, theoretically, but in reality they probably can't do it. they can't even do brawler with the time/resources they have. Whats the chance they could do artificer well? Id rather wait than them commit to a poor version to make the deadline.
as far as int, artificer is married to intelligence, its a core part of the class concept, and appears in various features,
Imagine wanting yet another Charisma caster class.
The options available didn’t really cover my own thoughts. “Should” it be in the PHB? No, but it’d be nice if it were. Would I be “okay” if the Artificer had a flexible casting stat? Yes: having choices is nice, but I don’t think the Artificer needs that flexibility.
My best guess is that, in due course, there’ll be a Monsters of the Multiverse style book incorporating the subclasses, spells and other character options from Xanathar and Tasha that don’t make it into the new PHB, plus probably a few other options currently in other sourcebooks. That’s where I would expect to see an updated Artificer.
Yes, absolutely, core class or DOA.
No flexibility, Int suits it just fine.
I think that the Arcane Archer should be moved to the Artificer instead of being a Fighter subclass. (and probably the Rune Knight, as well)
I think that the Artificer is better placed for the PHB 2024 than the Monk is (and I build and play Monks quite a bit).
I think the 2024 rules for crafting items (magical and not) should dovetail with the Artificer infusion rules.
Artificer basically has to come after they decide the new ways itemization and crafting work. Since magic items, and fake magic items are a core functionality of their class.
Also the trick shot archers are more known for their skill with archery than the items they create. Artificer isnt a great base for a aweapon master, you'd spend a lot of effort just bringing them online with a sunless fighter/ranger. Also, I think the gadgeteer concept, if it were an archer wouldn't be hyper focused on archery. Closer to batman than green arrow.
In relation to this, I wonder what options there are besides the PHB or DMG to include the Artificer in such a way that it would be open to having new subclasses created for it. I guess my question is, could (or would) they possibly release the Artificer in a supplement, but then also add the basic Artificer class (including one subclass like the other classes) to the creative commons like the rest of the game and thus allow more freedom for including it in other publications and 3rd party products?
Arti is mostly fine as is. Except for Alchemist. That needs fixing. Either improve what's already there by eliminating the random roll and scaling the effects. Or revamp the subclass to be more of a grenadier, tossing pots with different effects. Smoke bombs, sticky bombs, acid & fire bombs. Healing bombs. Etc.
Is an Arcane Archer a "trick-shot artist whose trick-shots are nearly magical"? Or a "spell-sword who has a bow instead of a sword, and their magical abilities include trick-shots"?
IMO: the title including "Arcane" implies more of the latter than the former. They invest Arcane energy in their ranged weapon, just like an Artificer invests Arcane energy into their gadgets/etc. That investment of arcane energy into their ranged weapon can work like an Artificer's infusions, and the special trick-shots can be either "spells", "subclass specific infusions", or "special subclass abilities comparable to what the Fighter version of the subclass has/had." And, IMO, I would give them the ability to cast damaging touch spells and weapon-attack spells (like green flame blade) via ammunition or thrown weapons (as one consequence of that: casting a Action touch attack spell, or Bonus Action touch attack spell, includes a single attack with their ranged weapon -- like the built-in melee attack that you get with Green Flame Blade, Booming Blade, or the new True Strike ... but applied to their ranged weapon and any touch spell or weapon attack spell; the consequence being that their casting action/bonus-action is wasted if the attack roll misses .. undecided if that also wastes the spell slot if it was a leveled spell). I think that would go a long way to making them a more viable subclass.
Throw in some of the ranger spells that work via/as/with ranged attacks, as the subclass spells (such as: ensnaring strike, hail of thorns, cordon of arrows, conjure barrage, lightning arrow, conjure volley ... plus another 2nd level, 3rd level, 4th level, and 5th level spell). Proficiency with all ranged weapons and thrown weapons (though, the only non-simple thrown weapon is the trident, so that's really just 1 that they don't already have). Then re-word the subclass features to reflect that it's not just bows&arrows (maybe like a Kensei, they pick so many weapon types at each subclass-level, and those are what their special abilities apply to; 2 at 3rd level, then 1 more at each subclass-level).
(Artificer subclass levels in 5e are 3, 5, 9 and 15)
3rd level: Move the Arcane Archer 3rd and 7th level "Arcane Shots" to 9th level. Drop the bonus skill. They can use a bonus action attack with one of their chosen ranged/thrown weapons (no other conditions: they can always use a bonus action to make such an attack). They pick 2 ranged/thrown weapons as their speical weapons. They can use those weapons as spellcasting focuses. If their weapon has magical bonuses, the bonuses apply to the attack/damage roll of any spell cast through their weapons as a spellcasting focus, or raise the Save DC of a spell cast through their weapons as a spellcasting focus. And the above thing about touch spells and cast-via-weapon spells being cast via the weapon/ammunition.
5th Level: Extra Attack, with the ability to substitute 1 attack to cast a cantrip. Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
9th level: Arcane Shot (all of the Arcane Archer's arcane shots for 3rd and 7th level: 3 shots known at 9th level, plus one more at each of 10th, 15th, and 18th levels). Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
15th level: Arcane Archer's "Ever-ready Shot". Pick another ranged/thrown weapon.
What do you still think is lacking in that idea compared to trying to use the Ranger as a non-game-warden magical-archer?
Then that same question applied to the Fighter as an Archer and/or magical-archer?
(I would actually worry that it might be too much as an arcane archer, not less-than)
I mean, this character wont be running around in full plate ... but neither would an archer. It's not like their roll will be as a front-line type (nor should it be -- we're not talking about a Tanking Archer). They'll be able to make 3 attacks with their ranged weapon (compared to 2 that a ranger gets, or 4 that a fighter gets). Their damage potential with those 3 shots though... especially if you use one of those Attack action attacks to cast True Strike, Shocking Grasp, Green Flame Blade, or Booming Blade ... via your ranged weapon.
And in theory ... you could use 1 attack to cast True Strike, get in the base "bow" attack with it ... and combine it with Hail of Thorns.
I think, reflecting on Gwar1's note that the Artificer might have to wait until the DMG, for the new/updated crafting rules ... that might make the most sense: put the Artificer into the DMG, along with the new/updated crafting rules.
I would say, if someone says arcane archer, they need to be both magical, and really good/thematic at archery. otherwise why be limited to archery. why not arcane attacker, or arcane warrior, or better yet arcane marksman, as that limits it to ranged play, and not just a couple weapons.
if it isnt heavily tied to the martial aspect, it may as well be a wizard.
my problem with artificer as a base, isnt that its impossible, but just that most of the mental concept of the base class, is tied up in the inventiveness and item creation aspects of the thing. Whereas, for the concept of an arcane archer/marksman, the source of the arcane part isnt important or class defining. No one cares if hawkeye makes his own arrows or buys them. Would people want a Hawkeye/gene starwind/rowen of ronin warriors class of whom, 50% of their design budget is around creating items (infusions) and choosing magic items/gadgets?
I think fighter, wizard, or ranger would probably be a better base.
I think one could maybe make a magical gun smith out of artificer, but then i would probably give them more item/infusion interactions. The making, or customizing of the weapons would need to be a big part of the fantasy.
thats my take anyway.
In what way is the subclass I proposed limited in archery, or not good with archery? What can they not do, or not compensate for, via their proposed abilities? They get a better ROF than a Ranger-as-Archer, and have a rather high damage potential via combining their spells with their archery. And then throw in the trick-shots via their Arcane Shots. How are they not living up to both sides of what you said: "they need to be both magical, and really good[..] at archery"?
Since I didn't post any fluff/lore with it, the thematic part is non-sequitur, and it could just as easily be described in the same way that a College of Swords Bard is described as a specialized swordsman, or a bladesinger is described as an elite melee combatant. Just because it's not written (yet) when doing an exploration of the mechanics, doesn't mean it wont be in the final result.
The reason for using the Artificer is that Artificers channel their magic through their tools (in this case: a tool of war: a weapon). Just like the Armorer channels their magic through a suit of armor. The Arcane Archer can be an Artificer who is:
That does both of the things you said, once the fluff/lore is written for it.