Arcane Trickster, the greatest mistakes of subclassing so far

[toapat]

One thing i have felt from the second i read the PHB since buying it is that Arcane trickster should not have taken the Spelltheft ability as part of itself, hidden away at lvl 17 and severely limited in terms of what it can steal.

Except, this opinion is wrong, because this opinion is based on fixating on a symptom of a much larger problem, one derived from a much simpler realization: Arcane trickster is not a sub-genre of rogue

Spellthief is a baseclass (for good reason) in 3.5, while Unseen Seer and Arcane trickster essentially are treated as a single 15-16 level PrC. Daggerspell Mage and Spellwarp sniper add even more options to the list of the sneaky thaumic-combatants.

[Chambers]

In the sense that Archetypes fulfill the same or similar function of a Prestige Class, I think it's fair to say that the Arcane Trickster Archetype is a faithful sub-genre of the Rogue. Consider the number of Prestige Classes that fill the 'magical thief' concept; Arcane Trickster, Unseen Seer, Daggerspell Mage, Spellwarp Sniper, Shadowmind, Master of Masks, Chameleon, Psibond Agent, etc...

I think it's fair to say that 'magical thief' concept is well within the domain of the Rogue class. If you think otherwise, where do you think the Arcane Trickster Archetype should be (i.e. which class should have the Archetype)?

[Eslin]

One thing i have felt from the second i read the PHB since buying it is that Arcane trickster should not have taken the Spelltheft ability as part of itself, hidden away at lvl 17 and severely limited in terms of what it can steal.

Except, this opinion is wrong, because this opinion is based on fixating on a symptom of a much larger problem, one derived from a much simpler realization: Arcane trickster is not a sub-genre of rogue

Spellthief is a baseclass (for good reason) in 3.5, while Unseen Seer and Arcane trickster essentially are treated as a single 15-16 level PrC. Daggerspell Mage and Spellwarp sniper add even more options to the list of the sneaky thaumic-combatants.

Spellthief never needed to be its own class, and the actual sub-class abilities of the arcane trickster are deliberately underwhelming, since spellcasting is strong enough on its own.

[Naanomi]

I think it's fair to say that 'magical thief' concept is well within the domain of the Rogue class. If you think otherwise, where do you think the Arcane Trickster Archetype should be (i.e. which class should have the Archetype)?
Depending on how many subclasses we see later in the edition; but if they become somewhat prolific like Prestige Classes did then I could see the concept played out in nearly any of the caster classes as well; Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer... maybe Cleric as well (for the right Deity). Of course, when Psion appears I wouldn't be shocked to see a psionic equivalent as well.

[EugeneVoid]

Spellthief never needed to be its own class, and the actual sub-class abilities of the arcane trickster are deliberately underwhelming, since spellcasting is strong enough on its own.

Maybe ACF or something

[toapat]

I think it's fair to say that 'magical thief' concept is well within the domain of the Rogue class. If you think otherwise, where do you think the Arcane Trickster Archetype should be (i.e. which class should have the Archetype)?

except you just listed off more PrCs then can be claimed to have inspired the Champion (Kensai) or Battlemaster (Warblade + Master of Nine) fighter Subclasses, PrCs which mostly operate on different principles. And saying something occupies the same mechanical space as another class doesnt really help because we have the barbarian to the fighter, or the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. Each has their own place and each does something differently. Im not saying that Rogue should be terrible or not have access to their own mechanics, Im saying the conceptual space of Arcane Trickster is a Base class with probably 3-4 subclasses worth of variance, the magical theif being only one of those. Honestly a more Factototum approach to spellcasting (like the Way of 4 elements monk) would have better done the theif with magic concept for rogue.

Then there are several other hybridization PrCs which point in different directions and just dont fit anywhere conceptually of the currently defined base classes, although even those dont fit in an Arcane trickster.


Spellthief never needed to be its own class, and the actual sub-class abilities of the arcane trickster are deliberately underwhelming, since spellcasting is strong enough on its own.

Spelltheft is a powerful but extremely risky and economically poor class feature in 3rd as a result of being the core mechanic of a 20 lvl class. In 5th i cant honestly justify throwing the spell back out because there are no mechanics for using spellcasting and sneak attack and it cant steal buffs, while feeling more like its a secondary thought of the class as opposed to something carefully chosen for the build.

[Easy_Lee]

There will always been those who want to make tweaks to existing archetypes. Whether that means rule interpretation, adding to or editing the archetype, or coming up with a totally new class depends on the case. I say talk to your DM about a homebrew of what you want to do. One of the best features of 5e is that homebrewing is very easy this time around, what with bounded accuracy, fixed levels for features, and the effort they've put into making everyone comparable in the DPR department.

[Chambers]

except you just listed off more PrCs then can be claimed to have inspired the Champion (Kensai) or Battlemaster (Warblade + Master of Nine) fighter Subclasses, PrCs which mostly operate on different principles.

I don't understand what you're saying here. The PrC's I listed are all sneaky & magical PrC's; as far as I can tell they don't have anything to do with the Champion or Battlemaster concepts.


Im not saying that Rogue should be terrible or not have access to their own mechanics, Im saying the conceptual space of Arcane Trickster is a Base class with probably 3-4 subclasses worth of variance, the magical theif being only one of those. Honestly a more Factototum approach to spellcasting (like the Way of 4 elements monk) would have better done the theif with magic concept for rogue.

If I understand you correctly, Arcane Trickster would be the base class and things like Spellthief, Unseen Seer, and Spellwarp Sniper would be Archetypes?

[toapat]

I don't understand what you're saying here. The PrC's I listed are all sneaky & magical PrC's; as far as I can tell they don't have anything to do with the Champion or Battlemaster concepts.

If I understand you correctly, Arcane Trickster would be the base class and things like Spellthief, Unseen Seer, and Spellwarp Sniper would be Archetypes?

the comparison is depth of source material, most of what the fighter Subclasses are, are based on an extremely tiny pool of PRCs and base classes. This isnt to say they should have been, just that the concepts hadnt been explored in the same depth. However comparatively the Rogue Gish was explored in a wide varieties of executions and ideas and the most significant ones did not overlap eachother's playstyles or concepts.

yes, Arcane Trickster (not named that of course, as i dont think anyone would disagree that its a poor class name for a base class) should be a base class with subclasses based on those PrCs. Maybe the class would be named Thaumotechnician?

[Objulen]

You can make a wizard/sorcerer with an archetype that provides some rogue abilities and efficiencies, or nix the rogue elements entirely and add spell stealing features.

[Segev]

As a side question, why do Fighter and Rogue have "partial-caster subclasses," but Sorcerer and Wizard lack "partial-fighter/partial-rogue" subclasses? What makes an archetype an acceptable/desirable thing to add to a class as an alternative to multi-classing in one class, but its converse offering not a good idea for the other "side" of the multiclass?

To put it another way, why is there a Fighter (subclass gish) and a rogue (subclass magic thief), but not a wizard (subclass gish) or a sorcerer (subclass thieving mage)?

And, as a further thought, when should you go rogue/wizard over rogue(Arcane Trickster)?

[Objulen]

When you want better spell casting than what you receive from arcane trickster.

Though, I wonder if there's no wizard/sorcerer fighter meld because wizards figured you'd just multi class with the extra level or two of spell slots from fighter or rogue.

[toapat]

As a side question, why do Fighter and Rogue have "partial-caster subclasses," but Sorcerer and Wizard lack "partial-fighter/partial-rogue" subclasses? What makes an archetype an acceptable/desirable thing to add to a class as an alternative to multi-classing in one class, but its converse offering not a good idea for the other "side" of the multiclass?

To put it another way, why is there a Fighter (subclass gish) and a rogue (subclass magic thief), but not a wizard (subclass gish) or a sorcerer (subclass thieving mage)?

And, as a further thought, when should you go rogue/wizard over rogue(Arcane Trickster)?

1: the Mundanes get spellcasting subclasses vs Spellcasters dont get mundane subclasses is basically a result of a small number of factors: Mundanes get large things which are accessible to everyone typically with their own small things that buff them in a direction, while Spellcasters get alot of variety upfront.

Also, both the bard and the warlock have martial options within their class

2: At least a quick skim says never, you lose 5 class features from rogue for Arcane recovery if you are matching spellslots, more if we count attribute increases. However if we go for the Rogue 13/Wizard 7 then we can take the powerful assassin subclass while gaining the utility of arcane trickster without the severe penalty of 8 of our 13 (12 in this case) spells prepared/known being restricted to Enchantment/Illusion. Attack Cantrips are less useful though without sneak attack to them

[MustacheFart]

To me, the Arcane Trickster reminds me of a beguiler which was very much a magical rogue.


As for the rest of your opinions posted in subsequent posts, I didn't even bother to read them. Subjectively speaking I think you're wrong. I also have real game data to base this opinion on. My wife plays an Arcane Trickster in a game we just played yesterday. At no point did she not feel like a rogue or did it feel like anything but a rogue that she was playing. Perhaps you're reading/doing it wrong. Did you notice that the base ability the arcane trickster gets is modifications of the cantrip Mage Hand in order to pick locks & disarm traps better or more safely rather?

I can understand if you like the idea of a spellthief so much that you feel it should have its own class but if you're going to take that approach then Eldritch Knight should be stripped from fighter and turned into a Duskblade class.

[Demonic Spoon]

As a side question, why do Fighter and Rogue have "partial-caster subclasses," but Sorcerer and Wizard lack "partial-fighter/partial-rogue" subclasses? What makes an archetype an acceptable/desirable thing to add to a class as an alternative to multi-classing in one class, but its converse offering not a good idea for the other "side" of the multiclass?


Because there are practical limits to what WotC can reasonably fit in a single rulebook, so nice-to-have things like multiple ways to build a gish rogue are axed in favor of more important things.

[edge2054]

yes, Arcane Trickster (not named that of course, as i dont think anyone would disagree that its a poor class name for a base class) should be a base class with subclasses based on those PrCs. Maybe the class would be named Thaumotechnician?

I get wanting to plan ahead but WotC has said they're not planning to do a bunch of splat books. The classes that you feel should be under a larger Rogue/Caster class may not be re-released.

As for your initial argument, I like that we have a Rogue/Caster right out of the box and already feel the current class selection borders on bloated. Adding a Rogue/Caster class to the main book in order to add in a bunch of old PrCs most people have never even heard of doesn't sound good to me.

[Eslin]

I get wanting to plan ahead but WotC has said they're not planning to do a bunch of splat books. The classes that you feel should be under a larger Rogue/Caster class may not be re-released.

As for your initial argument, I like that we have a Rogue/Caster right out of the box and already feel the current class selection borders on bloated. Adding a Rogue/Caster class to the main book in order to add in a bunch of old PrCs most people have never even heard of doesn't sound good to me.

Well, hopefully they'll change their mind then. Options are lovely, and 5e has a great chassis upon which to add more, as long as they're more careful to have the stuff actually be useful unlike 3.5 or 4e which were filled with trap options.

[toapat]

At no point did she not feel like a rogue or did it feel like anything but a rogue that she was playing. Perhaps you're reading/doing it wrong. Did you notice that the base ability the arcane trickster gets is modifications of the cantrip Mage Hand in order to pick locks & disarm traps better or more safely rather?

I saw the ranged disarming and dont really consider that part of why its wrong, Arcane trickster is wrong because mechanically it doesnt mesh into the gameplay of a rogue. Your wife described it as such, you arent an Arcane trickster, you are a rogue, with a small batch of spells you might not want at all and a way to stand outside of traps while fiddling with them and another classes core mechanic ripped from it and violated


I get wanting to plan ahead but WotC has said they're not planning to do a bunch of splat books. The classes that you feel should be under a larger Rogue/Caster class may not be re-released.

As for your initial argument, I like that we have a Rogue/Caster right out of the box and already feel the current class selection borders on bloated. Adding a Rogue/Caster class to the main book in order to add in a bunch of old PrCs most people have never even heard of doesn't sound good to me.

i thought the official was a limited rate of expansionary content compared to prior, like nothing more frequently then every 4-6 months.

Its not that arcane trickster is wrong so much because its wrong to have, what its wrong about is that its not how a rogue does spellcasting, We saw how a rogue does that in Factotum, where its one of a number of mechanics which shares a pool of resources that the

[edge2054]

I get what you're saying about their being a more 'roguish' approach to spellcasting but for a main book adding additional layers of complexity to the game creates a barrier of entry to new players.

Arcane Trickster, as they're presented, gives players the option of playing a rogue caster without adding additional complexity to the game. It keeps it rules light.

Maybe something more complicated will be introduced somewhere down the line and maybe it will include a variant Arcane Trickster. I don't know. But saying that Wizards made a mistake because you have an expectation of more Arcane Rogue classes further down the line may not be realistic with Wizards stated intentions when it comes to releases.

Maybe they'll outsource some of this stuff. I don't know.

[MustacheFart]

I saw the ranged disarming and dont really consider that part of why its wrong, Arcane trickster is wrong because mechanically it doesnt mesh into the gameplay of a rogue. Your wife described it as such, you arent an Arcane trickster, you are a rogue, with a small batch of spells you might not want at all and a way to stand outside of traps while fiddling with them and another classes core mechanic ripped from it and violated

Umm...no.

She is an arcane trickster. She did want the spells. That's why she picked that path over the other two. She's also a forest gnome who has the minor illusion cantrip as a racial ability. So, this path fit perfectly well with her. She's experienced with doing magic on a racial level, has trickery built into her backstory; hence, the minor illusion forest gnome, and wanted to blend the two elements together--her rogue skills and love of "trickery" magic. The result is she is an arcane trickster.

Just because the words Arcane Trickster register differently for you doesn't mean they do for everyone. It also can work very well with rogue. For instance, a modern day thief might use smoke bombs or other distracting tools in the arsenal to get in and out. In D&D that's spells of enhancement and illusion.

I love how you completely ignored my Eldritch Knight comment.

So, yes by your narrow definition of an Arcane Trickster she isn't one, nobody is who is playing 5th ed, but by 5th ed's definition, she is one. I think I'll go with the latter.

[toapat]

I get what you're saying about their being a more 'roguish' approach to spellcasting but for a main book adding additional layers of complexity to the game creates a barrier of entry to new players.

Arcane Trickster, as they're presented, gives players the option of playing a rogue caster without adding additional complexity to the game. It keeps it rules light.

Maybe something more complicated will be introduced somewhere down the line and maybe it will include a variant Arcane Trickster. I don't know. But saying that Wizards made a mistake because you have an expectation of more Arcane Rogue classes further down the line may not be realistic with Wizards stated intentions when it comes to releases.

Maybe they'll outsource some of this stuff. I don't know.

I dont see inspiration points being much more complex then Ki, however i dont conceptually like monk in what is typically a European-Middleeastern RPG. its just, dissonant and so havent really looked at the class. Alot of what made Inspiration so complex in factotum was that basically everything in the class ran off it, where as if Factotum was a subclass of rogue it would end up being a simpler mechanic.


So, yes by your narrow definition of an Arcane Trickster she isn't one, nobody is who is playing 5th ed, but by 5th ed's definition, she is one. I think I'll go with the latter.

Except im not pidgeonholing Arcane Trickster into a narrow abilityset. Having only 6 spells that are not illusions or enchantments isnt alot of variety, and you cant have a non-illusion/enchantment 4th level spell known. Spell thief is completely destroyed compared to in 3rd, and versatile trickster is tangental to how a rogue plays otherwise.

I ignored Eldrich Knight because trying to talk about Duskblade is a circular problem of talking about duskblade, it doesnt go anywhere productive because EK is not some big broad lots of different things class, its one class they kept coming back to. A mystic combatant who attempts to as seemlessly as possible combine arcane with martial combat. And as far as thats concerned they hit most of the necessary nails right then and there, whether that includes Arcane Archer is an entirely separate question.

[MustacheFart]

Spell thief is completely destroyed compared to in 3rd

Except this isn't 3rd. This is 5th edition. It even has an entirely different edition, that of 4th, between it and 3rd.


I believe this is just another example of the fundamental problem I keep seeing again and again on this forum. 5th Ed may have been inspired by 3rd edition but despite that it is its own edition. It is not 3.75, or 3rd Edition 2.0 or whatever else people want to call it no matter how much they want it to be.

[SaintRidley]

Spellthieving, which you seem to hold up as some thing that has been violated and never should be, is honestly just not something that merits a class. It's always been on the level of a simple ability, maybe a tactical feat in 3.5 parlance, but it's not something which works as a class in the 5e system. Stealing spells is exactly the kind of thing we should expect magical rogues Arcane Tricksters sneaky magicky guys to do.

The making of spellthief into an ability seems to be your biggest complaint. But spellthief never needed to be a class anyway. It's where it belongs. It's happy as an ability. Just like Pluto''s happy being a dwarf planet.

[rlc]

Well, hopefully they'll change their mind then. Options are lovely, and 5e has a great chassis upon which to add more, as long as they're more careful to have the stuff actually be useful unlike 3.5 or 4e which were filled with trap options.

Not having tons of splat books doesn't mean there won't be options. It doesn't even mean there won't be any splat books. It just means that they won't be releasing tons of books that don't really get used by most players.

[Eslin]

Not having tons of splat books doesn't mean there won't be options. It doesn't even mean there won't be any splat books. It just means that they won't be releasing tons of books that don't really get used by most players.

Eh, I liked a lot of the stuff 3.5 put out - ToB, PHB2, complete x, races of x all turned out very useful. I'd like that kind of release, but in fewer and bigger books that were better thought out and more consistent in their design philosophy.
Anxiously waiting a book with some actual melee in combat options for instance, since they proved with ToB and 4e martials that they've gotten the hang of it.

[toapat]

Spellthieving, which you seem to hold up as some thing that has been violated and never should be, is honestly just not something that merits a class. It's always been on the level of a simple ability, maybe a tactical feat in 3.5 parlance, but it's not something which works as a class in the 5e system. Stealing spells is exactly the kind of thing we should expect magical rogues Arcane Tricksters sneaky magicky guys to do.

The making of spellthief into an ability seems to be your biggest complaint. But spellthief never needed to be a class anyway. It's where it belongs. It's happy as an ability. Just like Pluto''s happy being a dwarf planet.

Spelltheft has always been an ability, and its not some small ability. The reason in 3rd it sucked is because of 2 reasons: The Wizard and Master Spellthief. Wizards were simply too powerful to be countered by anyone not completely on their level, while Master Spellthief invalidated Spellthief the class by letting any other arcane spellcaster have the entire important portion. Except Spelltheft in 3rd doesnt just steal spells known, It steals the spellslot, or it can steal a buff actively on a character. Eventually it gained the power to catch spells thrown at you but that was the last and least (and the only reason its that late is because catching fireballs is that cool) of the class' abilities. Turning it into a tactical feat doesnt work though because the ability is way more powerful then even 5th ed style feats where they are very powerful for their cost. Gaining Spell + Slot is very powerful, its not just dealing damage to an opponent its actively taking away their actions. Spelltheft in 5th doesnt even negate the spell if it succeeds, you just dont take effect from it and gain the spell known. If you can even cast the spell again you lose actions for doing so as an Arcane trickster because your mechanics as a rogue run counter to it.

[rlc]

Eh, I liked a lot of the stuff 3.5 put out - ToB, PHB2, complete x, races of x all turned out very useful. I'd like that kind of release, but in fewer and bigger books that were better thought out and more consistent in their design philosophy.
Anxiously waiting a book with some actual melee in combat options for instance, since they proved with ToB and 4e martials that they've gotten the hang of it.

That pretty much sounds like what the plan is from what I read about it. They want book releases to be a big deal this time around, like how magic card releases are a big deal. I have no idea if they've accomplished that with any of the books so far, but that's the goal.
I'm sure they'll have a PHB 2 and maybe even 3, same with the other two books. Then maybe some complete somethings thrown in there. And then probably 5.5/5e essentials/whatever they call it and then they'll release 6e in about 2020.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong, since everything after the first paragraph is basically random mass guessing.

[Valraukar]

yes, Arcane Trickster (not named that of course, as i dont think anyone would disagree that its a poor class name for a base class) should be a base class with subclasses based on those PrCs. Maybe the class would be named Thaumotechnician?

"Yes "Thaumotechnician" rolls right off the tongue & and certainly lacks the strong pleb feel that Arcane Trickster possesses....

10/10"

-TheNeedleDrop

[Valraukar]

Sorry for the snark of the previous post but seriously, Thaumotechnician is one of the worst names I've seen since the absurd RageMage.

[Sartharina]

Sorry for the snark of the previous post but seriously, Thaumotechnician is one of the worst names I've seen since the absurd RageMage.

Rage mage, however, has a brash, honest, and upfront charm about it, like Axe Cop.

[MustacheFart]

Also I would like to point out that Arcane Trickster isn't the name of a base class. It's the name of a path for the Rogue base class. It's no more inappropriate or verbose then Way of the Four Elements for monk.

[Easy_Lee]

Seems to me someone could just make a wizard archetype homebrew with some rogue abilities, limit it to specific schools, and call it a day.

[toapat]

Also I would like to point out that Arcane Trickster isn't the name of a base class. It's the name of a path for the Rogue base class. It's no more inappropriate or verbose then Way of the Four Elements for monk.

its also a bit deceptive because Arcane Trickster doesnt really cover the rogue portion of the class in name, because there is a shorter term used with the same meaning as the literal Arcane Trickster. Its called Illusionist.

[MustacheFart]

its also a bit deceptive because Arcane Trickster doesnt really cover the rogue portion of the class in name, because there is a shorter term used with the same meaning as the literal Arcane Trickster. Its called Illusionist.

No you're trying to twist semantics. I would consider a wizard specializing in Illusion spells an illusionist. Considering the initial ability of the arcane trickster is new uses of Mage Hand, which involve actions that could easily be considered "tricks", I think the name fits fine.


See that? My opinion counters yours equally because I am not wishing 5th ed to be a continuation of 3rd.

[MeeposFire]

More importantly illusionist already has a history and connotation in D&D and that continues in this edition where you can still be an illusionist wizard. The spell thief (a much more obscure and less known class from essentially one edition of D&D in which it was not well known or that well supported) may have had some illusion spells but it was far away from being an illusionist. Bards had a bunch of illusions too and I would not have called them illusionists either.

[toapat]

No you're trying to twist semantics.

No, im not. I am pointing out how inaccurate the name Arcane Trickster is. Illusions are magic designed towards deceiving the perception of others. Trickery is the act of causing deception. Arcane is, at least in terms of DnD, a type of magic generated through your own knowledge of how to manipulate cosmic forces. The class is named Arcane Trickster, which at least as far as the system and english definitions are concerned, translates into a more poetic form of the term Illusionist. This is even more absurd when you consider that Mage Hand, what Wizards believes the Signature spell of the subclass is, is a Conjuration when the class has to take more then half of its spells as either Illusion or Evocation.

[MustacheFart]

Illusions are magic designed towards deceiving the perception of others. Trickery is the act of causing deception.

You're splitting hairs. I'm done. You hate the sub-class because no love shown to your precious Spell Thief but others like it, myself include.


Good day.

[Sartharina]

No, im not. I am pointing out how inaccurate the name Arcane Trickster is. Illusions are magic designed towards deceiving the perception of others. Trickery is the act of causing deception. Arcane is, at least in terms of DnD, a type of magic generated through your own knowledge of how to manipulate cosmic forces. The class is named Arcane Trickster, which at least as far as the system and english definitions are concerned, translates into a more poetic form of the term Illusionist. This is even more absurd when you consider that Mage Hand, what Wizards believes the Signature spell of the subclass is, is a Conjuration when the class has to take more then half of its spells as either Illusion or Evocation.Illusionists are more than decievers and tricksters. They're also more arcane in nature. And, illusionists only have magical means of deception and trickery.

Arcane Trickster isn't just about magical deception - it merely has arcane means of trickery as well as mundane ones. It's a rogue subclass, which means it has extra emphasis on being a rogue (Most class features an Arcane Trickster gets are rogue class features, with a few spellcasting features slipped in. You have to assess a class on its entire grounds, not just the subclass). Also, the willful ignorance in somehow thinking an Arcane Trickster isn't worthy of its name because magical trickery is based on illusion and enchantment, then complaining that Arcane Tricksters have to choose over half their spells from Illusion and Enchantment is boggling.

And yes, Mage Hand is one of the signature spells of an Arcane Trickster despite not being Illusion or Enchantment - but that's because of the nature of the spell itself and what Arcane Tricksters are able to do with it, and almost has nothing to do with its school. Arcane tricksters are about deception (illusion), manipulation(enchantment), and legerdemain(Mage Hand - which is also known as "Legerdemain: The Spell").

Illusionists (As in the Wizard subclass) are about painting pretty pictures with magic.

[toapat]

Also, the willful ignorance in somehow thinking an Arcane Trickster isn't worthy of its name because magical trickery is based on illusion and enchantment, then complaining that Arcane Tricksters have to choose over half their spells from Illusion and Enchantment is boggling.

the point came up because of complaints of bad naming. Thaumotechnician isnt short but its certainly descriptive of something (although mentally im getting a visual of a Scientist in white lab coat with pointy star hat, so thats a point of failure). Arcane trickster, by name, just means "an illusionist" even if the class doesnt represent that (and previously hadnt been an illusionist/enchanter either). It represents a rogue who has learned some magic for superior ability to achieve their objectives. Unseen Seer and Arcane Trickster both pointed towards intended uses of the magic they picked up but never dictated the spell selection beyond divinations or mage hand.

Comparitively, Rage Mage, while a stupid sounding name, is extremely descriptive of what the class does.

[rlc]

The name means "one who uses arcane methods to be tricky," which is what the subclass does. It's a magic (arcane) rogue (trickster) who does magic rogue things.

[Sartharina]

the point came up because of complaints of bad naming. Thaumotechnician isnt short but its certainly descriptive of something (although mentally im getting a visual of a Scientist in white lab coat with pointy star hat, so thats a point of failure). Arcane trickster, by name, just means "an illusionist" even if the class doesnt represent that (and previously hadnt been an illusionist/enchanter either). It represents a rogue who has learned some magic for superior ability to achieve their objectives. Unseen Seer and Arcane Trickster both pointed towards intended uses of the magic they picked up but never dictated the spell selection beyond divinations or mage hand.

Comparitively, Rage Mage, while a stupid sounding name, is extremely descriptive of what the class does.No - "Arcane Trickster" doesn't mean "Illusionist". Arcane Trickster is someone who uses draws upon a small amount of magic to pull off tricks of deception, manipulation, and legerdemain, only of which one of those includes parts of Illusion. An arcane trickster also needs Enchantment for manipulating others, and Mage Hand to pull off legerdemain. Furthermore, an arcane trickster is almost always subtle.

Meanwhile, while illusionists can choose to forego the subtlety.

The difference between an Arcane Trickster is the difference between someone who can create a counterfeit bill and someone who can paint a masterpiece.

[toapat]

No - "Arcane Trickster" doesn't mean "Illusionist". Arcane Trickster is someone who uses draws upon a small amount of magic to pull off tricks of deception, manipulation, and legerdemain, only of which one of those includes parts of Illusion. An arcane trickster also needs Enchantment for manipulating others, and Mage Hand to pull off legerdemain. Furthermore, an arcane trickster is almost always subtle.

Meanwhile, while illusionists can choose to forego the subtlety.

The difference between an Arcane Trickster is the difference between someone who can create a counterfeit bill and someone who can paint a masterpiece.

And im not talking about mechanics. Im talking about naming and the effectiveness of such. Arcane (Hidden Magic) Trickster (someone who Deceives) is taken to mean essentially a magical spy but just by straight name it means/has non-insignificant overlap with illusionist (and a Rogue can cause non-subtle distractions). Thats NOT effective naming and what im clearly not conveying. Rage Mage, as brought up earlier, sounds stupid, but it conveys the idea of the class instantly.

[Sartharina]

Your definitions are about 300 years out of date.

The name is fine: Arcane(Uses Fancy Magic) Trickster(Cunning Rogue-type)

[rlc]

And im not talking about mechanics. Im talking about naming and the effectiveness of such. Arcane (Hidden Magic) Trickster (someone who Deceives) is taken to mean essentially a magical spy but just by straight name it means/has non-insignificant overlap with illusionist (and a Rogue can cause non-subtle distractions). Thats NOT effective naming and what im clearly not conveying. Rage Mage, as brought up earlier, sounds stupid, but it conveys the idea of the class instantly.

So in other words, you're complaining that a subclass with a name that suggests to you that it can cast illusion spells, can cast illusion spells. Like I said before, the idea of the class is a magic rogue and that's what the name conveys.

[MustacheFart]

Since the OP's argument is keyed off the idea that Arcane Trickster means "illusionist" let's look at the etymology of both of those words. Afterall, Etymology tells us where words came from so surely that's factual evidence, one way or the other, toward the OP's claim.

Arcane - Oldest appropriate listed definition is: "1540s, from Latin arcanus "secret, hidden, private, concealed" found here: Arcane (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=arcane&searchmode=none)

Trickster - Derived from Trick and Ster (feminine form of "to do some action"): "early 15c., "a cheat, a mean ruse," from Old North French trique "trick, deceit, treachery, cheating," from trikier "to deceive, to cheat," variant of Old French trichier "to cheat, trick, deceive," of uncertain origin, probably from Vulgar Latin *triccare, from Latin tricari "be evasive, shuffle," from tricæ "trifles, nonsense, a tangle of difficulties," of unknown origin.

Meaning "a roguish prank" is recorded from 1580s; sense of "the art of doing something" is first attested 1610s. Meaning "prostitute's client" is first attested 1915; earlier it was U.S. slang for "a robbery" (1865). To do the trick "accomplish one's purpose" is from 1812; to miss a trick "fail to take advantage of opportunity" is from 1889; from 1872 in reference to playing the card-game of whist, which might be the original literal sense. Trick-or-treat is recorded from 1942. Trick question is from 1907." Found here: Trick (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=trick&allowed_in_frame=0)


Hmm... a roguish prank? A secret, hidden, private, or concealed roguish prank! Hmm...even has the word rogue. I would say the name fits perfectly and does NOT mean Illusionist.

Do your homework. Knowledge is power.