Making a better archer class

[Taejang]

I want a soldier archer. Not a sneaky one, not one who knows about tracking and healing, not somebody who hangs around with animals. Soldier. Archer. The best fit for this seems to be a Fighter with the Archer specialization. But the Martial Archetypes don't really fit well into an archer specialization.

Eldritch knight we'll just toss right out. Champion works, but is really bland. Battle Master works and isn't bland, but a lot of their maneuvers are melee-only.

So, to make this class work, I came up with two options.
1) Design a few more combat maneuvers that are distance-weapon themed.
2) Take the Hunter specialization from Ranger, rename it Archer, and make it a Martial Archetype for Fighter. I might tweak a couple of options here, but it really shouldn't take much work.

What do you guys think? Would option #2 be too powerful? What maneuvers would you create?

[eastmabl]

1) Design a few more combat maneuvers that are distance-weapon themed.

This. The less you have to homebrew, the less you can break. I'm away from book right now, but I'd suggest reflavoring some of the existing maneuvers for ranged attackers.

For example, and this is just spitballing...

I believe that there's a maneuver that permits for a trip attack. Make this a knock-down attack (same effective result: prone). Limit to weapon attacks only, large creatures or smaller, and forbids its usage with disadvantage (no knocking down people at long range or via "no-scoping," as some of my players say).

I'd still be concerned about it being too powerful because prone is very powerful at range. Maybe put a Str saving throw (DC = 8 + Dex + your proficiency modifier).

YMMV.

[Flashy]

Only four five of the sixteen maneuvers are melee restricted: Lunging Attack, Parry, Riposte, and Sweeping Attack. Lunging Attack increases reach by five feet, which isn't really a factor that applies to archers.

Sweeping attack could easily be fixed for archery by simply removing the melee weapon requirement. Call it Double Shot or something. Parry and Riposte could both be made to work by allowing any kind of attack as the trigger for the maneuver within a limited range (I'd argue for 40 feet, personally). That's a moderate buff for both Parry and Riposte, but those aren't exactly the strongest picks anyway so it's probably not a big deal.



I believe that there's a maneuver that permits for a trip attack. Make this a knock-down attack (same effective result: prone).

Trip Attack already works with ranged weapons.


EDIT: I missed out Feinting Attack the first time because it has a range of 5' but doesn't technically require a melee weapon. That one could also be allowed to apply in a 60' range or so. You could even make it target any creature that can see the user, if you were feeling generous.

[Taejang]

This. The less you have to homebrew, the less you can break. I'm away from book right now, but I'd suggest reflavoring some of the existing maneuvers for ranged attackers.

I agree. However, my second option is taking the Hunter features from Ranger subclass and putting it into Fighter. It would require as little homebrew as making maneuvers.


Only four of the sixteen maneuvers are melee restricted: Lunging Attack, Parry, Riposte, and Sweeping Attack.
I suppose you are right. Perhaps my issue with Battle Master is they are more of a leader, and what I had in my head was a soldier (not an officer). Removing or altering the five that require melee or close proximity, the others don't feel like an archer in the same way that Volley from Ranger's Hunter subclass does. But now that I look over Hunter subclass, several of those options aren't individual to distance attacks either. They just fit a dexterous archer soldier better than Battle Master maneuvers like Commander's Strike, Menacing Attack, or Rally. But maybe that is just my opinion?

Maybe I should just add a few maneuvers, taking a couple Hunter features as my guide, and call that good? For example, Evasion could be a reaction maneuver, where you add your maneuver die roll to your saving throw. Not quite the same, but similar enough and it works within Battle Master's framework. Volley could be adapted somehow, etc.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I agree. However, my second option is taking the Hunter features from Ranger subclass and putting it into Fighter. It would require as little homebrew as making maneuvers.

Little work yes, but the implications will be harder to predict. Not all base classes and subclasses are created equal. Fighter base +Fighter subclass is theoretically balanced to Ranger base + Ranger subclass, but that doesn't mean that Fighter base is the equivalent power to Ranger base, or that the Hunter features are the equivalent power to the Battlemaster features.
Determining that would require a closer, feature-by-feature analysis.

[LordFluffy]

I'm running a Fighter(Battlemaster) as an archer, and it's working just fine. I pictured him as a grunt (combat medic, actually. Variant Human, Healer feat). He uses Precision, Menacing and Disarming attacks (though the last one has been kind of meh). I'm thinking about taking Pushing and Trip attacks when he gets more maneuvers.

I've had no complaints, really. He didn't take damage until something like out 5th combat and has been effective every time, even when he hasn't busted out his maneuvers. I wouldn't worry.

[Nicodiemus]

So if you want the best of both worlds- MC. That's what it's for.

[Taejang]

Little work yes, but the implications will be harder to predict. Not all base classes and subclasses are created equal. Fighter base +Fighter subclass is theoretically balanced to Ranger base + Ranger subclass, but that doesn't mean that Fighter base is the equivalent power to Ranger base, or that the Hunter features are the equivalent power to the Battlemaster features.
Determining that would require a closer, feature-by-feature analysis.
True. I figure Fighter base is more powerful, except Ranger has spells complicating the issue. Fighter base + Hunter subclass should be far less versatile than Ranger + Hunter. Damage is a trickier bit to calculate.


I'm running a Fighter(Battlemaster) as an archer, and it's working just fine. I pictured him as a grunt (combat medic, actually. Variant Human, Healer feat). He uses Precision, Menacing and Disarming attacks (though the last one has been kind of meh). I'm thinking about taking Pushing and Trip attacks when he gets more maneuvers.

I've had no complaints, really. He didn't take damage until something like out 5th combat and has been effective every time, even when he hasn't busted out his maneuvers. I wouldn't worry.
Disarming doesn't seem to work well in 5e. Unless you can pick up the item before they do, then they'll just pick it up again.

Thanks for your input. Helps me see it should work out alright. I'm still worried about higher levels, though, when you can select more and more maneuvers but may not have good ones left to pick from.

[N810]

Sell your players lots of fancy arrows.

[Taejang]

So if you want the best of both worlds- MC. That's what it's for.
Actually, multiclassing doesn't address this at all. The character concept (archer) is not represented in Ranger. Ranger represents a spell casting, tracking fighter-type. MC with Fighter/Ranger means I end up with spells and tracking.


Sell your players lots of fancy arrows.
Oh man, Arrows of Slaying are really, really powerful. My players had a few of Undead Slaying, and the Rogue just about downed a lich in one sneak attack. (Yes, legendary resistance, no, lich didn't use one, because reasons. Even if it had, the Rogue could do that every turn, burning through those 3/saves a day really quickly.) I imagine they wouldn't be so effective against things with high Con saves (like dragons), but still.

I see no reason why a player couldn't attach a Bead of Fireball to an arrow. That could be interesting.

[N810]

The archer in our campaign has:
fire arrows
cold iron arrows
acid arrows
poison arrows
mirage arrows
cold arrows
lightning arrows
Dimensional binding arrows
ensnaring arrows
adamantine arrows
exploding arrows
knockback arrows
and arrows of dragon slaying (super expensive)

and I am probably forgetting some of them....

[Taejang]

The archer in our campaign has:
fire arrows
cold iron arrows
acid arrows
poison arrows
mirage arrows
cold arrows
lightning arrows
Dimensional binding arrows
ensnaring arrows
adamantine arrows
exploding arrows
knockback arrows
and arrows of dragon slaying (super expensive)
And a partridge in a pear- oh, wait. What about a Quiver of Elhonna so he can actually store (and access) all of them?

Here is an attempt to make Hunter's Volley feature into a maneuver.
As an action, fire a volley of arrows at your enemies. Chose a number of targets up to one plus your superiority die roll. You must have ammunition for each target. Make one attack roll, and include a -5 modifier to hit (similar to Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Fighting). For each target that would be hit by that attack, roll for damage normally.

This divorces Hunter's Volley from an area effect requirement, making it more versatile, but the die roll also makes it less predictable. The use of superiority dice reduces the number of times it can be used a day, while Volley is only limited by ammo. The -5 to hit should reduce abuse at early levels. Thoughts?

[tieren]

And a partridge in a pear- oh, wait. What about a Quiver of Elhonna so he can actually store (and access) all of them?

Here is an attempt to make Hunter's Volley feature into a maneuver.
As an action, fire a volley of arrows at your enemies. Chose a number of targets up to one plus your superiority die roll. You must have ammunition for each target. Make one attack roll, and include a -5 modifier to hit (similar to Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Fighting). For each target that would be hit by that attack, roll for damage normally.

This divorces Hunter's Volley from an area effect requirement, making it more versatile, but the die roll also makes it less predictable. The use of superiority dice reduces the number of times it can be used a day, while Volley is only limited by ammo. The -5 to hit should reduce abuse at early levels. Thoughts?

I think its ok, I would probably gate it behind a level requirement like some of the warlock invocations so you don't have other players dip too easily for it.

[Steampunkette]

I think Battlemaster is a great option, so long as you're willing to refluff.

Alternatively: Make a Rogue.

They make great scouts and you could tinker with a Sniper rather than a rank and file archer, that way.

Thieves tools for handling snares and traps in the field, Assassinate for precision strikes, bonus actions spent on movement to advance from cover to cover...

Heck. If you go fighter I still suggest going Rogue, too, to specialize and feel less like a "Fighter at Range"

[Gwendol]

Fighters make for excellent archers in 5e. Battlemasters in particular.

[Nicodiemus]

Actually, multiclassing doesn't address this at all. The character concept (archer) is not represented in Ranger. Ranger represents a spell casting, tracking fighter-type. MC with Fighter/Ranger means I end up with spells and tracking.

You could do BM/spell-less ranger from UA. I think this was a thread a couple of weeks ago. Gets you more superiority dice, more maneuvers, and replaces spells with herbal healing and other bennies.

[Vogonjeltz]

Eldritch knight we'll just toss right out.

What's wrong with Eldritch Knight? I'd think a number of their spells could be quite useful for an archer. Although Battlemaster would have also been my first choice.

[djreynolds]

These are all good builds. But in the end, its sniper or machine gun. Machine guns needs sharpshooter. A sniper needs one shot and advantage.

But they all need a back job, healer, tank, scout, utility magic.

So if you fulfill one job above and then a second, that's it.

I like a rogue 17/ BM(or scout) 3 for sniper. 8d6 of SA. I'm not sure if sharpshooter's +10 is worth it, but the range increase is welcomed and limiting cover and concealment.

But for machine gun any fighter chassis will do for 3 attacks, or ranger or bard who have a class feature of magic. But you will need sharpshooter to stay relevant. Hunter's mark or hex are 1d6 vs +10 of sharpshooter. You can have both, you can even add in some rogue to the mix for a little extra damage. Swift quiver is awesome.

Eldritch Knight is just fine, as he can back up tank with ease. And he can stay in plate armor.

I like for my machine gun to be BM 12, rouge 5 and hunter 3. 3 attacks, horde breaker, uncanny dodge, archery style, plenty of ASI and feats.

But in actual game play, the ranger is the best from level 1 on, no need to multiclass, can heal, multiple utility spells, scout, and can adequately tank as well.

[Lines]

I want a soldier archer. Not a sneaky one, not one who knows about tracking and healing, not somebody who hangs around with animals. Soldier. Archer. The best fit for this seems to be a Fighter with the Archer specialization. But the Martial Archetypes don't really fit well into an archer specialization.

Eldritch knight we'll just toss right out. Champion works, but is really bland. Battle Master works and isn't bland, but a lot of their maneuvers are melee-only.

So, to make this class work, I came up with two options.
1) Design a few more combat maneuvers that are distance-weapon themed.
2) Take the Hunter specialization from Ranger, rename it Archer, and make it a Martial Archetype for Fighter. I might tweak a couple of options here, but it really shouldn't take much work.

What do you guys think? Would option #2 be too powerful? What maneuvers would you create?

Design some more maneuvers, reduce number of superiority dice to 3 and don't add any more as you level, then give them the ability to not make a certain amount of attacks and give them an extra superiority die for every attack they don't make that lasts until the end of their next turn (so if you can make 3 attacks but choose to only make 1, you get 2 extra dice until the end of your next turn).

[Taejang]

Design some more maneuvers, reduce number of superiority dice to 3 and don't add any more as you level, then give them the ability to not make a certain amount of attacks and give them an extra superiority die for every attack they don't make that lasts until the end of their next turn (so if you can make 3 attacks but choose to only make 1, you get 2 extra dice until the end of your next turn).
That last part, saving up or earning temporary dice, is interesting. Not sure I'll do it, but it is quite interesting to consider.

[Lines]

That last part, saving up or earning temporary dice, is interesting. Not sure I'll do it, but it is quite interesting to consider.

I use it as my solution for making battlemasters more interesting. Invented it a while ago when a player complained that he got 4 dice at 3 then another 2 dice over the next 17 levels. Changed the initial dice to 3, gave him the sacrifice attack get another die until end of next turn thing. Changed the level 7 feature to the die lasts for a further round and the level 15 feature to spend 2 dice to use second wind if under half hp or 3 dice to use indomitable.

[Oramac]

I'm running a Fighter(Battlemaster) as an archer, and it's working just fine. I pictured him as a grunt (combat medic, actually. Variant Human, Healer feat). He uses Precision, Menacing and Disarming attacks (though the last one has been kind of meh). I'm thinking about taking Pushing and Trip attacks when he gets more maneuvers.

I've had no complaints, really. He didn't take damage until something like out 5th combat and has been effective every time, even when he hasn't busted out his maneuvers. I wouldn't worry.

I'm doing more or less this same thing, though mine is a shameless Hawkeye ripoff. Vhuman with the Sharpshooter feat and the Close Quarters fighting style (to remove disadvantage in melee).

Took Goading Attack, Menacing Attack, and Precise Strike. With Sharpshooter, use Goading Attack from 600 feet away and the target basically has disadvantage on all attacks.

[EvanescentHero]

I'll toss in a vote for the Scout archetype in UA, but if that's not available to you, then Battlemaster is probably your best bet.

EDIT: I'd also suggest taking a look at the spell-less ranger variant, also in UA.

[Giant2005]

I want a soldier archer. Not a sneaky one, not one who knows about tracking and healing, not somebody who hangs around with animals. Soldier. Archer. The best fit for this seems to be a Fighter with the Archer specialization. But the Martial Archetypes don't really fit well into an archer specialization.
I wouldn't discount the Rogue so readily as a sneaky one - just don't take Stealth proficiency and all of a sudden your character is exactly what you want him to be. If that doesn't quite do it, take a level of Fighter for the fighting style and possibly heavy armor proficiency if that is part of what you envision.
Rogues don't need to attack from stealth, they get their sneak dice against anything as long as a friendly is next to it. If that isn't reliable enough for you, take Magic Initiate or Arcane Trickster so you can have a familiar that will give you advantage whenever you want it to.



Would option #2 be too powerful?

Yes absolutely. Most of the Fighter's combat prowess comes from its base class and all of the Ranger's combat prowess comes from its subclass. By combining the two you will have something with far more combat prowess than the game intended.

[Sigreid]

I think that the BM Fighter is what you're looking for. Archery fighting style, maneuvers that can be used with the bow, enough ASIs for your attributes and feats, the ability to spread damage to multiple targets over a wider area than anyone else in a round, and you're a fighter so you can throw down like a boss if you are forced into melee. The other martial classes tend to get locked into melee or ranged and loose a lot of their effectiveness when they are forced to go the other route.

[djreynolds]

Sniper- must really in rogue IMO must obtain the archery style
Machine gun- any class but needs 3 attacks, class feature, or swift quiver spell and sharpshooter
Combo- tough to pull off from level 1 on.....

Pick one and have a back up asset for the team aside from scouting. Healing, tanking, utility spells, etc

Ranger is the easiest, but BM rouge is also good. Bard with swift quiver

[Skald]

I personally don't see any issue with the champion. You say it's bland, but it sounds like exactly what you want: an archery focused combatant without all the added nonsense.
It's direct and straight forward, yet effective- Like a soldier archer should be- No fooling around with spells or 'trick shots'- just killing your enemies with arrows while being able to take a bit of punishment yourself. Everything the champion offers furthers that goal, Except maybe remarkable athlete, and even that would be pretty useful.

[tieren]

I want a soldier archer.

Eldritch knight we'll just toss right out.

There used to be a guide on the WotC forums explaining why EK made the best purpose built archers, I believe it was related to casting haste a lot.

You can always fluff away the spells as martial tricks. If you did MC ranger you can take hunters mark as your spell and treat it like some sort of zen trance for shooting. If you went EK and just used your slots for shield and haste you could fluff those as specialized training maneuvers too.