D&D 5E Heroic Archetypes and Gaps in Class coverage

[Hillsy7]

I was listening to Matt Mercer talking about his design process behind the Blood hunter homebrew class, and I was interested how little he touched on the mechanical aspect of where the class fitted (Glass Cannon), and focused much more on the archetype the character fits into – namely the hero that poisons part of himself for a greater good.

I sort of sat down, and came the conclusion I could (very very) loosely attribute classes to general heroic archetypes (So the rogue is the criminal antihero, the wise intellectual is the wizard, the young person with power but low control is a sorcerer, the quiet self-sufficient capable type is the ranger, the girl with the secret curse/boss is the warlock…..as I said, they are quite loose). Previously when looking at gaps where it might be fun to homebrew I was taking a bit of a 4e approach and looking at combat roles….but what Mercer said about the Blood Hunter got me thinking.

What general heroic archetypes do you think are missing from the current class suite (narratively, not mechanically), specifically ones you think are distinct enough to warrant a class. Specifics and theories would be nice too.

I’d be interested in people’s general thoughts on missing heroic tropes, so if you can refrain from slanging off other people’s choices, that’d be greatly appreciated. This isn’t an argument about whether John McClane is a Barbarian or a Fighter, Batman a Rogue or an artificer, or Walt Kowalski a Druid or a Cleric. It’s a conversation about the overlap of heroic archetypes represented in the class structure (as opposed to how their mechanics define them), and the gaps available for homebrewing distinctive classes.

Fire away!!!

(Also - Correct answer: Barbarian, Paladin, Druid)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd like:
-An armor-less, miracle worker type divine spellcaster with one archetype geared toward combat (Admonisher), one on exploration (relic hunter) and one on social encounters (Divine Emissary).

-A blackguard: I find that shoehorning a dark version of the paladin in the paladin class is clunky with all the radiant, holy thing going on in the base class. I'd love a Blackguard class with an archetype with half-warlock called Hexblade, Dark knight for the ''fallen knight'' trope and the Hellknight for the ''dark paladin'' trope. WotC already have the subclasses created: they just need a base class ot unite them all.

- A class that uses black powder. Its not for every campaign but I guess there's crowd for this type of things. Archeytpes: Musketeer, Gunslinger and Grenadier.

I'm also a big fan of racial class:
- Paragon (Dwarf only). Archetypes: Dwarven Defender(tank), Runes Crusader(1/3 divine caster+Temporary enchantement), Stone Sage (more or less the ''stone sorcerer from UA but 1/3 arcane).
- High-Lord (Elf only). Archetypes: Arcane Archer, Wise Emissary, Blade Dancer.
etc
- High-Lord

 

[fixitgeek]

I never liked the 4E categories. Those are MMO terms and need to stay there. And while I love the heroic archetype thing narratively, you still can't entirely ignore mechanical function. I mean, I have an arcane warrior slinging spells and using a sword three times over from official sources. This doesn't mean that I am satisfied with the options presented. I also have the grizzled veteran militia captain with battle master fighter. It doesn't stop those who loved the warlord that had several mechanical differences. It's hard to separate those two things out. You have to look at the picture as a whole because honestly between background, class, and archetype you can create any heroic archetype you want. And this is before adding multiclassing to fulfill missing attributes.

 

[Jester David]

The 4e categories apply better to characters than classes. There shouldn't be a "tank" class, there should be a class you can build a tanky character with.
(Although, thinking on those characters can lead to interesting subclass decisions.)

Having designed a bunch of subclasses, two-thirds were based on story hooks. An elemental warlock, a storm druid, an urban ranger, etc. A few had mechanical aspects, like a rogue that doesn't sneak attack, or a tanky fighter. But even those had to have story hooks and personality.

When thinking about classes, I tend to restrict myself. I don't think we need any more classes in the game. New concepts should be designed with sublcasses in mind. There's near-infinite potential for slightly different archetypes. You can get as granular as you want.
But when I do muse about new classes, I tend to think of Big Tend concepts. Ideas that can accommodate numerous subclasses. There's no point in having a small class that just works with one or two hyper focused concepts. For example, I've said before than an alchemist would be a fun concept - being inspired by the Pathfinder class - but then the artificer goes and effortlessly makes that work with that concept.

That said, a dedicated shapechanger could be fun.
The limits of existing 5e conjurations would accommodate a summoner class.

 

[Hillsy7]

I never liked the 4E categories. Those are MMO terms and need to stay there. And while I love the heroic archetype thing narratively, you still can't entirely ignore mechanical function. I mean, I have an arcane warrior slinging spells and using a sword three times over from official sources. This doesn't mean that I am satisfied with the options presented. I also have the grizzled veteran militia captain with battle master fighter. It doesn't stop those who loved the warlord that had several mechanical differences. It's hard to separate those two things out. You have to look at the picture as a whole because honestly between background, class, and archetype you can create any heroic archetype you want. And this is before adding multiclassing to fulfill missing attributes.

Agreed there is a slight issue with Fighter, in that almost any "hero" that doesn't drop into Fighter in the most general terms (Some people argue that's the magic of the fighter - but that's not here or there). However, I reckon if you think about character archetype sans mechanics, and purely compare them to the Fighter, looking at where the "fighting student" breaks down into a defined subset of a character you'd be able to pick out other classes.

For example: Rand al'Thor is a magic and combat master. However, his Character Archetype is someone who has come to power unexpectedly (Awakened) and must control it lest it control him. This would fit in loosely with the sorceror Archetype
Compare that to Luke Skywalker: He is a Magic and combat Master. However, his character Archetype is someone who made a decision to train his innate talent in order to defeat his oppressors (a resistance fighter). That loosely follows a Fighter.

Now "Mechancially" WotC decided that sorcerors would throw spells, and fighters would hit things. But the inherent concepts of the class (Raw power Vs Expert Skills) still exist underneath - sort of. Now of course there is some overlap (Is the Force a "Cause" that would make a Jedi more like a Paladin, do Jedis transcend the physical world through mental discipline like a Monk), but you could argue that Multiclassing covers that. And yes I'm not counting Backgrounds here because any background can apply to any class and so by definition it transcends archetypes.

But ultimately I personally don't feel like it's a pointless experiment.

 

[Celebrim]

5e carries over the baggage that 3e carried over that IMO highly limits the archetypes that the core classes can serve.

1) 'Paladin' - Works fine for lawful good champions, and ok for martial good champions generally, but doesn't serve well the concept of divine champions generally. Compare with the sort of mechanics used to generalize clerics.
2) 'Barbarian' - Works fine for northern European beserkers, and ok for primitive warrior cults generally, but doesn't serve the broad concept of warriors powered by esoteric art and raw emotion more than martial study and weapon expertise.
3) 'Druid' - Works fine for Celtic animist priests, and ok for some sorts of Northern European animists, but doesn't serve well the broad category of shamans, witch doctors, witches, from various other diverse real world myths.
4) 'Ranger' - Although inspired by Tolkien's 'rangers', the class has become its own self-referential archetype that is now vary widespread in fantasy. However, it is tied to all sorts of baggage owing to its history, and the modern ranger is more like an assassin with extra baggage than it is like Tolkien's homeless wandering wilderness wise Knights. The general archetype of a character specialized in slaying particular sorts of creatures particularly with ranged weapons is poorly served by the ranger that is still trying at some level to be a spell using protector of the wilderness. Being tied to spell-casting is one of the classes biggest limitations, and limits it from being a generic 'hunter of X' (demon hunter, undead slayer, assassin, bounty hunter, dragon slayer, etc.).

My preference is that Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, and Druid be archetypes of much broader base classes.

Additionally, there are several archetypes D&D has just never addressed or done well:

5) 'Everyman Hero' or 'Folk Hero': A good deal of the characters in literature are fairy tale heroes who aren't marked by notable prowess and arms or by easily defined superpowers, but by their luck (whether natural or the favorable supernatural patronage), their creativity and cunning, and their natural ability and aptitude. One real mark of characters of this sort is their ability to overcome more obviously powerful archetypes despite obvious advantages, their unexpected successfulness in a pinch, and their ability to contribute to success despite obvious potency. All the hobbits are in Tolkien's legerdemain are this sort of character, as is the 'valiant tailor' of Grimm's fairy tale (and most other protagonists). My favorite example though is Saka from the Avatar the Last Airbender cartoon. Racial paragons are also this sort of character.
6) The Truly Skilled - You can't play Sherlock Holmes in D&D. I've seen several valiant attempts, but they never quite get there. The Factotum in 3.X could be considered to be an attempt at this, but again, doesn't quite work. The trick is implementing a character that is mostly about their out of combat ability, in a game that is often so heavily about combat. I'm inclined to think that if the Warlord/Marshall isn't just a smart charismatic fighter, then it is either this class or a smart charismatic fighter multi-classed into this class (or vica versa).
7) The Mutant - This is a class marked by being not quite human (or not quite whatever race they are). Essentially, this is a customizable racial class where your advancing traits are marked by actual changes in your form as you evolve into whatever you are evolving into. Sorcerer in D&D overlaps with this class - sorcerers owe their magical power to being not quite human - but The Mutant is marked less by overt spell-power and more by actual physical changes. Many modern super-heroes are of this sort, and they show up increasingly in fantasy fare.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Interesting exercise in terms of entertainment, but the boundaries are entirely subjective and no two gamers will agree.

For example, the OP distinguishes between Sorcerer and Wizard as one being wise & old, and the other being young with poor self-control. And yet if you tried to define two separate rogue-like classes based on this distinction I think most people would say that's a matter of RP and backround, or maybe sub-class distinction.

That said, for me the only missing space is the shaman/witchdoctor/witchspiritualist. Sure, that could be Druid or Cleric sub-class, but (without going into the specific reasons) I find neither of those satisfactory.

I'm believe 100% that the "warlord" concept is not a class but a "build" that should be applicable to any class.

 

[Gadget]

I agree that Character Classes in D&D are Fantasy Archetypes, not professions or jobs, and that there needs to be more to them than mechanical combinations. However, I would also posit that "the hero that poisons part of himself for a greater good" is a rather narrow archetype for the fantasy genre. I mean, just from that brief description you could delve into literary and religious iconography (Christ-like figure and such), but I don't know if that is what Matt Mercer is going for and is beyond what I want to delve into.

I would also suggest that "the quiet self-sufficient capable type" is more of a literary character (as in personality, not class) archetype, rather than the more generic and fantasy themed archetypes character classes need to be. There is not really anything fantasy about that. Sure, individual characters can bring the nuance of traits, bonds, likes and dislikes, but I like classes to be a bit more general than that. Thus, "Knight in shinning armor" is a generally recognized, if not generally liked, archetype. Scholarly sage that uses his knowledge to cast spells and magical effects is another. One who deals with dark, mysterious, amoral, or generally other, is an archetype. So for me, there needs to be some type of mechanical hint or suggestion present in the archetype as well, though it could be vague.

 

[Hillsy7]

However, I would also posit that "the hero that poisons part of himself for a greater good" is a rather narrow archetype for the fantasy genre.

I Kinda took it to mean that almost self-destructive trope....the 'I'll move outside the law to protect the law' sort of thing. The person who sacrifices his hope of redemption. Flynn from Timeless falls into this category (Though he's more evil), Luthar (TV detective), Anton from Night Watch......Lan Mandragoran is kinda there, and Warden's from WoT in general, though it's a bit of a stretch.....but splitting hairs aside, I think it's a strong enough archetype to carry a class IMO

I would also suggest that "the quiet self-sufficient capable type" is more of a literary character (as in personality, not class) archetype, rather than the more generic and fantasy themed archetypes character classes need to be.

This one is interesting - I think the "Ranger" archetype appears a lot in ensemble stories or as secondary heroes - there's a need for someone who knows the place and has "tamed" it alone and so he gets recruited. Again perhaps not classic fantasy, but a strong archetype....

There is not really anything fantasy about that. Sure, individual characters can bring the nuance of traits, bonds, likes and dislikes, but I like classes to be a bit more general than that. Thus, "Knight in shinning armor" is a generally recognized, if not generally liked, archetype. Scholarly sage that uses his knowledge to cast spells and magical effects is another. One who deals with dark, mysterious, amoral, or generally other, is an archetype. So for me, there needs to be some type of mechanical hint or suggestion present in the archetype as well, though it could be vague.

I wouldn't disagree - mechanically when you look at the rough archetypes WotC made sensible choices when they had to. Wizards and Sorceror's got welded to magic when you could argue it's not inherent - Rogue's Sneak Attack is kinda implied though (Villain turns round and his henchmen are out cold) - Warlock's power comes from their secret curse/benefactor/possession......

Personally most good archetypes I think infer a natural mechanic, and they line up pretty well. Yeah they don't reflect everything, and there's some legacy carryover, but it feels quite natural to me...

But basically at the moment I keep thinking of the obvious archetypes rather than the subtler ones which would be interesting. Someone existing in two worlds (Part human, part [insert thing here]) I think is common enough you see a lot of people homebrew that, as it feels unrepresented. Shapeshifters, elementalists....hell I did a transformational archetype myself. Can't but think though I've missed loads of really strong archetypes with really clear identities that lift them out of "generic fighter".

 

[Tony Vargas]

What general heroic archetypes do you think are missing from the current class suite (narratively, not mechanically), specifically ones you think are distinct enough to warrant a class. Specifics and theories would be nice too.

In a sense, most of them, since most heroic archetypes, even from fantasy, are not primarily about casting spells, while most D&D classes are. ;P

Seriously, though, that is a blindspot for D&D in general and 5e in particular - it leans too heavily on spellcasting to model anything beyond the most basic abilities of a class. That restricts the archetypes & concepts it can model. Consequently, we see more than adequate coverage of fairly narrow villain/helper archetypes - the magic-using exposition character, like Gandalf (Wizard), the magic-using plot device, like Merlin (Wizard), the magic-using minstrel (Bard), the magic-using evil sorcerer from S&S (Warlock), the supernatural mutant (Sorcerer), the magic-using devout Knight of the Round Table, ie Galahad (Paladin), even the magic-using martial artist (Monk).

We also see archetypes virtually unknown to genre. The magic-using merry man of Sherwood (Ranger). The magic-using combat medic (Cleric). The magic-using hippie (Druid).

I’d be interested in people’s general thoughts on missing heroic tropes

Well, obviously, for want of a WARLORD class, we're missing The Leader (yeah, I'm going there, 'there' being both the Warlord /and/ TV Tropes, that's two strikes in one post), and, more broadly, since the Fighter doesn't come close outside of kicking ass, the most basic of all heroic tropes, The Hero.

Also perennially absent form RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, is The Reluctant Hero. (Seriously, folks, one of the most prevalent heroic tropes in genre.) Similarly, since PCs need to be somewhat co-equal spotlight-sharing ensemble cast types to work well in an RPG, the plucky-sidekick and underdog type archetypes are not well-represented, and are very hard to do for obvious reasons (Moonsong's Heart Noble is an example of the kind of class that could work for the former - and it maps vaguely to TV Trope's The Heart, too). Also somewhat similarly, the Destined Hero is a thing D&D doesn't do too well, either. Overwhelmingly, D&D heroes are actually adventurers - willfully going out there seeking adventure with no notion that anyone actually needs them to do it, just out for gain or maybe glory or often just power for its own sake. The classes mostly play to that. And, they're a dime a dozen until they have a few levels under their belts.