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

[Hillsy7]

Hmm.....Some interesting chat.....

I think there's definitely something here about the choices WotC made in regards to applying mechanics to the classes that seems to have fundamentally changed the view of the archetype for a lot of people. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] mentioned how the Wanderer/Explorer archetype fools too broad for the Bard. To me, the bard seems to fit here perfectly as a class "concept" (A jack of all trades wandering adventurer), however the mechanical choices WotC made it feel narrower - the Bard is specifically now a inspirational figure relying mostly on spells, even valor bards. However, I would say this turns them into an aspect of the original archetype, rather than removes them from that archetype altogether. Similarly I would say the same restrictions were applied to Druids who feel like the defenders of a place the embody....WotC decided this would specifically be a natural bent, but I reckon you could just as easily make a case for the Archetype of a druid as a straight up non-caster, similar to the 4e Warden. Sorceror's feel like the classic Superhero archetype - I have transitioned from non-powerful to powerful without intention, and now I must control it. Again however the Mechanical choice shoved it into squishy Spell-slinger, whereby a melee version could probably be hung off a similar concept.

So I guess then another question would be: Where it feels like the mechanical application of the Class has closed off aspects of the archetype (The choice between martial and spellcasting being a common theme), would the aspect of the archetype that was ignored warrant a class in its own right? So the melee aspect of a sorcerer, for instance. Or would these things be better address in a sub-class, such as the arcane trickster?

 

[Coroc]

Just refluff,

e.g. - EK elf is the ideal 5E version of the Basic D&D Elf

- refluffed Warlock is great for a DS Templar

- refluffed Sorc is a great Favoured Soul

Imho you do not need loads of extra rules to cover something not detailed in the rulebooks. That is one of the really good things in 5E.

 

[gyor]

Sorceror's write up in the PHB hints that some Sorcerors are reluctant heroes, they don't want to be Sorcerors.

 

[gyor]

Just refluff,

e.g. - EK elf is the ideal 5E version of the Basic D&D Elf

- refluffed Warlock is great for a DS Templar

- refluffed Sorc is a great Favoured Soul

Imho you do not need loads of extra rules to cover something not detailed in the rulebooks. That is one of the really good things in 5E.

Actually when I saw the Ubdying Pact in the SCAG my first thought was they imported Sorceror King Pact Warlock (which was meant to be Templars) into the Forgotten Realms, by adding Demigod and Undead Patrons.

 

[Lanefan]

Note some quotes below are out of sequence, to avoid some repetition.

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.

I would not consider "Knight in Shining Armor" to be a class.

These tie together. The knight-in-shining-armour archetype hasn't had a decent run out since 1e's Cavalier. Paladin tries, but both the alignment restrictions and the religious aspect doom it. There's a gap here, and Cavalier fills it nicely.

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.

Barbarian - as I've been saying forever, it seems - shouldn't be a class at all. It should be a sub-race of Human, much lo=ike Wood Elves are a sub-race of Elf.

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.

Change the class name to "Nature Cleric" and see how those all look. Pretty much covers them all...

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.).

The Aragorn self-sufficient hardy woodsman archetype, once the foundation of the Ranger class, has sadly been abandoned - to the point that now, ironically, it represents a big enough gap that a new class could fill it. I'd call that new class Ranger, and replace everything currently appearing under "Ranger" with it.

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.

You could do this sort of thing pretty well in 0e-1e-2e, maybe even 3e. But 4e and 5e - particularly 4e - have such a huge gap between 'commoner' and '1st-level character' to make the everyman-hero archetype difficult if not impossible to reproduce. This one's not fixable by adding a class; it needs instead a few extra "levels" added in between commoner and 1st-level in order to work.

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).

While a valid concern, this one would be hard to implement and keep even remotely balanced at low level; as Sherlock-Holmes-like skills aren't the sort of things one learns quickly by adventuring but would have learned slowly and thus already had before 1st level.

The other example of this kind of archetype that D&D simply does not do well is James Bond. I've had players try (and I've tried myself, sort of) to model Bond in D&D and it just doesn't stand up, in that you need a high-charisma fighter-thief with a ridiculous array of skills and knowledges - to work, it'd need to start with an 18 in every stat except wisdom!

Lanefan

 

[Hillsy7]

I'm not entirely sure what this thread is getting at. A lot of the terms being thrown around like "reluctant and quiet hero" is just role playing. You can do that with any class. You don't need new classes or other rules to play that guy.

Also, a lot of what some people seems to be calling Archetypes are handled just fine with Backgrounds. There's the Local Hero and Criminal already.

When I think of archetypes, I think of characters from fantasy literature and wonder how I'd recreate them with the D&D rules. I think 5E really expanded the archetypes it covers with the addition of the Warlock class alone. It's really evocative and one of my favorite additions to the game.

I also take a fairly expansive view of the archetypes. Like I just made a War-Cleric/Abjurer who's a Knight in Shining Armor. He uses magic to be more effective as a combatant but he looks more like Lancelot than Merlin. My inspiration for him are the Pandion Knights from David Eddings' Elenium trilogy.

Honestly 5E is so flexible that I have trouble finding any archetype I cannot recreate with the proper selection of Background, Feats, Mutlclassing, and creative re-interpretation of the RAW. (I re-write the flavor text freely for class abilities, spell descriptions, and such, as long as the RAW doesn't change)

I agree with the posters above that the one concept that 5E doesn't cover well is the summoner/spiritualist. I want a guy who speaks with the spirits of the lakes and the air, who summons wind spirits to do his bidding, and so forth. I could probably build this with a sorcerer, a custom bloodline, and proper spell selection though, so I'm don't consider it a total loss.

To boil it down as simply as possible, I guess I personally feel that there are a number of classic archetypes of character seen a lot in classic adventure fiction (Specifically lots in ensemble stories where characters are more specialised), and that a number of those feel loosely related to one class or another, at which point mechanics are laid on top of them. This isn't saying you must play characters like that, just that it feels like the inspired the design....And having noticed that, which archetypes arn't there upon which potential new classes could be created, without essentially making just another type of, say, wizard.

So I guess this might be a decent point to list that archetypes I feel are launch points for the various classes

Barbarian: a force of nature who pushing relentlessly towards their goal (John McClane)
Bard: a wanderer and restless traveller who turns their hand to most things and fits in (Doctor Who)
Cleric: a humble servant for a higher cause or ideology (Ned Stark)
Druid: a person of a place who embodies their location or society (Galadriel)
Fighter: Someone who chooses to train to maximise their potential (Luke Skywalker)
Monk: Someone who believes their will can subjucate reality ([insert generic zen kung-fu sensai])
Paladin: a zealous enforcer/defender of a belief or cause (Judge Dredd)
Ranger: A self-sufficent outsider who has learned mastery over their environment (Aragorn)
Rogue: Someone who persues their personal goals that may or may not be tangentially to those of others (Han Solo)
Warlock: a character with a secret driving them forward, be that a benefactor, curse or organisation (James Bond)
Wizard: a Character who studies and seeks to address problems through knowledge (Rupert Giles from Buffy)

OK, so some may not be obvious - but to me at least they feel like they are solid bases for archetypal characters, the zealot, an affable wanderer, the psuedo-criminal maverick....etc etc.....

And obviously there are lots and lots out there I haven't touched on.....Someone like Gambit for instance is interesting - He's never felt overly self-centred, but he doesn't feel overly wedded to a cause or particularly zealous.....are the motivations and outlook of Gambit prevelent enough to call him an archetype?

So that's basically the sort of things I was looking to gather, the clustering of generalities that make up a basic character trope. Obviously, with the D&D ruleset, you can basically reskin the out of everything and apply your own character motivations and backstory, but I'm sort of talking about whats there in the PHB classes themselves.

 

[Coroc]

Aragorn qualifies for paladin as well as for ranger.

Ned Stark Cleric ??? you got to be joking a bit

And Luke Skywalker is a mystic of course

 

[Hillsy7]

Aragorn qualifies for paladin as well as for ranger.

Ned Stark Cleric ??? you got to be joking a bit

And Luke Skywalker is a mystic of course

Yeah with specific characters, there's a certain amount of bleed over, but if you take out Aragorn's nobility, he's a dude who can fight, track, know the land, live out in the wild, knows the enemies he's likely to find....he's the quintessential old guy with a rifle in the shack that helps the young pups get where they're going without dying.....

Ned Stark is a fair point - he's probably more Druid thinking about it. Spock is a bit cleric I guess, or Data......They are very much rank-and-file characters in thrall to a specific ideal.....

I don't reallly know enough about a mystic to know what the archetype would be for that....but in all honesty, if you strip out the Force powers from Luke Skywalker, he's someone who wanted to fulfil his potential through action and training, which sort of aligns with the very rough Fighteryness of being a trained master of something (thoguh I will readily admit that the Fighter is basically a catch-all for sooooooo many traditional "heroes".

 

[Tony Vargas]

But 4e and 5e - particularly 4e - have such a huge gap between 'commoner' and '1st-level character' to make the everyman-hero archetype difficult if not impossible to reproduce.

You gotta have something going for you. In 5e, that's either being a badass with a weapon in some way (Extra Attack/Rage/SA), or magic. A 'Folk Hero' fighter or rogue is as close as you can easily come, you're still profoundly exceptional, for some reason you were dedicated to learning a lot more combat skills than the average commoner, but it's remotely plausible. Maybe you were an obsessive hunter, that's why you're so good with a bow, for instance? But, yeah, it's a stretch. In 4e the 'lazy'/'princess' build warlord could be used as a less personally combat-capable character who still contributes to the party, even in combat, more the sidekick, than the 'everyman hero.'

Really, though, the fighter in most editions is almost depressingly close to the 'everyman hero' in ability, just without enough of 'The Hero' part. ;(

You could do this sort of thing pretty well in 0e-1e-2e,

Not really, no. Without class/level, you're nothing in the classic game (well, unless you have some crazy magic item - even then, you're a pop target).

maybe even 3e.

Probably the only edition where taking it as litterally as it seems you mean to is remotely viable. A non-adventurer PC in 3e could pick the Aristocrat or Expert NPC class and tag along with a party, keeping up in a very basic way, Commoner would be pushing it (dis-honorary Tier 7?), but at least you'd be leveling.

Any other edition, no, take a character class or forget it.

This one's not fixable by adding a class; it needs instead a few extra "levels" added in between commoner and 1st-level in order to work.

A class could totally do it, in 5e, it'd just be a really sucky class. But, hey, bounded accuracy, keep on plugg'n...

The other example of this kind of archetype that D&D simply does not do well is James Bond. I've had players try (and I've tried myself, sort of) to model Bond in D&D and it just doesn't stand up, in that you need a high-charisma fighter-thief with a ridiculous array of skills and knowledges - to work, it'd need to start with an 18 in every stat except wisdom!

That's not just James Bond, it's heroes in general. And, it's not like it's wildly broken to be suave and broadly competent as well as deadly, either....

 

[Miladoon]

Hmm.....Some interesting chat.....

I think there's definitely something here about the choices WotC made in regards to applying mechanics to the classes that seems to have fundamentally changed the view of the archetype for a lot of people. [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] mentioned how the Wanderer/Explorer archetype fools too broad for the Bard. To me, the bard seems to fit here perfectly as a class "concept" (A jack of all trades wandering adventurer), however the mechanical choices WotC made it feel narrower - the Bard is specifically now a inspirational figure relying mostly on spells, even valor bards. However, I would say this turns them into an aspect of the original archetype, rather than removes them from that archetype altogether. Similarly I would say the same restrictions were applied to Druids who feel like the defenders of a place the embody....WotC decided this would specifically be a natural bent, but I reckon you could just as easily make a case for the Archetype of a druid as a straight up non-caster, similar to the 4e Warden. Sorceror's feel like the classic Superhero archetype - I have transitioned from non-powerful to powerful without intention, and now I must control it. Again however the Mechanical choice shoved it into squishy Spell-slinger, whereby a melee version could probably be hung off a similar concept.

So I guess then another question would be: Where it feels like the mechanical application of the Class has closed off aspects of the archetype (The choice between martial and spellcasting being a common theme), would the aspect of the archetype that was ignored warrant a class in its own right? So the melee aspect of a sorcerer, for instance. Or would these things be better address in a sub-class, such as the arcane trickster?

And then there is multi classing. Nuff said.

IMO WoTC archetypes were all tied up by those those damned dirty apes (legacy players) and their big nets (survey results) that captured the day. The designers came up with some interesting ideas in this Class/Subclass format but eventually never fully exploited it. If you are going to make a class, at least have six subclasses for every class. And let everyone start their subclass at level one. This seems so disjointed to me. A PHB class with two subclasses appears to be stroking the fan base and simultaneously telling me that this class needs to be a subclass itself. Hey it has two subclasses now so the class is validated? One thing I like about the Mystic is that they didn't add it as a Psion subclass of Wizard. It also has six subclasses. I also like that it is a UA offering. You know if you print that out and add it to the basic pdf. you can run an interesting, entirely free game of D&D?

As far as design goes, with the exception of hiding, I think everything outside of Chapter 3 of the PHB has been on the mark. 5E allows the opportunity to flesh out entire 'new' classes. Make em up. Cop a feel from a Paizo. Download from DMsG or DriveThru, or refluff. If that is how you eyeball your character concept and it does not break the game, go for it. If I was looking for a specific archetype that is where I would surf.