D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Xenonnonex]

Does the text I wrote look like Chinese to you?

Sorry, if you do not know the abbreviations I used. Aunt Google might help you in this case.

It's just a lot of words used without any meaning behind them.

 

[Parmandur]

I think it more illustrates the capacity for people to miss the point.

There are a couple of important archetypes left uncovered before we need to resort to silliness - not many, but a couple.

The shapeshifting barbarian and druidic bard have a deep basis in Myth. A witchfinder paladin has a strong basis in history. A Chaos Cleric and Dragon Warlock arise from asymmetries within existing subclasses.

I haven't seen any "standard" tropes trottrd out in this thread: the ones you mention are oddball and esoteric.

 

[Ratskinner]

FWIW, I agree with Jeremy, and not sure how anyone could disagree. He didn't say all archetypes were covered, but most were. And that seems true. It seems most suggestions are these small niche ones that the OP says are out of scope.

I tend to agree here. However, I would like to see more magic-less/martial options. It seems pretty heavy on casters and partial casters. Straight-up hero-dude seems to be the least-supported option, IMO. Which seems odd to me. The flexibility of spellcasting as a mechanical diversity generator didn't seem to be used to its fullest when they made so many classes and subclasses, which means they had to bake a lot of magical flavor into the core of classes.

 

[Greg K]

Circle of Stars Druid: Basically an Astrology and Divination focused Druid. I'd grant them access to a few Cleric divinations like Augury, but they need a bit more of a niche. These are kinda the mystics that read the stars for omens.

I want to see a druid with more astrology, divination, and illusion spells

Brawler Fighter or Barbarian: Give non-Monks some access to unarmed combat. Grappler-wrestler combat style.

Mearls had mentioned doing a Martial Artist Fighter in his Happy Hour before the whole fiasco revolving around Zack S that has resulted in silence. I was looking forward to hit, because I have disliked the D&D monk in pretty much every edition and how 5e throws everything unarmed martial arts related under the monk (The only official "monk" like class that I have liked was the 3e Oriental Adventures).

 

[Aldarc]

I haven't seen any "standard" tropes trottrd out in this thread: the ones you mention are oddball and esoteric.

Part of the issue is that we are not necessarily dealing with "standard" to begin with as we are dealing largely with D&D fantasy tropes. There are a number of "standard" tropes that would not translate well to D&D, or at least 5e. For example, 5e kinda hates summoners, since a lot of summoning/conjuration entails concentration limits.

A lot of extraplanar pact magic that the warlock represents is incredibly simplistic, if not shallow, with the popular imagination. Compare the 5e warlock with the Goetic in Invisible Sun, which does involve negotiating, tricking, bribing, and other means of dealing with extraplanar entities every time they are summoned for a task (e.g., fight, knowledge, exploration, etc.). The Goetic makes for a fabulous John Constantine, but the 5e Warlock makes for a sad John Constantine.

And when we look on the DMs Guild, there are a lot of EXTRAORDINARILY "WTF" esoteric (sub)classes, but there are also a lot of ones that get repeated, such as a Shaman. One could potentially point to the Druid or the Circle of the Shepherd, but I still don't think that it really scratches the itch that people have with the archetypal concept.

It seems like there are a fair number of archetypes that are not presently covered by existing 5e (sub)classes that seem beyond being dismissively referred to by either posters or Jeremy Crawford as "esoteric" or "non-standard." This is also without looking at things like clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks, which typically come in a variety of baked-in flavorful varieties based on their bloodline, deity, and patron.

 

[Parmandur]

Part of the issue is that we are not necessarily dealing with "standard" to begin with as we are dealing largely with D&D fantasy tropes. There are a number of "standard" tropes that would not translate well to D&D, or at least 5e. For example, 5e kinda hates summoners, since a lot of summoning/conjuration entails concentration limits.

A lot of extraplanar pact magic that the warlock represents is incredibly simplistic, if not shallow, with the popular imagination. Compare the 5e warlock with the Goetic in Invisible Sun, which does involve negotiating, tricking, bribing, and other means of dealing with extraplanar entities every time they are summoned for a task (e.g., fight, knowledge, exploration, etc.). The Goetic makes for a fabulous John Constantine, but the 5e Warlock makes for a sad John Constantine.

And when we look on the DMs Guild, there are a lot of EXTRAORDINARILY "WTF" esoteric (sub)classes, but there are also a lot of ones that get repeated, such as a Shaman. One could potentially point to the Druid or the Circle of the Shepherd, but I still don't think that it really scratches the itch that people have with the archetypal concept.

It seems like there are a fair number of archetypes that are not presently covered by existing 5e (sub)classes that seem beyond being dismissively referred to by either posters or Jeremy Crawford as "esoteric" or "non-standard." This is also without looking at things like clerics, sorcerers, and warlocks, which typically come in a variety of baked-in flavorful varieties based on their bloodline, deity, and patron.

You are right that there is some Shaman itch the Druid isn't satisfying: a Spirit Patron for Warlock might fit the bill.

Crawford was quite emphatic that they had plenty of ideas, but was warning that many future ideas would be a bit more off the wall due to needing to go farther afield to mine for ideas. Seems fairly incontestable.

 

[Aldarc]

You are right that there is some Shaman itch the Druid isn't satisfying: a Spirit Patron for Warlock might fit the bill.

I would like the warlock model for a lot of things, including pre-existing ones. IME its not just the flavor that attracts a lot of players to the warlock, but also the BYO-Character aspect.

As an aside, I wish though that they had baked-in the Hexblade into the Sword Pact, because it seems that the desire for basic mechanical efficiency kinda overrides the Patron. Maybe this would be part of a "Revised Evergreen Edition."

Crawford was quite emphatic that they had plenty of ideas, but was warning that many future ideas would be a bit more off the wall due to needing to go farther afield to mine for ideas. Seems fairly incontestable.

Not entirely sure about that though. There have been a number of fanmade archetype concepts that seem almost obvious-in-hindsight that have yet to be developed by WotC. We are still waiting on a lot of psionic ones. I have experienced a number of player requests for a shadowdancer rogue rather than its monk-based variety, plus a desire for a divine-magic rogue. I have personally seen a lot of player desire for travel, moon, fate, and darkness domains. (It even took several years before getting a proper player domains for death, magic, and crafting.) We are still seeing fanmade half-caster arcane gish classes pop up all over the place even though we have the hexblade, eldritch knight, valor bard, and bladesinger. Plant-themed and urban druids have not really appeared yet despite being relatively common requests and archetypes.

There has been a LOT more standard things I would have developed for the Barbarian or Monk before developing something like the most recent UA subclasses. But maybe the 5e brain trust is simply burning out? Who knows.

 

[Parmandur]

I would like the warlock model for a lot of things, including pre-existing ones. IME its not just the flavor that attracts a lot of players to the warlock, but also the BYO-Character aspect.

As an aside, I wish though that they had baked-in the Hexblade into the Sword Pact, because it seems that the desire for basic mechanical efficiency kinda overrides the Patron. Maybe this would be part of a "Revised Evergreen Edition."

Not entirely sure about that though. There have been a number of fanmade archetype concepts that seem almost obvious-in-hindsight that have yet to be developed by WotC. We are still waiting on a lot of psionic ones. I have experienced a number of player requests for a shadowdancer rogue rather than its monk-based variety, plus a desire for a divine-magic rogue. I have personally seen a lot of player desire for travel, moon, fate, and darkness domains. (It even took several years before getting a proper player domains for death, magic, and crafting.) We are still seeing fanmade half-caster arcane gish classes pop up all over the place even though we have the hexblade, eldritch knight, valor bard, and bladesinger. Plant-themed and urban druids have not really appeared yet despite being relatively common requests and archetypes.

There has been a LOT more standard things I would have developed for the Barbarian or Monk before developing something like the most recent UA subclasses. But maybe the 5e brain trust is simply burning out? Who knows.

One of the things Mearls discussed in the Happy Fun Hour about the Warlock is that if they had to do it again, they would merge Patron and Pact to give the Subclasses more distinct powers and flavor.

The Subclasses from the UA come from the new, DMsGuild veteran designers, so are more a sign of new blood than lack of energy.

 

[Aldarc]

One of the things Mearls discussed in the Happy Fun Hour about the Warlock is that if they had to do it again, they would merge Patron and Pact to give the Subclasses more distinct powers and flavor.

Hmmmm... like with many things from Mearls of late - almost a George Lucas in the rough - I'm not sure if I would agree with a number of his proposed revisions. (I suppose letting Mearls speak is one strategy that could successfully convince me that WotC should not make 6e.) IME, a lot of the appeal that I have seen for Warlock has been the mix-and-match aspect, so combining Patron and Pact strips the biggest aspect of that customization from the Warlock. Up until the Hexblade came out as the unofficial "fix" for the Sword Pact, I saw a lot of fun, interesting combinations. I'm not sure if I would necessarily want all Hexblades to be tied to Fiendish patrons though.

The Subclasses from the US come from the new, DMsGuild veteran designers, so are more a sign of new blood than lack of energy.

That's disheartening.

 

[Greg K]

Trapmaster rogue: set and disable special traps

I dont have trope character that fits them, but I feel those would be interesting archetypes.

Fred Jones, Mystery Inc.

Not official or my site, but ForgotMyDice has the Master Trapsmith archetype inspired by Fred Jones. It was part of its Scooby Doo Themed Month list of articles from May 2016.*

*For anyone interested, the other Scooby Doo articles included the Coward and Ghost Hunter Backgrounds, The Mystery Machine and two cloaks for villains, bringing elements of Gumshoe into D&D, and an intelligent canine race. Also, the monthly theme announcement with its index of articles are always under the articles for the prior month. Therefore, the Scooby Doo index article would be in April rather than May)