D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Undrave]

Shadow spells would definitely be nice.

I think the main thing truly missing that’s a big archetype is a Summoner. Not sometime rarchetype that has access to a bit of summoning, but a set of options for focusing on being a summoner. Maybe that looks like a horde-bringer on one class, while another class gets a sub that focuses on bringing forth one really big bastard at a time, and the class gets unique spells at high levels that bring real big stuff into the world for just a moment, manifesting awesome weal for the PCs or woe for the enemy.

I take it you're not satisfied by the Shepherd druid? Or maybe you'd like a different take on the concept?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think some of y'all are confusing "archetype" with "class that has the following abilities". A lot of the stuff presented can be covered with existing classes, subclasses, ability (skill) checks, and backgrounds; and multi-classing if need be.

"Impossible to do with MCing/Backgrounds/Feats" is not a bar archetypes need to clear. Most extant archetypes - and arguably a few classes, don't clear it, as it is. Ranger is a whole class, but Fighter/Druid, Outlander background could be touted as covering it in concept. Bards could have been covered by casters (sorcerer or warlock, since they're CHA based) with an Entertainer or Charlatan background, MC'd with a bit of fighter for the Valor bard, or a bit of Rogue for Expertise. Paladin? Cleric/Fighter.

Archetypes like the EK & AT just scream "multi-classed-to-Wizard." Really, arguably, some specific archetypes exist only so that traditional PCs, like the elven fighter/magic-user, are playable even with MCing turned off.

 

[Undrave]

"Impossible to do with MCing/Backgrounds/Feats" is not a bar archetypes need to clear. Most extant archetypes - and arguably a few classes, don't clear it, as it is. Ranger is a whole class, but Fighter/Druid, Outlander background could be touted as covering it in concept. Bards could have been covered by casters (sorcerer or warlock, since they're CHA based) with an Entertainer or Charlatan background, MC'd with a bit of fighter for the Valor bard, or a bit of Rogue for Expertise. Paladin? Cleric/Fighter.

Archetypes like the EK & AT just scream "multi-classed-to-Wizard." Really, arguably, some specific archetypes exist only so that traditional PCs, like the elven fighter/magic-user, are playable even with MCing turned off.

Plus, a lot of those 'MC-like' subclass have features that make them feel unique, like the Arcane Trickster's Mage Hands related feature. And like you mention, they make those archetypes available if MC and Feats are not allowed.

 

[Vael]

I take it you're not satisfied by the Shepherd druid? Or maybe you'd like a different take on the concept?

I was initially underwhelmed, but I've seen a Shepherd in action, and they are quite impressive. That said, most of their summoning is via the Conjure spells, and the optimal way is generally lots / swarms of creatures. I'm looking for the Pokemon Trainer style Summoner that focuses on a single pet and controls them in battle.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think they could do a druid subclass similar to the circle of land, but focused on specific "guardians of the land" monsters that could be summoned (or maybe wildshaped into, I flip back and forth). rather than just being a druid with some extra spell choices.

 

[Ashrym]

"Impossible to do with MCing/Backgrounds/Feats" is not a bar archetypes need to clear. Most extant archetypes - and arguably a few classes, don't clear it, as it is. Ranger is a whole class, but Fighter/Druid, Outlander background could be touted as covering it in concept. Bards could have been covered by casters (sorcerer or warlock, since they're CHA based) with an Entertainer or Charlatan background, MC'd with a bit of fighter for the Valor bard, or a bit of Rogue for Expertise. Paladin? Cleric/Fighter.

Archetypes like the EK & AT just scream "multi-classed-to-Wizard." Really, arguably, some specific archetypes exist only so that traditional PCs, like the elven fighter/magic-user, are playable even with MCing turned off.

That's a rather arbitrary stance. The archetypes exist whether you, in your opinion, decided where the bar sits or not. ;-)

I don't actually completely disagree, btw. Many existing classes or subclasses could have been implemented the same way or in different ways. It's still just a difference of what is an archetype to what is a feature someone wants to use to represent an archetype. I see that as separate (and related) discussion on how to implement the archetypes better; not whether they can be created.

The archetypes can be created. There's room for discussion on how to improve that as well. Not everyone will agree to what extent this needs done and why it's really a separate topic.

When we were going through the playtest, the question on whether the class was valid as a class instead of a subtype was whether or not the class represented multiple archetypes that would fall under that class. Bards have multiple related archetypes in history and mythology. That's why they got a class. The same with rangers. I think paladins were pushing it and unnecessary but here they are anyway. ;-)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I take it you're not satisfied by the Shepherd druid? Or maybe you'd like a different take on the concept?

I like it very much, actually. It does a wonderful job of representing a horde bringer druidic summoner. I'd like to see at least one other class do a good job of that as well, because Druid isn't exactly my go-to for summoner, thematically.

As for the "summon a big bastard and let it wail on things", more spells could do it, but I'd prefer a subclass with unique mechanics that really dovetail with controlling a single big thing. A druid might burn wild shape uses to bring forth a great guardian, or a warlock might get an even more improved find familiar, that stacks in benefits with Pact of The Chain but can be used with any Boon. A Bard Fey Beast Tamer might choose a Fey creature that acts like a familiar but turned up to 11 and has cool ways to boost it using Bardic Inspiration Dice.

ALso, a feat for improving summoning, and spells that specifically make summoned or controlled creatures stronger would be nice, and I'd go out of my way to ensure that they work well with familiars and ranger beast companions as well as any new archetypes.

Then I'd add in several level 6 or greater summoning spells that create a mighty effect that is summoning themed, like an angelic chorus that heals all allies and removes negative effects, and no damage can be dealt until the chorus leaves except to fiends and undead (which combines in fun ways with AoE spells if you're fighting such creatures, since you don't have to worry about friendly fire), or the new UA warlock's thing where they summon their patron's toothy maw into the fray.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When we were going through the playtest, the question on whether the class was valid as a class instead of a subtype was whether or not the class represented multiple archetypes that would fall under that class. Bards have multiple related archetypes in history and mythology. That's why they got a class. The same with rangers. I think paladins were pushing it and unnecessary but here they are anyway. ;-)

The Paladin is a great example of when a general design goal needs to compromise for a specific thing that needs to be in the game.

But also, the Green Night and the Avenger and the classic Knight in Shining Armor are good expressions of the Paladin that they did a great job of representing in the PHB. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The class works extremely well and adds a lot to the game, so they were right.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Really, arguably, some specific archetypes exist only so that traditional PCs, like the elven fighter/magic-user, are playable even with MCing turned off.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[Ashrym]

The Paladin is a great example of when a general design goal needs to compromise for a specific thing that needs to be in the game.

But also, the Green Night and the Avenger and the classic Knight in Shining Armor are good expressions of the Paladin that they did a great job of representing in the PHB. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The class works extremely well and adds a lot to the game, so they were right.

I think that actually demonstrates the point that an archetype can exist in other ways, but can be improved going beyond that, tbh. I can make any of those without the paladin. Since the paladin made the cut I would use it.

Paladin isn't the only class I view that way. I could play the basic game and still make a lot of archetypes out of those 4 classes. I always start with what I envision, then look to see how I can make that happen with what I have before introducing new elements. I can definitely make any of a variety of bards without the bard class and don't need a sorcerer and a warlock to create either archetype.

The only difference is in adding mechanics.