D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Yaarel]

I've certainly done more than my share of worldbuilding in D&D - I'm not much for published settings....


1e was what it was - and making it into something else was not easy, but extremely popular, back in the day. 3e was a PitA to work with, both because it was so detailed it even insisted on using the same mechanics for both PC and Monsters, and because of the communities RaW obsession, which made introducing house rules like pulling teeth. Yet I did extensive world-building for both of 'em. I re-used one of those worlds in 4e without issue, too.
5e is DM carte-blanche, the non-PCs of whatever sort can just be designed to the level of detail you care for, there's nothing stopping you from designing a world any way you care to, because you can change/introduce whatever you like.

The biggest problem in 5e, is the Players Handbook.

The world is spelled out everywhere in it. If the DM is trying to weave the illusion of a different world, it is impossible because the players are reading the Players Handbook.

For example, if all of the references to polytheism were in the DMs Guide rather than in the Players Handbook, it would be easier for the DM to use the core rules to build something that differs from Forgotten Realms.

Players Handbook even goes into detail about reallife polytheistic traditions that are superfluous and probably wont happen in most FR campaigns. But the polytheism of 5e is religious extremism.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The biggest problem in 5e, is the Players Handbook.

From the player's pov, that's pretty nearly the whole game, so doesn't narrow it down much.

The world is spelled out everywhere in it. If the DM is trying to weave the illusion of a different, it is impossible because the players are reading the Players Handbook.

You mean because FR is the default setting? Greyhawk was the default setting in 3e, and apparently not an issue for you.

Dump the default setting.
Re-define deity like you did for 1e.

Is there anything about 5e domains that'd be an impediment to that?

 

[Yaarel]

From the player's pov, that's pretty nearly the whole game, so doesn't narrow it down much.

You mean because FR is the default setting? Greyhawk was the default setting in 3e, and apparently not an issue for you.

Dump the default setting.
Re-define deity like you did for 1e.

Is there anything about 5e domains that'd be an impediment to that?

You know, you’re not really helping, right?

 

[Yaarel]

From the player's pov, that's pretty nearly the whole game.

Exactly the problem. The Players Handbook is pretty nearly the whole game − from the players point of view.

So, any attempt to build a world that differs from the one that got baked into the core rules of the Players Handbook, is futile.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You know, you’re not really helping, right?

We're off on a tangent, anyway, this's nothing to do with Archetypes anymore.

But, yeah, I'm just defending the current ed from a criticism I think is unfounded.
I've been known to do that.
For years at a time.


(also, asserting that my least-favorite edition delivered on something the best... but, hey, it's true, AFAICT... you want non-deity-worshipping clerics, 2e had it for you in a well-developed way that actually worked)

Exactly the problem. The Players Handbook is pretty nearly the whole game − from the players point of view.
So, any attempt to build a world that differs from the one that got baked into the core rules of the Players Handbook, is futile.

The default setting isn't baked-in and the rules are what you make of 'em, just like 1e.

 

[Yaarel]

We're off on a tangent, anyway, this's nothing to do with Archetypes anymore.

The support for the archetype of a nontheistic Cleric remains unsatisfactory. (Or even a monotheistic Cleric.)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

No. Many BoV Seekers are hard atheists. They don’t believe at all thatthe sovereigns exist or have ever existed. It’s fairy tales the vassals tell themselves because they can’t fathom the fact that they are the source of their own power, and they can’t face the idea of eventual oblivion. Other Seekers are maltheists, but plenty simply believe that the gods are entirely fake.

As far as I'm aware, the majority of the Seekers believe in the Soverign host, they just reject them as unfit for worship. The Sovereigns created and condemn mortals to Dolurrh, where (the seekers believe) they simply dissipate. Many seekers may believe that the gods do this out of fear or similar, to prevent mortals achieving the divinity that they hold the potential for.
There likely are seekers who believe that the sovereign host simply doesn't exist, but as far as I'm aware, its not most of them.

The Silver Flame has absolutely no connection whatsoever to any gods, in any way, ever. Coatls aren’t gods, nor were any of the mortals whose souls became part of the Flame.

The Voice of the Flame, whose sacrifice allowed mortals to interact with and be empowered by the Flame was a Paladin of the Sovereign Host. I would imagine that while most followers of the Silver Flame would view the Sovereign Host as too distant and disconnected, they don't refute their existence.

The Elven faiths have no connection at all to the gods, positive or negative.

The elven faiths are almost exclusively build around the concept of avoiding the dissipation of the souls of their revered ancestors in dolurrh. They seek to avoid the fate that the gods inflict on the dead, either by keeping them in this plane as undead of a sort, or by keeping the memory of them alive by emulating them.
Again, while a follower of the Undying Court etc, might choose to worship their ancestors, most would not deny the existence of the sovereign host.

Scholars openly question whether the Host and Six exist, or are simply archetypes that people focus their faith upon.

I was under the impression that that was regarded as a rather fringe theory.
Even though they might follow and/or worship a different deity, most inhabitants of Eberron see Arawai's hand in the harvest, and the Devourer in a storm etc.

We're getting off topic a bit here it seems...

Let's get back to archetypes? What would a Rogue with a touch of Divine Power be like?

The adventurer that relied on Luck - Divine providence?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The support for the archetype of a nontheistic Cleric remains unsatisfactory. (Or even a monotheistic Cleric.)

It's the same support you had in 1e: none, except for your willingness to re-define 'deity.'

 

[Parmandur]

Have we got a Domain for Clerics of a Sea Deity?

Per the PHB, that would be Tempest. I dunno if they would do a new one, what do you think that would look like?

 

[cbwjm]

Per the PHB, that would be Tempest. I dunno if they would do a new one, what do you think that would look like?

I personally would like one that has less to do with storms for a sea god. The problem is, the abilities I think they should have would be a modified nature domain that many would consider weak options. At the very least, I think they should be able to adapt to underwater (swim speed, water breathing), command water creatures like the nature domain commands all creatures. Be Aquaman.

I can see them being able to quell a storm at sea, there can be some overlap with the tempest domain, but definitely less thunder and lightning themes.

I think a problem with an ocean domain is that what I want might be quite limited in usefulness for the typical adventuring party, unless playing in an ocean themed campaign. I'd have to be careful to ensure that the majority of abilities are of wider usefulness rather than just useful when in or around water.