D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So, I disagree with this.

Fundamentally, the Cleric was originally "designed" to be a Hammer Horror Vampire Hunter, and later had some pseudo-medieval trappings added to it via Gygax (such as the "no bladed weapons" bit).

But Gygax never imbued the Cleric with a particular theism other than generic faux medievalism, and all account have the earliest campaigns that we know of including multiple gods; hardly a "Christian" outlook. This is, in fact, the issue with the schism in the Cleric as written (Vampire Hunter? Medieval Christian Cleric? Adaptable mutli-thestic class? Original Gish?).

But this goes to the whole issue of play-acting and RPing. Some baggage you have to leave at the door.* Most people that I have see that have problems with D&D's cosomology and classes, especially Clerics, are not atheists, but those with strong religious beliefs.

Because in the end, it's not real. It's just play acting. If you're a cleric, or follower, of St. Cuthbert, or Heironeous, it doesn't say much about your beliefs (or lack thereof) in real life. Just like I'm reasonably certain that Bill Hader isn't a hitman.

Also? You can't really cast fireballs, and dragons and unicorns don't exist.



*And if you can't, that's cool too.

There is a difference between what we consciously design, and what we put in unconsciously because our worldview. You can't get away from the fact that Gygax was raised as a Christian in a very Christian society (and so where his chums, irrespective of if they actually believed it or not). And when Gygax became aware that he was getting close to what people around him actually believed he made some effort to steer away. Still, the original cleric spell list was based on biblical miracles, the Snake Staff is based on Exodus, and we have a "Saint Cuthbert" wandering around hitting people with his mace (AKA holy water sprinkler).

D&D could function perfectly well without clerics and paladins and druids, and just one set of spells. But that wasn't the society that produced it.

P.S. Bram Stoker was also raised in a very Christian society (19th century Irland), and that found it's way into Dracula...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I often see the Dervish mentioned but I'm not familiar with is, so what did it look like in previous editions?

I think the zealot (Xanathar's) has most of the fluff of the dervish. But generally its a religious fanatic who spins around very fast attacking everything nearby with scimitars.

Also see: Tasmanian Devil (Loony Toons).

It's also associated with a real world religious practise, so it's unlikely to make it in under that name.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Storm domain works well for the Seafaring themes.
But not for the Underwater themes.

And, D&D has gone deep(pi) into the underwater themes in the past (heck, when D&D was being dreamed up, Jacques Cousteau was on TV, showing off SCUBA and the wonders of reefs and such and James Bond and the like were having SCUBA-enabled underwater fights, so hardly surprising).

What would help me as a worldbuilder is for the players to have access to 5e core rules that are truly setting neutral.

TBH, I don't think that's ever really quite been tried, nor gone over so well when it did edge in that direction. 1e was loaded with references to Greyhawk and the pre-publication campaigns - downright cryptic references, really - and in 3e, Greyhawk was the official default, while 4e was /meant/ to be generic, and much-criticized for it's lack of 'lore' and 'flavor' &c. 5e, in light of that, went with FR as it's default setting.

If D&D was overtly homophobic or overtly sexist or overtly racist, most of us would agree that would be offensive and inappropriate, even if it was just ‘flavor’.

Arguably, D&D /was/ overtly sexist (& heteronormative), and orientalist, and arguably metaphorically racist, what with "the baby kobolds aren't worth any xp alive" and "orcs are always evil" and whatnot.

But D&D 5e is overtly religionist, and it is equally offensive and inappropriate even if it is just ‘flavor’.

Since 2e, D&D has obviously tried to avoid any inclusion or mention of RL religion - especially the more mainstream ones (which, in itself, could be seen as an issue, I suppose). Though, since D&D drew inspiration from pre-Christian myth/legend (which has generally come down to us through a Christian lens as it was mostly monks writing it down), and outright yoinked Greek, Norse, Egyptian, etc Gods, and Witches and Druids (there I go, throwing my favorite 5e class under the bus again), as they were public domain, there are certainly some things there for neo-Pagans to complain about, even now. And, as D&D moves more towards using entirely fictional pantheons, I guess, WotC figures, they'll be avoiding that, as well.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Worldview is not the same as outlook, and I would call the worldview theist, not monotheist - many hardcore Christians are actually polytheists - the believe the Devil and demons can give powers to their followers, which would make them gods in D&D terms, and much of the old testament just says "my god is better than your god", not "your god is a figment but mine isn't".

And yes, on the whole it is Christians who are offended, when things they believe to be real are portrayed as fiction.

 

[collin]

Worldview is not the same as outlook, and I would call the worldview theist, not monotheist - many hardcore Christians are actually polytheists - the believe the Devil and demons can give powers to their followers, which would make them gods in D&D terms, and much of the old testament just says "my god is better than your god", not "your god is a figment but mine isn't".

And yes, on the whole it is Christians who are offended, when things they believe to be real are portrayed as fiction.

I really think this topic needs to be move back to its original intent and get off of these judgmental/painting-all-with-one-brush statements.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Undrave]

I think the zealot (Xanathar's) has most of the fluff of the dervish. But generally its a religious fanatic who spins around very fast attacking everything nearby with scimitars.

Also see: Tasmanian Devil (Loony Toons).

It's also associated with a real world religious practise, so it's unlikely to make it in under that name.

I knew about the spinning but not the religious thing... even though I know about the real life religious Dervish...

The spinning thing seems like it's fairly limited for a 5e subclass, it'll need to add more...

Maybe a Barbarian Path of the Whirlwind Warrior? Born in windswept plains and deserts where the Barbarians model their rage on the fury of a windstorm? In addition to specializing in two weapon fighting with Slashing weapons they get movement and wind based powers? Maybe at later level their rage triggers an effect similar to Warding Wind!

 

[Vael]

We've seen some Elemental casters, some Psionic flavour in the Sorcerer/Warlock UA, these are all good. What would be interesting would be subclasses that let spellcasters look at magic through a different lens than the normal schools.

For example:

• Looking at magic through the MTG Colour Pie. If we are getting more cross-support for Magic the Gathering in DnD, I feel like this is something that will need support. Note, though, that I dislike overly restrictive approaches, I wasn't a fan of 3.5 Wizards having banned schools, same if I was a Blue/Red Mage, I shouldn't lose access to the other spells. It's like how we don't have many ability score penalties anymore, more carrots than sticks please.
• Magic in opposing dualities? Not just elemental, but like Order/Chaos, Light/Dark, so to speak.
• More support for the non-Fire elements? Also different elements, like there's a Asian tradition of 5 elements.