D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[doctorbadwolf]

@cbwjm I saw a bit of discussion about divine rogues.

Are you familiar with 4e’s Covenent Agent, and Eberron’s Argentum?

Also, an Expositor could be a rogue that hunts evil casters, both within and outside of the Church, and thus allow while avoiding necessity of dealing with the baggage of a more “evil bastard in good guy clothes” violent zealot or medieval style inquisitor.

 

[cbwjm]

Yeah. It may not work for some. But the alignment system can easily be thrown out. I never understood the problem I have never had a problem with it. I See the alignments as big boxes allowing for alot or things. And people may not act the same alignment all the time. But there will be a general tendency.

As for the structure of the planes. That is pretty flexible. Even the planescape setting hinted that their structure may be wrong. They are models that can change as easily as our own did historically. All they really know is a portal takes a person to whatever plane. Or that the plane shift spell takes u to a plane that some item is Attuned too. Different philosophers and cosmologists can view the structure of the planes differently. And there may even be outer planes that aren’t as well known that aren’t even related to the alignment system. Nothing stopping people from creating planes of different concepts.

God knows I don’t let some settings fluff stop me from tweaking what I want to do in my camplaign. And my next might be different or the opposite. But when u DMed hundreds of settings over a few decades at least I don’t really care about canon for more than possible idea mining. I still use a modified 1E cosmology for Pete sake. My games run fine.

I haven't actually bothered with the alignments in 5e. They can be a useful role-playing tool but otherwise I don't see the need for them.

 

[Undrave]

There does seem to be room for a archetype there.

The Sea has more than an angry face... but I could also see this vision being stretched to being a Cleric of Water and not just salt water.

Also, we hve enough spells that send information that I think a Domain of Communication would be really cool. Basically a sort of Divine Newspaper Reporter/Paperboy Gets MEssage, Sending, Magical Mouth, Animal Messenger, Sky Write, etc as domain spells. Maybe Comprehend Language, Detect Thoughts, Illusory Script... Talks like a 50s newsie "EXTRA EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!"

 

[Yaarel]

Oddly, though, that doesn't seem to be the main thrust of Yaarel's point, I'm not sure I /do/ see it, it seems like just 1e gets a pass, for reasons that don't stand out as uniquely applying to 1e, but 5e doesn't. Which is troubling to me, because most of the time Yaarel has some interesting ideas and perspectives, including some that touch on magic & religion in ways that seem downright enthusiastic about modeling RL magical practices or beliefs in D&D, while this complaint does seem actively hostile to such modeling.

The CORE RULES must be setting neutral − especially religiously neutral.

The settings must be strictly optional − especially a setting that focuses on a particular religious worldview.

It must be that a gaming group of a DM and players have a choice to actively opt in a religion − rather than try disentangle themselves out of one.



It should be ok for Muslim parents to let their kids play a popular game without worrying that D&D is telling their kids to conform to polytheism.

It should be ok for fundamentalist Christians to play D&D on their terms. Why not? It is a fun game.

It should be ok for Orthodox Jews to play D&D. Currently it is formally forbidden in many communities because the appearance of idolatry is as forbidden as actual idolatry.

It should be easy for seculars to play D&D without having to deal with any religion at all, or feel like they are cartoonizing other people’s religious sensitivities.

It should be easy for polytheists to present a more authentic polytheistic worldview.

It should be easy for animists to talk about minds or spirits, without everything getting misunderstood as gods.

And so on.

To write core rules that are religiously neutral, is culturally respectful and easy to formulate.



Besides, as a DM who likes to worldbuild, I need access to setting-neutral core rules that stay out of my way of building worlds that have little to do with the Forgotten Realms setting or the Multiverse setting.



All of these D&D gaming groups from all of their different religious perspectives should be able to easily explore whatever worlds they find interesting − without feeling like they are coerced (by core rules or peer pressure) to violate their own religious sensibilities.



If someone plays Vampire The Masquerade and wants to (respectfully) pretend to be a Christian, have at it. Enjoy the religious freedom. But if one requires someone else to pretend to be a Christian. No.

If someone plays Forgotten Realms and wants to (respectfully) pretend to be one of the very many different kinds of polytheism. Have at it. Enjoy the religious freedom. But if one requires someone else to pretend to be a polytheist. No.

Allowing for a very blurry definition of polytheism, perhaps 25% of the human species today employs some form of polytheism. Polytheism is a reallife fact. Our world is too small too think polytheism is ‘fantasy’ or ‘exotic’.

To cartoonize polytheism is ignorant religionism, just like blackface was ignorant racism in the previous century.



There must be zero coercion in spiritual matters.



It is easy for WotC to clarify core rules to make them more religiously neutral − and setting neutral.

And ethical.

Any religious themes require an opt in − rather than a disentangle out.

 

[Vael]

Oh for pity's sake, can we take this particular windmill to another thread?

Out of curiousity, if 5e were to redo Tome of Battle, would those here want new classes to implement such a system, work entirely within existing classes, or a combination?

 

[DammitVictor]

Out of curiousity, if 5e were to redo Tome of Battle, would those here want new classes to implement such a system, work entirely within existing classes, or a combination?

I'd want it to work within existing classes. One of the biggest shortcomings of the original Tome of Battle is that it replaced the Fighter, Paladin, and Monk instead of fixing them.

 

[cbwjm]

@cbwjm I saw a bit of discussion about divine rogues.

Are you familiar with 4e’s Covenent Agent, and Eberron’s Argentum?

Also, an Expositor could be a rogue that hunts evil casters, both within and outside of the Church, and thus allow while avoiding necessity of dealing with the baggage of a more “evil bastard in good guy clothes” violent zealot or medieval style inquisitor.

I've probably seen them but can't recall them. I had forgotten that the rune priest was in 4e until I was flipping through one of the books. Would be one to look at though for ideas. I find a lot of the 4e paragon paths and 3e prestige classes are good inspiration for subclasses. Maybe I should go back and have a look at water themed divine classes for my clerical ocean domain.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Out of curiousity, if 5e were to redo Tome of Battle, would those here want new classes to implement such a system, work entirely within existing classes, or a combination?

Depends on what the purpose of redoing Tome of Battle is.

If you're looking to cover the archetypal flavors of the ToB classes, that's definitely doable within the fighter and monk. Arguably some of them are already covered by existing fighter and monk subclasses.

But if you're looking to resurrect the idea of an in-depth resource and maneuver system for martial characters, you should probably do that with classes built from the ground up for it. The problem with trying to do it within, say, the fighter class is that the fighter only has a fraction of its power budget allocated to its subclass features. Look at the difference between eldritch knight spellcasting and full spellcasting.

I'm a diehard fan of incarnum magic's mechanics, but I'm kind of indifferent to the flavor. So when I started thinking about how to bring those mechanics into 5E, I decided that incarnum users were basically monks: essentia as your qi, it just makes sense. However, it would have been rough trying to cram a whole incarnum system into a monk subclass, and the end result would probably be unsatisfying. Gotta build a whole new class around it, even if that class's name is just "Monk 2.0".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I had forgotten that the rune priest was in 4e until I was flipping through one of the books.

Everyone forgot the rune priest was in 4E, including the writers of 4E.

 

[Remathilis]

The CORE RULES must be setting neutral − SNIP.

Why?

Pathfinder isn't setting neutral. It's clearly designed to align with Golarion. Moreso in 2e, where goblins are common enough adventurers to be a core race.

Shadowrun isn't setting neutral. The One Ring isn't. Neither is World of Darkness (which has several different themes of horror living in the same world, akin to D&Ds multiverse) or Edge of Empire or Call of Chthulu or Mutants & Masterminds, or...

In fact, I can only think of a few true universal systems like GURPs, most RPGs have a assumed setting that colors it's rules, fluff, and options. Yet people treat D&D like it's supposed to be Primordial Clay that takes on the form of whatever the DM wants instantly and should be constructed to be a modular, flavorless toolkit the DM assembles like a amateur radio kit.

D&D is moddable =/= D&D is a toolkit.

So if you want to strip out and replace elements of the game, feel free. Modify clerics, remove dragonborn, refluff monsters, etc, go right ahead. But don't expect WotC to cater to you're specific vision.

D&D is not Generic Fantasy Simulator d20. It is Dungeons & Dragons [emoji769]