D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Yaarel]

The Bard, man.

An archetype that emphasizes magical beauty would work well for the Bard. Yet the current mechanics of the Bard class remain insufficiently sexual enough. The focus on beauty needs to be more explicit. For example, in the Xoth setting, the Seducer has a feature ‘Kiss of Domination’. Also, the ‘Distracting Beauty’ adds Charisma to the armor class. Perhaps, a Bard archetype could swap in Bardic Inspiration features, that related to charm, suggestion, and domination, with emphasis on the supernatural beauty.

Actually, the new Paladin of Heroism focuses on the trope of supernatural beauty, but less on the seduction.

 

[Xenonnonex]

An archetype that emphasizes magical beauty would work well for the Bard. Yet the current mechanics of the Bard class remain insufficiently sexual enough. The focus on beauty needs to be more explicit. For example, in the Xoth setting, the Seducer has a feature ‘Kiss of Domination’. Also, the ‘Distracting Beauty’ adds Charisma to the armor class. Perhaps, a Bard archetype could swap in Bardic Inspiration features, that related to charm, suggestion, and domination, with emphasis on the supernatural beauty.

Actually, the new Paladin of Heroism focuses on the trope of supernatural beauty, but less on the seduction.

Do you want instances of players saying "I roll to seduce the dragon"? Because that is what you will get.

 

[Yaarel]

Tell me, when you play those "weird and wonderful" 1e settings, do all druids belong to a global hierarchical organization that ties advancement to combat and only has one character of max level IN THE WORLD?

Likewise, do those settings have multinational assassin guilds that require the assassination of the guildleader to advance to max level in? Or monastic traditions that allow only a single member of a given level beyond name level to exist in the world?

Do they all enforce true neutrality in druids, lawful goodness in paladins, forbid elves from being clerics, dwarves from being magic-users, and half-orcs from being thieves? Furthermore, do they limit all nonhuman class levels except in thief? Cap strength for females and other ability scores per race?

Because is they did, you played with the implied setting of AD&D affecting your rules. Might as well say all those "weird and wonderful" homebrew settings were really just Greyhawk, since Greyhawk was baked into the mechanics of those classes and races.

Since Remalthilis keeps on bringing up the topic.

The answer to most of the questions about 1e Gygax settings, such as a global Druid organization, is no. I dont see normally see these kinds of features in the settings that the 1e DMs create. I have never played with a 1e DM that thought racial level limits a good idea. I have played D&D in space, in a fourth dimensional hypercube setting, in a Drow setting with an earth Druid, and other kinds of 1e campaign settings.

 

[Yaarel]

Do you want instances of players saying "I roll to seduce the dragon"? Because that is what you will get.

Your cautionary tale, is well heeded.

Still, to the degree that a dragon cares about a ‘fair damsel’, that might be appropriate. And some of the metallic dragons who take on human form, that might be appropriate. I guess it would depend on context.

The requirement of ‘humanoid’ would be easy enough to add.

Albeit for certain genres, anything might be possible, as long the players can deal with it in good health.

In normal contexts, magically ‘enchanting’ beauty would be understood well enough.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think we need a wizard subclass to represent witches, hedge mages, and other "doesn't go for the schools of magic theory" mages, perhaps with a touch of druid theming to it.

Shameless plug. (It's more bardy than druidy, though.)

 

[PsyzhranV2]

An archetype that emphasizes magical beauty would work well for the Bard. Yet the current mechanics of the Bard class remain insufficiently sexual enough. The focus on beauty needs to be more explicit. For example, in the Xoth setting, the Seducer has a feature ‘Kiss of Domination’. Also, the ‘Distracting Beauty’ adds Charisma to the armor class. Perhaps, a Bard archetype could swap in Bardic Inspiration features, that related to charm, suggestion, and domination, with emphasis on the supernatural beauty.

Actually, the new Paladin of Heroism focuses on the trope of supernatural beauty, but less on the seduction.

No. Please for the love of all that is holy, no. No enabling magical realm nonsense.

I never understood the clamour for subclasses related to love and seduction, as those tend to get either super intimate, super rapey, or both, and I don't see how any of that is beneficial for the table.

 

[Parmandur]

An archetype that emphasizes magical beauty would work well for the Bard. Yet the current mechanics of the Bard class remain insufficiently sexual enough. The focus on beauty needs to be more explicit. For example, in the Xoth setting, the Seducer has a feature ‘Kiss of Domination’. Also, the ‘Distracting Beauty’ adds Charisma to the armor class. Perhaps, a Bard archetype could swap in Bardic Inspiration features, that related to charm, suggestion, and domination, with emphasis on the supernatural beauty.

Actually, the new Paladin of Heroism focuses on the trope of supernatural beauty, but less on the seduction.

While hilarious, that is wildly inappropriate for what D&D is aiming for.

 

[Umbran]

.

Since Remalthilis keeps on bringing up the topic.

He does it, because it is relevant to the discussion.

The answer to most of the questions about 1e Gygax settings, such as a global Druid organization, is no. I dont see normally see these kinds of features in the settings that the 1e DMs create.

Exactly! Now, we note - those aspects were written explicitly into the rules. And Gygax did not give any guidance or tools for removing them. Those 1e DMs took them out themselves, modifying the setting-specific rules for their needs.

I this sense, 1e is not terribly different from 5e.

 

[Parmandur]

.


He does it, because it is relevant to the discussion.



Exactly! Now, we note - those aspects were written explicitly into the rules. And Gygax did not give any guidance or tools for removing them. Those 1e DMs took them out themselves, modifying the setting-specific rules for their needs.

I this sense, 1e is not terribly different from 5e.

5E is way easier to modify, if anything.

 

[Undrave]

Your cautionary tale, is well heeded.

Still, to the degree that a dragon cares about a ‘fair damsel’, that might be appropriate. And some of the metallic dragons who take on human form, that might be appropriate. I guess it would depend on context.

The requirement of ‘humanoid’ would be easy enough to add.

Albeit for certain genres, anything might be possible, as long the players can deal with it in good health.

In normal contexts, magically ‘enchanting’ beauty would be understood well enough.

Where do you think all those Sorcerer bloodlines come from?! Somebody out there is getting freaky with just about anything.

Waiting on the Modron blood Sorcerer.