D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Yaarel]

One of the problems in designing an rpg is that if it can be used for everything u end up having to tell players there are rules you can’t use. For example, no playing elves and dwarves. They aren’t in this setting. No vampires. Etc.

How is this different from the Monster Manual? The DM cherry picks which monsters are going to make sense in a particular setting (world or region or adventure). Plug the relevant ones into the new adventure.

In the case of a setting-neutral Players Handbook, the DM and the players have a session zero, about what kind of adventure the DM has in mind and what kind characters the players want to play, and they decide what they like together.

Remember, start small. This adventure is just for the next level, or less. The ‘world’ will happen by itself, as new adventures accumulate, and as the players take interest in specific NPCs and places. The players are building the world moreso than the DM, by deciding what they want to do next. And if they have ambitions, like building a Wizard school, ruling a town, having kids, or so on, they create the features of the world as well. When everyone is interacting with eachothers contributions, the collective whole, the world, takes on a life of its own. The world is almost like an extra gamer at the table with its own voice, that no individual DM or player exactly expected.

Actually, it would be nice if one can literally cut-and-paste the setting-neutral rules document, digitally. Then cherry pick the relevant rules for a new setting document, or oppositely delete a particular section that would be inappropriate for this particular new setting. Meanwhile, add a sentence here and paragraph there to flesh out narrative context, how it fits, as inspiration happens.

 

[Arnwolf666]

How is this different from the Monster Manual? The DM cherry picks which monsters are going to make sense in a particular setting (world or region or adventure). Plug the relevant ones into the new adventure.

In the case of a setting-neutral Players Handbook, the DM and the players have a session zero, about what kind of adventure the DM has in mind and what kind characters the players want to play, and they decide what they like together.

Remember, start small. This adventure is just for the next level, or less. The ‘world’ will happen by itself, as new adventures accumulate, and as the players take interest in specific NPCs and places. The players are building the world moreso than the DM. The players weave this world together. When everyone is interacting with eachothers contributions, the collective whole, the world, takes on a life of its own. The world is almost like an extra gamer at the table with its own voice, that no individual DM or player exactly expected.

Actually, it would be nice if one can literally cut-and-paste the setting-neutral rules document, digitally. Then cherry pick the relevant rules for a new adventure document, or oppositely delete a particular section that would be inappropriate for this particular new setting. Meanwhile, add a sentence here and paragraph there to flesh out narrative context, how it fits, as inspiration happens.

Have u ever told a player that their favorite class or race or archetype is born allowed in the game?

Does not always go over well

 

[Yaarel]

Have u ever told a player that their favorite class or race or archetype is born allowed in the game?

Does not always go over well

Normally, I soft ban. If someone really wants to play something, I make an effort to try figure how it or something like it might make sense in the setting. The character might be rare or even unique, but so far the player gets the character concept that they want close enough. Actually, the tension seems to help the player get a better feel for what the setting is about.



The only time, I have ever had a bad experience was when I realized I had handed out magic items that were too powerful, and the game was breaking down, mechanically and narratively. I explained what the problem was and asked the players if they would let me take the items back from them. And they were like, No way, we love our magic items! So, by DM fiat, I said, a rustmonster comes by and corrodes the items. I made such a stupid mistake, and I can still remember their disappointment years later. Of course, now I am much more careful about players investing themselves in their characters.

 

[Yaarel]

Actually, I was at the other side of that too. I went from 4e to a 3e game. The DM hated at-will cantrips, and I wouldnt play a game without them. In the process of negotiation, I ended up with an Elf Cleric who revered Light, with a bow that shot ‘arrows’ that were shafts of light. (Think of the Ranger in the D&D cartoon.) The damage was exactly like what it would be if an Elf was shooting a bow, except it was light if that ever mattered, and no arrows would run out. The solution was close enough to standard 3e Elf Cleric that the DM was happy with it, and close enough to magical cantrip that I was happy with it. Great character.

 

[cbwjm]

Because I suspect you specifically may have given the idea some thought...how would you look at the existing Subclasses through the M:tG Mana wheel, and what gaps do you think there might be to fill from that angle per Class?

I have given it some thought. I think many of the subclasses naturally fall into one of the 5 colours, some might be better suited to multicolour, and a few others I think could be fit a few of the 5 colours. I'll throw out some highlights of where I think specific subclasses would fit.

Barbarian I'd go with red (berserker, storm herald), green (totem), white (ancestral, zealot), black (zealot). Storm herald I think would at times be red/blue since anything dealing with the oceans or with cold fits blue not red.

Cleric domains fit well across all of the colours. Arcana at first thought sounds like it would fit blue but I think that most of its abilities fit white. If I had to pick a single colour, it would be white but if I could pick two then it would be white/blue. White has a lot of effects that end enchantments of exile creatures so it seems to fit with the main abilities of the subclass.

Most druids I would make green. A druid of the mountains could easily be red or more likely green/red based primarily in the spells it gains and might focus more on elemental spells over plant based spells. Circle of spores was made for the Golgari so that sits in green/black.

Eldritch knights focus on abjuration and evocation puts it in red/white but if you are allowed to mess with the schools, then I could see this subclass going into any colour except maybe green. Battlemasters focus on tactics and manoeuvres makes me think white more than anything but I'm sure it could be built around most colours.

While DnD dragons don't quite fit the MtG dragons, I would still place the draconic sorcerer squarely in red. It's the colour which has the most dragons with only a few existing outside it. Wild magic also seems to fit red with its unpredictability.

Warlocks seem pretty obvious where they would fit, demons are only in black so they get fiend pact, archfey fit in green, great old one though could be colourless if you somehow drew upon the power of the eldrazi. I think that would make for an interesting character. Celestial would be white and directly oppose the fiend pact warlock.

Wizard is mostly blue (divination, illusion, enchantment, transmutation) with some red (evoker, though focusing on cold spells and you fall into blue), black (necromancy), and white (abjuration). Conjuration, I think, could fit any of the colours. The subclass does have some teleport abilities, along with a lot of spells that do the same which is definitely one of blues things, but the focus on summoning in MtG would see me placing conjuration in any of the colours except green which would lean towards druid instead.

One subclass that I think would need to be made would be a wizard subclass for black that deals with enchantments. I believe they gave it the name dementia magic in the Dominaria set and it essentially deals with fear, and messing with the mind (through spells that cause you to discard, often hurting you when you do). The current enchantment subclass deals more with charms so fits blue more than black. Although you can just use a draconic sorcerer, I think that a dragon domain for clerics might fit well, or maybe it should be a druid circle, I've seen a few dragon shamans in various sets that I think this would fit well in a MtG game. I'd also like to see sorcerer subclasses focused on control of fire or cold. Chandra is a fire mage who I think might fit sorcerer more than wizard and there are a lot of blue spells that seem to deal with freezing and locking down creatures.

Other than that, MtG is so large that it's hard to think up any more specific subclasses. I wouldn't mind seeing another wizard subclass around being an artificer, more because Urza was one but he was also a powerful mage and the artificer being a half caster seems so limiting to how I imagine him. But then he's also an NPC so maybe that doesn't matter and he can just be built however the DM wants.

That was more written than expected.

 

[Remathilis]

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

I'll have to look at it more throughly, but it kinda felt ovate at first blush.

 

[Blue]

I mean, not to start another contentious off-topic argument, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the 5e multiclass rules are not good for representing any specific character archetype...

There are plenty of character concepts that aren't archetypes. If you picture an index card as possible character concepts, and then scatter a few coins on it to represent the concepts the classes can mechanically cover. There are some areas with overlapping coins where more than one class can cover the concept, such as the archer. Then there's area between the coins - multiclassing can bridge those gaps between coins. Sometimes the concept is close to point coin and all it takes is a little widening which still staying mostly with the original class. Other times it requires a balance between two or more to cover the concept. We still have the areas between the coins and the edge - things we do not yet have ways to mechanically cover.

because they are based on the similarly dysfunctional 3e multiclassing rules except deliberately, unforgivably worse.

Even rules that 5e handles better on their own, like Extra Attack, are turned into hot garbage when the multiclassing rules are applied to them.

If we want a character concept to function on its own, it has to be designed as its own class or subclass unless and until WotC provides MC/hybrid rules that actually serve their intended purpose.

When you start with "deliberately" it sounds like you are saying they intentionally sabatoged the multiclassing rules. It comes across more passion then reason. Could you provide some backup for that so we know this is a factual conversation and not just a rant?

 

[Blue]

Just looking through my DnD ideas. Whether you want to see them or not, these are some of the subclasses that I've noted down as ideas to explore at some point. Many of them I'm not sure how I would develop and I'm not sure how many I will develop in the future, but I wanted to make sure that I have the ideas noted down just in case.

[Cool class listed removed for brevity]

You have a lot of cool class ideas. I was originally trying not for a "what should we add to 5e" but debating the comment from JC that all archetypes have already been covered. So I'm trying to find out not what we can add to 5e,but what 5e needs to cover classic and modern fantasy archetypes.

Part of the definition of an archetype is that it is recurring is stories and myth. So a good test if something is actually an archetype is to name a character in legend, stories, movies or some other non-D&D source. If someone doesn't spring to mind, for all that it still may be a gap in the classes it is more likely a "D&D-ism" then an archetype.

For example, multiple characters from Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legends of Korra support the idea of an elemental sorcerer. Fionn mac Cumhall from Irish myths may be an example of Master of the Hounds.

Can you suggest characters for your other subclasses?

(Again, this isn't judging them in terms of worthiness, just if they cover a classic archetype that we can't fill with another class.)

 

[Mister-Kent]

To use a musical metaphor, MC to me feels like a musician switching from piano to strumming his guitar constantly, while a new archetype is more like using a key tar. It has elements of both blended together but it's always this new combination of elements instead of constantly switching.

Nothing to add but to applaud this metaphor - it elegantly conveys my own thoughts on the matter!

 

[Undrave]

If someone doesn't spring to mind, for all that it still may be a gap in the classes it is more likely a "D&D-ism" then an archetype.

Speaking of D&Dism there's already quite a few if you ask me... the Wizards focusing on the Schools of Magic (aside from the Illusionist and Necromancer I suppose), the Ranger and even the Cleric.

The 5e Cleric tries to cover both the caster type that was the Invoker in 4e but also the armoured face-smashing-with-a-side-of-holy-magic style of cleric. Maybe an approach similar to the Warlock of mix and match features would have been preferable, so you could pick different domain but have a choice of expressing it as either a specialized caster OR a melee support character. So you could be a Tempest Domain Cleric that specializes in blasting foes with lightning or a Melee version who fights side by side with allies.

Would probably have required the PHB Cleric to have a few more attack Cantrips.

So I think a little D&D-ism is fine, as long as their some D&D related fiction attached to it.

Nothing to add but to applaud this metaphor - it elegantly conveys my own thoughts on the matter!

Thank you!