D&D General What Should Today's Archetypes Be

[Ruin Explorer]

Huh. I assumed it was because of the Kung Fu TV show and the growing popularity of Hong Kong cinema.

My guess would be that if the Remo Williams connection is correct, Remo Williams was inspired by all that.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Huh. I assumed it was because of the Kung Fu TV show and the growing popularity of Hong Kong cinema.

I'm sure that was part of the justification for keeping it around as a class rather than just a one off character. Like the existence of other rangers justifying the Aragorn Ranger class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the people in this discussion are using the word "monk" in different ways. A monastic martial artist (monk) may not be a strong enough trope to merit a character class, but an adventurer who fights effectively without weapons and has semi-magical abilities gained through exemplary training and some version of "inner strength" is a trope that has stood the test of time. The 5e monk class is reasonably close to the latter.

Doesn’t have to be without weapons, but yeah can fight when unarmed for sure. But even the most kung fu inspired version should be effective with weapons as well.

i think most of the current monk stuff would/should go into a ninja type class, running up walls, some elemental abilities, evasion and mobility based defences, disabling strikes, an emphasis on skill over raw power, but i think you could get some good mileage out of merging some monk concepts with the barbarian, some kinda fist fighting boxer, unarmed and unarmoured, take out the evasion aspect of the monk and make them tanky and enduring.

I disagree strongly. The ninja has sole grasp of some abilities, but few if any of them are in the base monk class. Running up walls and moving lightning fast and the like are just “Unarmored master”, not specifically ninja.

Huh. I assumed it was because of the Kung Fu TV show and the growing popularity of Hong Kong cinema.

And you’d be right. The other poster is exaggerating the importance of who first asked for the archetype to be a class, and how tightly the inspiration was drawn vs drawing from the same inspirations as the cited source. And that’s just the first iteration. Every iteration since has been influenced by broader Wuxia and kung fu inspirations.

 

[Stormonu]

For my 54 game, I went with the following. It's sort of a Class/Subclass structure

Arcanist
- Conjurer, Diviner, Enchanter, Evoker, Illusionist, Necromancer, Sorcerer, Transmuter, Witch/Warlock, Wu Jen
Dilettante
- Arcane Warrior, Bard, Noble, Wandering Minstrel
Expert
- Detective, Monk, Renaissance (Wo)man, Runecaster, Sage
Rogue
- Assassin, Burglar, Con Artist, Ninja, Thug
Priest
- Druid, Evangelist, Mystic Hermit, Paladin, Prophet, Shugenja
Warrior
- Berserker, Kensai, Hoplite, Knight, Marshal, Mercenary, Ranger, Samurai, Soldier, Swashbuckler

 

[Minigiant]

I'm sure that was part of the justification for keeping it around as a class rather than just a one off character. Like the existence of other rangers justifying the Aragorn Ranger class.

Without Aragorn the Ranger class would exist.

But it would be every more magical and nature tinged. Likely being the source of Wildshape.

Without Aragorn, the Ranger would like have a choice of

1. Wildshape (Animorphs, Beast Boy, Lycantropes)
2. Animal Companions and Summons (Aquaman, Dar)
3. Animal Senses and Strength (Wolverine, Cheetah, Beast, Killer Croc)
4. Plant Control (Poison Ivy, Swamp Thing)
5. Fey Illusions (changelings, elves)
6. Elemental Control (too many to list)
7. Something else

and the Druid deleted.

Animal, Plant, and Elemental hinted characters are common in fantasy but they are often more warriors than magey.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Monks could only really appear in the 1970s, with a bunch of people obsessed with specifically 1970s martial arts movies.

This jumped out at me. I'm not quibbling with any of your other points... but to me, D&D monks firmly have their roots in Stephen Donaldson's Haruchai/Bloodguard, not cheesy Hong Kong action movies of the 70s.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Wouldn't GURPS become the dominant system then?

No class staightjacks! People build their character in accordance with the fiction!

 

[bedir than]

Without Aragorn the Ranger class would exist.

But it would be every more magical and nature tinged. Likely being the source of Wildshape.

Without Aragorn, the Ranger would like have a choice of

1. Wildshape (Animorphs, Beast Boy, Lycantropes)
2. Animal Companions and Summons (Aquaman, Dar)
3. Animal Senses and Strength (Wolverine, Cheetah, Beast, Killer Croc)
4. Plant Control (Poison Ivy, Swamp Thing)
5. Fey Illusions (changelings, elves)
6. Elemental Control (too many to list)
7. Something else

and the Druid deleted.

Animal, Plant, and Elemental hinted characters are common in fantasy but they are often more warriors than magey.

Would the medieval fantasy game really lean into modern superheroes rather than medieval fantasy?

 

[Minigiant]

Would the medieval fantasy game really lean into modern superheroes rather than medieval fantasy?

Modern Superheroes have superpowers based on Medieval or earlier myths and legends.

So yes.

Even more so since the Archetypes would be based on wants popular today.

 

[overgeeked]

Modern Superheroes have superpowers based on Medieval or earlier myths and legends.

So yes.

Even more so since the Archetypes would be based on wants popular today.

Some do...but a whole lot more do not.