D&D 5E Archetypes and pillar coverage

[brehobit]

We just saw the new rogue archetype, the mastermind. And the first thing that jumped out at me was that it had one full level of stuff that was for use purely out-of-combat (level 9 has only one feature and I'd call it a "ribbon"). And no one seemed to mind or object. But the other rogue archetypes have actually useful (in some cases quite useful) combat powers at level 9.

From a design viewpoint, I was pretty surprised they went this way (especially as the level 9 power is, IMO, pretty lame). But perhaps the level 3 power(s) more than made up for it?

Just curious what others think. Are there other examples like this in the PHB (archetypes that have a only out-of-combat powers)?

 

[MostlyDm]

Away from book, but I think a couple legitimate archetype features of the Old One warlock have no major combat application.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Every archetype, and most of the classes, have a mix of features that are useful in a clear mechanical way, and features that are "ribbons" added for a bit of flavorful decoration but not meant to have a huge impact on the game.

Other rogue archetypes, for instance, include things like Second Story Work, Use Magic Device, the bonus proficiencies of the assassin, and Infiltration Expertise that are largely ribbons in a "typical" D&D campaign.

 

[UnadvisedGoose445]

I think the 3rd level feature is meant to be very potent, especially considering the fact that there may be another rogue in the party.

But having said that, there seem to be other archetypes that are not nearly as combat oriented as their counterparts. Comparing the Fiend pact with that of the Great Old One is a clear example that comes to mind. Lots of fluff and roleplay stuff that is "situational" moreso than directly powerful mid-combat. The Wild Magic Sorcerer seems more about manipulating dice rolls, which can be useful in combat, but also has a lot of random effects that really aren't, especially in comparison with the Dragon Sorcerer. Thief is also a Roguish archetype that focuses a lot less on mid combat power or damage. Using magic items, climbing more, being able to hide (I say this because it is so DM dependent) are all things that are situationally useful at best.

Also, it looks like the Swashbuckler is going to easily compete with the Assassin as THE combat archetype for Rogues. The Mastermind is the guy you want bluffing to the king that has Zone of Truth cast on his court. Or the one you want with a crossbow in the back, shouting out tactical weakpoints. It's nice to have that variety, in my opinion.

 

[Al2O3]

We just saw the new rogue archetype, the mastermind. And the first thing that jumped out at me was that it had one full level of stuff that was for use purely out-of-combat (level 9 has only one feature and I'd call it a "ribbon"). And no one seemed to mind or object. But the other rogue archetypes have actually useful (in some cases quite useful) combat powers at level 9.

Thief level 9 feature is sneaking better (advantage on stealth when moving slowly) and the Assassin feature can make a new identity. I would say that a non-combat feature makes sense, in particular given that this seems to be the political archetype of rogue. I would also consider this archetype the most powerful subclass of any class for my group's main campaign (where my character went without combat for about 10 sessions).

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'd say fighters are in desperate need of an archetype with some non-combat abilities.

 

[brehobit]

I'd say fighters are in desperate need of an archetype with some non-combat abilities.

Agreed. Or more to the point, the current ones could use some love for some non-combat abilities. They aren't really better in combat than other warrior classes but are generally a lot worse out of combat. Of course, I play a fighter a lot...

 

[Saeviomagy]

Agreed. Or more to the point, the current ones could use some love for some non-combat abilities. They aren't really better in combat than other warrior classes but are generally a lot worse out of combat. Of course, I play a fighter a lot...

I agree with this too, but I feel that we're more likely to get new archetypes with a better balance than changes to existing archetypes.

Also try convincing your DM to allow you to take archetypes from difference classes: rogue ones are basically immediately applicable for instance, as are most of the warlock patrons and the transmuter wizard school.

Further afield from that, have a look at http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?470001-Swappable-archetypes

 

[Ainulindalion]

For a lightweight fix for a fighter that's a little more useful outside of combat (we call this Social), see if your DM will let you switch an EK's spellcasting to CHA instead of INT.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'd say fighters are in desperate need of an archetype with some non-combat abilities.

The Mariner gives a climb and swim speed -- that's AMAZING out-of-combat mobility and exploration opportunities right there (plus they can sometimes be used in combat).

Your wish is granted!