It somewhat does so, but by clearly breaking WOTC's own class design guidelines which Mearls described in one of the Happy Hours! Like Mearls's Urban Ranger subclass example in which he had to create some new urban class features for the Ranger class to meet the company's design guidelines, the Thief needs of the same to support a wilderness concept- starting at first level with a variant option (or options) to replace Thieve's Cant
D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e
I accidentally deleted this from my previous response to you Vael. So to be sure that you see it, I am posting this rather than editing my prior post.. The Forgot My Dice website had a series of articles for the month of November 2015 that adapts video game tropes (the link was the index page) including a Blue Mage Sorcerer part 1 and part 2 . It also as a White Mage and a Healadin. Hope it is what you wanted.
Sacrosanct
Legend
I agree with you, except I don’t think the answer is to create more classes. I think the answer was to not make every class have a caster option. Eldritch Knight? That’s just a fighter/wizard multiclass.
But kinda hard to go back and fix that design choice...
FlyingChihuahua
Hero
I can see why they did though, considering Multiclassing is an optional rule and mainly leads to powergaming anyway.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I prefer conceptual Multiclassing via Subclass.
I don't find the Bounty Hunter or the Fighter Dervish oddball.
As for the Archaeologist Rogue, while not appropriate for any campaign that I would run, I don't consider the archaeologist to be oddball either. It would be appropriate for some worlds. There were antiquarians in both 11th century China whom analyzed alleged artifacts. There were also antiquarians in ancient Rome (whom were more like historians than archaeologists). Even before then, there were some rulers that were interested in relics Therefore, it is not unreasonable that someone like them could not go adventuring in search for artifacts in a campaign for their own study or to bring back artifacts if appropriate for a culture. Then there is there is the rise of Antiquarians during the Renaissance, I could definitely see an archaeologist Rogue as an adventuring antiquarian type during this time.
Finally, I don't think a Nymph blood sorcerer is oddball either since several mythological Greek characters had a parent whom was a nymph. In some tales, the sorceress, Circe, was either a nymph or the daughter of Hecate. However, in some others tales, her mother is an Oceanid nymph (and her father the god Helios). It is to me, therefore, far less oddball to have a half nymph character for D&D than drawing on X-men and many other characters from comic books, much anime, Star Wars, etc (and, before anyone thinks otherwise, I like like my superhero comics, anime, and Star Wars. I like playing/running various superhero games for comic book heroes and anime inspired campaigns as well as having played d6 Star Wars rpgs).
Last edited:
Ratskinner
Adventurer
Hey, I hear you. I would've with a more 2e-style approach...most of today's classes would have been subclasses:
Fighter: Battlemaster, Zealot (spell-less Paladin), Ranger (spell-less), Rager (Barbarian is a background/race), Leader (spell-less bard, warlord, whatever), etc.
Magic User: Warlock, Wizard, Sorcerer, Psion, Priest, Druid
Rogue: Acrobat, Assassin, Thief, Scout, Monk
....and I'm not even sure you need all of those.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Bit what would they do to make a whole Subclass? Just take the Archeologist Background form ToA, and slap it on a Thief. Bounty Hunter is also a Background in the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide available to any Class.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
bounty hunter and archeologist does seem more like a background to me. Archeologist especially seems to fit a fair few classes that I wouldn't want to make a specific subclass just for one. I could see it as a subclass for rogue, bard, wizard, or even an artificer digging up the past.
Elsa: Elemental sorcerer that isn't a re-fluffed draconic. C'mon, we want to get more girls into D&D, right? Actually I think there's still a ton of untapped potential in both Sorcerer and Warlock.
Jedi: Yeah. I went there. I don't know what this would be a subclass of; I'm thinking once the psionics stuff comes out, it will fit in there somewhere.
Clerics of Sune (love/beauty domain) and Tharizdun (darkness/destruction domain): I'm not the kind of person that needs a bazillion cleric domains, but I think there are still at least 3-4 good ones that remain untapped. Heck, why is there no "Agriculture" or "Fertility" domain?
Hercules, etc.: Really Really Strong Dude. A lot of warriors of legend were just stupid strong. I feel like the Brute fighter (with a better name) could represent this well. Thug rogue is also a good idea. And, for completeness, Strength-based monk, because a lot of martial artists are RIPPED but Str is pretty useless for a monk while Dex is essential.
Jedi: Yeah. I went there. I don't know what this would be a subclass of; I'm thinking once the psionics stuff comes out, it will fit in there somewhere.
Clerics of Sune (love/beauty domain) and Tharizdun (darkness/destruction domain): I'm not the kind of person that needs a bazillion cleric domains, but I think there are still at least 3-4 good ones that remain untapped. Heck, why is there no "Agriculture" or "Fertility" domain?
Hercules, etc.: Really Really Strong Dude. A lot of warriors of legend were just stupid strong. I feel like the Brute fighter (with a better name) could represent this well. Thug rogue is also a good idea. And, for completeness, Strength-based monk, because a lot of martial artists are RIPPED but Str is pretty useless for a monk while Dex is essential.
