• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

5E Archetypes to add to 5e

Undrave

Explorer
Shadow spells would definitely be nice.

I think the main thing truly missing that’s a big archetype is a Summoner. Not sometime rarchetype that has access to a bit of summoning, but a set of options for focusing on being a summoner. Maybe that looks like a horde-bringer on one class, while another class gets a sub that focuses on bringing forth one really big bastard at a time, and the class gets unique spells at high levels that bring real big stuff into the world for just a moment, manifesting awesome weal for the PCs or woe for the enemy.
I take it you're not satisfied by the Shepherd druid? Or maybe you'd like a different take on the concept?
 
I think some of y'all are confusing "archetype" with "class that has the following abilities". A lot of the stuff presented can be covered with existing classes, subclasses, ability (skill) checks, and backgrounds; and multi-classing if need be.
"Impossible to do with MCing/Backgrounds/Feats" is not a bar archetypes need to clear. Most extant archetypes - and arguably a few classes, don't clear it, as it is. Ranger is a whole class, but Fighter/Druid, Outlander background could be touted as covering it in concept. Bards could have been covered by casters (sorcerer or warlock, since they're CHA based) with an Entertainer or Charlatan background, MC'd with a bit of fighter for the Valor bard, or a bit of Rogue for Expertise. Paladin? Cleric/Fighter.

Archetypes like the EK & AT just scream "multi-classed-to-Wizard." Really, arguably, some specific archetypes exist only so that traditional PCs, like the elven fighter/magic-user, are playable even with MCing turned off.
 

Undrave

Explorer
"Impossible to do with MCing/Backgrounds/Feats" is not a bar archetypes need to clear. Most extant archetypes - and arguably a few classes, don't clear it, as it is. Ranger is a whole class, but Fighter/Druid, Outlander background could be touted as covering it in concept. Bards could have been covered by casters (sorcerer or warlock, since they're CHA based) with an Entertainer or Charlatan background, MC'd with a bit of fighter for the Valor bard, or a bit of Rogue for Expertise. Paladin? Cleric/Fighter.

Archetypes like the EK & AT just scream "multi-classed-to-Wizard." Really, arguably, some specific archetypes exist only so that traditional PCs, like the elven fighter/magic-user, are playable even with MCing turned off.
Plus, a lot of those 'MC-like' subclass have features that make them feel unique, like the Arcane Trickster's Mage Hands related feature. And like you mention, they make those archetypes available if MC and Feats are not allowed.
 

Vael

Adventurer
I take it you're not satisfied by the Shepherd druid? Or maybe you'd like a different take on the concept?
I was initially underwhelmed, but I've seen a Shepherd in action, and they are quite impressive. That said, most of their summoning is via the Conjure spells, and the optimal way is generally lots / swarms of creatures. I'm looking for the Pokemon Trainer style Summoner that focuses on a single pet and controls them in battle.
 
I think they could do a druid subclass similar to the circle of land, but focused on specific "guardians of the land" monsters that could be summoned (or maybe wildshaped into, I flip back and forth). rather than just being a druid with some extra spell choices.
 

Ashrym

Explorer
"Impossible to do with MCing/Backgrounds/Feats" is not a bar archetypes need to clear. Most extant archetypes - and arguably a few classes, don't clear it, as it is. Ranger is a whole class, but Fighter/Druid, Outlander background could be touted as covering it in concept. Bards could have been covered by casters (sorcerer or warlock, since they're CHA based) with an Entertainer or Charlatan background, MC'd with a bit of fighter for the Valor bard, or a bit of Rogue for Expertise. Paladin? Cleric/Fighter.

Archetypes like the EK & AT just scream "multi-classed-to-Wizard." Really, arguably, some specific archetypes exist only so that traditional PCs, like the elven fighter/magic-user, are playable even with MCing turned off.
That's a rather arbitrary stance. The archetypes exist whether you, in your opinion, decided where the bar sits or not. ;-)

I don't actually completely disagree, btw. Many existing classes or subclasses could have been implemented the same way or in different ways. It's still just a difference of what is an archetype to what is a feature someone wants to use to represent an archetype. I see that as separate (and related) discussion on how to implement the archetypes better; not whether they can be created.

The archetypes can be created. There's room for discussion on how to improve that as well. Not everyone will agree to what extent this needs done and why it's really a separate topic.

When we were going through the playtest, the question on whether the class was valid as a class instead of a subtype was whether or not the class represented multiple archetypes that would fall under that class. Bards have multiple related archetypes in history and mythology. That's why they got a class. The same with rangers. I think paladins were pushing it and unnecessary but here they are anyway. ;-)
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
I take it you're not satisfied by the Shepherd druid? Or maybe you'd like a different take on the concept?
I like it very much, actually. It does a wonderful job of representing a horde bringer druidic summoner. I'd like to see at least one other class do a good job of that as well, because Druid isn't exactly my go-to for summoner, thematically.

As for the "summon a big bastard and let it wail on things", more spells could do it, but I'd prefer a subclass with unique mechanics that really dovetail with controlling a single big thing. A druid might burn wild shape uses to bring forth a great guardian, or a warlock might get an even more improved find familiar, that stacks in benefits with Pact of The Chain but can be used with any Boon. A Bard Fey Beast Tamer might choose a Fey creature that acts like a familiar but turned up to 11 and has cool ways to boost it using Bardic Inspiration Dice.

ALso, a feat for improving summoning, and spells that specifically make summoned or controlled creatures stronger would be nice, and I'd go out of my way to ensure that they work well with familiars and ranger beast companions as well as any new archetypes.

Then I'd add in several level 6 or greater summoning spells that create a mighty effect that is summoning themed, like an angelic chorus that heals all allies and removes negative effects, and no damage can be dealt until the chorus leaves except to fiends and undead (which combines in fun ways with AoE spells if you're fighting such creatures, since you don't have to worry about friendly fire), or the new UA warlock's thing where they summon their patron's toothy maw into the fray.
 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
When we were going through the playtest, the question on whether the class was valid as a class instead of a subtype was whether or not the class represented multiple archetypes that would fall under that class. Bards have multiple related archetypes in history and mythology. That's why they got a class. The same with rangers. I think paladins were pushing it and unnecessary but here they are anyway. ;-)
The Paladin is a great example of when a general design goal needs to compromise for a specific thing that needs to be in the game.

But also, the Green Night and the Avenger and the classic Knight in Shining Armor are good expressions of the Paladin that they did a great job of representing in the PHB. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The class works extremely well and adds a lot to the game, so they were right.
 

Ashrym

Explorer
The Paladin is a great example of when a general design goal needs to compromise for a specific thing that needs to be in the game.

But also, the Green Night and the Avenger and the classic Knight in Shining Armor are good expressions of the Paladin that they did a great job of representing in the PHB. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. The class works extremely well and adds a lot to the game, so they were right.
I think that actually demonstrates the point that an archetype can exist in other ways, but can be improved going beyond that, tbh. I can make any of those without the paladin. Since the paladin made the cut I would use it.

Paladin isn't the only class I view that way. I could play the basic game and still make a lot of archetypes out of those 4 classes. I always start with what I envision, then look to see how I can make that happen with what I have before introducing new elements. I can definitely make any of a variety of bards without the bard class and don't need a sorcerer and a warlock to create either archetype.

The only difference is in adding mechanics.
 
When we were going through the playtest, the question on whether the class was valid as a class instead of a subtype was whether or not the class represented multiple archetypes that would fall under that class.
In retrospect, I don't believe it was. I mean, that was the party line, but if it had been the case we wouldn't have seen a Ranger or Bard or Sorcerer. Druid would likely have been a nature domain cleric (and I'm a fan of Druids, so that's not a dig, it's just I admit the concept is narrow compared to fighter or magic-user or priest).
Really, logically, we could've done with only 3 classes if the litmus test was really multiple archetypes.
 

Ashrym

Explorer
In retrospect, I don't believe it was. I mean, that was the party line, but if it had been the case we wouldn't have seen a Ranger or Bard or Sorcerer. Druid would likely have been a nature domain cleric (and I'm a fan of Druids, so that's not a dig, it's just I admit the concept is narrow compared to fighter or magic-user or priest).
Really, logically, we could've done with only 3 classes if the litmus test was really multiple archetypes.
The basis for the class is Orion or the Huntresses of Diana. People were pointing to shamanistic hunters and beast handlers to demonstrate differences. The we got hunters and beast masters in a shamanistic warrior class.

Bards can be tribal shamans, roguish minstrels, the Celtic keepers of customary law, the Bard's Tale bard, the Greek warrior poet, the Polynesian kahuna, the skald, the court jester, the story teller, and more.

If I want to recreate Hoichi from The Tale of the Heike that's getting into another archetype of bards as we move into Asian mythologies.

Pythagoras is different from Taliesin is different from Hoichi is different from a court jester or herald. The class represents a lot in history and mythology. It's easy enough to argue those an be created in other ways but notable legendary bards and different types of bards paved the way for the class towing the party line.

It's the fluff that doesn't represent as much, and that's the easiest thing to change. 5e has it's typical fluff for every class but anyone can match the correct fluff for their character in their history and description.

EDIT: A one class system that builds through options is possible. So is a two class (spell caster / not spell caster) system. That doesn't feel like D&D, and I think the iconic classes ended up mattering just as much as justifying them. ;-)
 
Last edited:

Undrave

Explorer
I was initially underwhelmed, but I've seen a Shepherd in action, and they are quite impressive. That said, most of their summoning is via the Conjure spells, and the optimal way is generally lots / swarms of creatures. I'm looking for the Pokemon Trainer style Summoner that focuses on a single pet and controls them in battle.
I like it very much, actually. It does a wonderful job of representing a horde bringer druidic summoner. I'd like to see at least one other class do a good job of that as well, because Druid isn't exactly my go-to for summoner, thematically.

As for the "summon a big bastard and let it wail on things", more spells could do it, but I'd prefer a subclass with unique mechanics that really dovetail with controlling a single big thing. A druid might burn wild shape uses to bring forth a great guardian, or a warlock might get an even more improved find familiar, that stacks in benefits with Pact of The Chain but can be used with any Boon. A Bard Fey Beast Tamer might choose a Fey creature that acts like a familiar but turned up to 11 and has cool ways to boost it using Bardic Inspiration Dice.

ALso, a feat for improving summoning, and spells that specifically make summoned or controlled creatures stronger would be nice, and I'd go out of my way to ensure that they work well with familiars and ranger beast companions as well as any new archetypes.

Then I'd add in several level 6 or greater summoning spells that create a mighty effect that is summoning themed, like an angelic chorus that heals all allies and removes negative effects, and no damage can be dealt until the chorus leaves except to fiends and undead (which combines in fun ways with AoE spells if you're fighting such creatures, since you don't have to worry about friendly fire), or the new UA warlock's thing where they summon their patron's toothy maw into the fray.
So a bit like Lana's Summoning Gate from Hyrule Warriors?

 

doctorbadwolf

Adventurer
Really, logically, we could've done with only 3 classes if the litmus test was really multiple archetypes.
That’s backward. If a concept is popular, has history in dnd, and can support multiple archetypes, it got to be a class (except the Warlord, alchemist, and psion).
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Feels like there's a lack of 'Smart' archetypes. Unless you're using Wizard spells you basically have no reason to invest in INT and, like it or not, mechanical support is always gonna be a factor for a majority of players.
Ringing a bell indeed.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There was also an intelligence based fighter thread started by @Garthanos recently, but it was focused on 4e.

The Spanish Circle is a great basis for an intelligence fighter. Within x range, you get certain benefits against your enemies, can trick them to move into disadvantaged position, and get defensive benefits based on Int.
I put @Tony Vargas as credit for the concept but when I read up on it, and tried developing on it well it worked surprisingly well a multiple levels (even the defenderish tough guy angle in what seems like a duelist flavor base). If you want to do a D&D set with a "renaissance-like" fencing masters you could have it alongside the rogue duelists and well the flavor is quite solid even if the balance dynamic should be different for duels between the two.
 

Undrave

Explorer
It's not a regular archetype and it's pretty out there... but I'd love a Bard College of the Gourmet :p

Just stealing the concept of Gourmet Hunters from HunterXHunter

Gourmet Hunter (グルメハンター, Gurume Hantā; or 美び食しょくハンター, Bishoku Hantā—lit. "Gastronomy Hunter") is a type of Hunter whose goals are: to travel the world in search of rare cuisine/exotic foodstuffs and to find and collect rare ingredients customarily obtainable only in remote, inhospitable places. Hunters of this type are great connoisseurs of culinary culture, including related techniques, and usually have well-developed and/or demanding palates in conjunction with a voracious appetite, especially for new dining experiences. Often being prominent world-class chefs, they focus on creating new delicacies and dishes which reflect their own artistry and sophistication; bringing to life the flavors of the hardly acquirable ingredients that they have obtained, by using new and creative styles of cooking recipes.

Secondarily, they are frequently called on to chase and capture poachers.
Don't tell me that doesn't sound like a D&D adventurer?
 

Greg K

Adventurer
It's not a regular archetype and it's pretty out there... but I'd love a Bard College of the Gourmet :p

Just stealing the concept of Gourmet Hunters from HunterXHunter

Don't tell me that doesn't sound like a D&D adventurer?
Circa 2002 to 2004, a player in my campaign had a halfling Barbarian with lots of skill in Cooking. His family ran an inn, and he joined the party to travel to other lands for new recipes he could bring back home. During the party's travels, he acquired a reputation as a chef that preceded him. As a result of this reputation, the party gained an audience with a king, but he also found himself challenged to cook-offs on a handful of occasions.
 

Advertisement

Top