5E Archetypes to add to 5e

Vael

Adventurer
I think there's not too much more space when talking subclasses, except for Psionics. That'll open up a large area, as, aside from the Psion/Mystic itself, virtually every existing class could conceivably have a Psionic subclass.

But aside from that, the other large untapped well, and I'm not sure how to tackle it, is Monstrous PCs. Things like playable Vampires or Lycanthropes. Or more exotic races like Gorgons.

Although, here's a few subclasses I've been working on:

Circle of Stars Druid: Basically an Astrology and Divination focused Druid. I'd grant them access to a few Cleric divinations like Augury, but they need a bit more of a niche. These are kinda the mystics that read the stars for omens.

Brawler Fighter or Barbarian: Give non-Monks some access to unarmed combat. Grappler-wrestler combat style.

Blue Mage Sorcerer: This Sorcerer has the ability to mimic and copy spells they see cast.
 

ccooke

Explorer
Heh.

You know when you make a joke, and then realise that the core concept works as a serious take?

A while back, I made a joke about a warlock patreon to one of my groups. I really should finish off playtesting the serious version, which is a warlock beholden to a collective of bored minor fey, giving power in return for entertainment.
 

Kyvin

Villager
As others have mentioned, plus more:

Barbarian: one that changes into a bear/lycanthrope type thing when raging.

Fighter: some kind of weapon master

Rogue: dagger master
 

gyor

Adventurer
Rogue: Bounty Hunter, Archeologist, Surgeon

Sorcerer: Nymph Blooded

Warlock: Temporal Pact

Fighter: Deverish

Wizard: Nightmares, Red Wizard, Royal/court Wizard, Alienist.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Rogue: Bounty Hunter, Archeologist, Surgeon

Sorcerer: Nymph Blooded

Warlock: Temporal Pact

Fighter: Deverish

Wizard: Nightmares
These are All oddball and niche, and I fully don't grok several. Not saying they are bad ideas, but this does illustrate Crawford's point.
 
Looking at a list of character archetypes (Warning! TVTropes link - time sink ahead!), it seems like there are lots and lots of things D&D could add.

Whether or not they should is , of course, a different question.

I would like to see classes specifically for the dumb muscle archetype (like the recent Brute fighter subclass) and the sidekick (as in a class that is designed specifically to be support for another PC).
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
Inquisitor would be nice to see, either as a Paladin that gets something inquisitorial as their Oath ability or a Rogue that gets divine casting.

I'd like to see a Rogue that excels at using traps and adventuring gear of various sorts. I'm thinking they excel at improvised attacks with thrown weapons (including the attacks made with flasks of oil or holy water, etc) and can also activate things like caltrops or ball bearings as part of an thrown improvised weapon attack.

I'd like a Warden subclass for the Barbarian or Druid. Their are some places where this sort of already exists but typically at higher levels where the terrain control ability is not quite as useful. Would be nice to see some of it at lower levels.

I'd like to see a sort of Holy Defender Paladin that doesn't have divine smite but instead has something to protect allies in some way. I don't think the 4e defender aura is the right choice but we do have Sentinel in this edition which is similar in some ways. I also think something akin to Divine Challenge/Sanction/Aura could actually work in 5E but it would need some tweaks, like giving a saving throw and probably only applying a penalty (similar to the Barbarian path that has a "mark").

Spell-less ranger as some others have mentioned would be nice. I'd also like Ranger's favored terrain / favored enemy to be about abilities that are useful when engaging in that terrain / against that enemy but not strictly tied to facing those challenges. Like getting a swim speed if you're from a coastal area and turning a regular hit into a critical hit if it's reducing a creatures HP to 0 (enemy specialization: zombies). I also think the Wanderer from Adventures in Middle Earth is a good look at how to do a ranger well though it's version of "favored terrain" is even more specific than vanilla 5E, being regions in that world. I still think it's a better approach than what we currently have, though, even if it's not my preference. Bit more work for the DM, though, especially in homebrew worlds.

While I think some might think a "witch" is already playable, I don't like the options. Warlocks don't feel right as the type of witches I'm thinking of. Wizards might work with a subclass. Druids exist but they have wild shape as a default ability, and it doesn't quite fit what I'm thinking of either. What I'm thinking of is the the sort of witches that brew potions, enchant charms, and fly on brooms just as much as they cast spells or rituals. Somewhere between the witches in the LOZ and the witches in Miyazaki films, and some other anime.
 

Twiggly the Gnome

Adventurer
While I think some might think a "witch" is already playable, I don't like the options. Warlocks don't feel right as the type of witches I'm thinking of. Wizards might work with a subclass. Druids exist but they have wild shape as a default ability, and it doesn't quite fit what I'm thinking of either. What I'm thinking of is the the sort of witches that brew potions, enchant charms, and fly on brooms just as much as they cast spells or rituals. Somewhere between the witches in the LOZ and the witches in Miyazaki films, and some other anime.
I think the best way to do that, in existing rules, would be an Alchemist Artificer that uses a Herbalism Kit as their tool-implement. Maybe a custom bonus spell list to make it more rustic.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I think the best way to do that, in existing rules, would be an Alchemist Artificer that uses a Herbalism Kit as their tool-implement. Maybe a custom bonus spell list to make it more rustic.
I think the Artificer, being brand new and having only three Subclasses, has a lot of potential room for growth, though mostly weird archetypes;

  • an Herbalist witch-y Shaman-y Artificer, focus on Herbalism Kit
  • A chaos magic type.who uses game sets for casting
  • A Runemage who imbues Runes into items using their tools
  • really feel every tool type could be spun into a Subclass story.
 
I think the Artificer, being brand new and having only three Subclasses, has a lot of potential room for growth, though mostly weird archetypes;

  • an Herbalist witch-y Shaman-y Artificer, focus on Herbalism Kit
  • A chaos magic type.who uses game sets for casting
  • A Runemage who imbues Runes into items using their tools
  • really feel every tool type could be spun into a Subclass story.
I still want a stoneshaper/jeweler type artificer, although that might be because I think rocks and gems are neat.
 
These are All oddball and niche, and I fully don't grok several. Not saying they are bad ideas, but this does illustrate Crawford's point.
I think it more illustrates the capacity for people to miss the point.

There are a couple of important archetypes left uncovered before we need to resort to silliness - not many, but a couple.

The shapeshifting barbarian and druidic bard have a deep basis in Myth. A witchfinder paladin has a strong basis in history. A Chaos Cleric and Dragon Warlock arise from asymmetries within existing subclasses.
 

Pauln6

Explorer
I want more love for shadow magic, particularly a shadow pact Warlock and some shadow invocations plus the shadowdancer Rogue. More effort to replicate a Warlord would be nice, even if more feat support for existing Warlord light subclasses.
 
I want more love for shadow magic, particularly a shadow pact Warlock.
There was a Raven Queen warlock UA, but it didn't make the cut. Perhaps a bit to specific? The Hexblade has ties to the Shadowfell in it's lore and a couple of it's abilities - you don't have to build them as a gish.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
While talking about the most recent UA, Jeremy Crawford said they have covered most of the standard D&D tropes at this point in the editions life. In a discussion about that UA here it seemed many disagreed with that statement.

So, what archetypes do you think needs some subclass support to play in 5e? What's missing that you'd like to see that is a wide gap, not just a small niche that would never be considered at many tables.

If possible, give an example character from a movie, novel, police report, or wherever you get your inspiration. Something that a new player might come into the game going "I want to build a character like X!", and we want to make sure D&D doesn't let them down.

I'm trying to focus on concept and narrative, not mechanics. For example there are plenty of classes from earlier editions that don't exist but a character of a similar concept can be built even if the underlying mechanics differ.

Also, I'll say it here so that we don't need to have the thread get into a huge discussion on it: Warlord.
They could start by at least putting in the other subclasses from Ravnica. We got robbed!

What they should also consider is consolidating all of the class options for PCs and putting it in the one and same book. Without stuff for DMs.
 
They could start by at least putting in the other subclasses from Ravnica. We got robbed!

What they should also consider is consolidating all of the class options for PCs and putting it in the one and same book. Without stuff for DMs.
They can easily be bought individually for small change on D&D Beyond.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
I have this fantastic invention called a printer.

I would rather a new book contained new stuff.
I have this fantastic invention called the greatest hits. And a fantastic word called consolidation.

If I am not buying them on D&D Beyond how am I getting them to a printer?

Have the book contain errata. I would also like new books with new stuff, but I also think a book with all PC options would be useful.
 

Advertisement

Top