D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I mean, /Standard/ D&D tropes sets the bar. That's the big 4 and maybe a few other things that were well-established before WotC even took over the property. The 5e PH, alone, covered most of the standard D&D Tropes.

Can you do a band-aid cleric, meatshield fighter, trapfodder rogue, and all-powerful wizard (Elminster or Mordenkainen or the like) in 5e? Yep. Standard D&D PC tropes covered! For bonus points, throw in ironically-annoying high-CHA Bards and Paladins, hippie Druids, raging magic-hating barbarians, skulking assassins, two-bit-Aragorn/magical-Grizzly-Adams Rangers and orientalist Monks. And, you still get 3e Warlocks & Sorcerers on top of that.

...really, 5e goes far beyond the Standard D&D Tropes.

Also, I'll say it here so that we don't need to have the thread get into a huge discussion on it: Warlord.

A martial class with mechanical support for what most martial heroes in myth/legend/literature - and even history - were actually good at?

Soooo NOT-Standard-D&D-Trope. Completely off-topic, really.

 

[Guest 6801328]

A martial class with mechanical support for what most martial heroes in myth/legend/literature - and even history - were actually good at?

Soooo NOT-Standard-D&D-Trope.

But....


....



....oh, never mind.

 

[Blue]

Sorcerer
Abhorrent/Aberrant - H. P. lovecraft/far realms inspired.

And this just came up in the most recent UA article, along with an ancient of the deeps Warlock.

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-AberrantLurk.pdf

 

[Leatherhead]

And this just came up in the most recent UA article, along with an ancient of the deeps Warlock.

Coincidence? Maybe.

Are we sure Blue isn't a Thrall?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In 4e, hexblades didn't just get generic magical weapons, but got specific magical weapons, and I think that is what MM was going for in terms of


If they were to do something like this, I would prefer they combine the bladelock, melee-focused cleric, and paladin into a magical melee class (maybe crusader since champion is a fighter in D&D and a similar class in PF), the non melee-focused clerics and tomelocks into a separate caster class, and the chainlock become part of a pet class, but more focused on the 4e idea of warlock's ally

I’d much rather none of that, and make the cleric more distinct and interesting, and mostly leave the warlock alone.

And this just came up in the most recent UA article, along with an ancient of the deeps Warlock.

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-AberrantLurk.pdf

Sacred Night that warlock is cool!

Still not as cool as the 4e Star Pact Warlock, but it’s close!

 

[Yaarel]

The archetype of the nonpolytheistic Cleric is somewhat available, via Xanathars Guide.

However, this freedom of the player to choose the religion of their Cleric character concept, remains hamstrung. Also the core rules still lack freedom to choose.

 

[Yaarel]

The Cleric class is weird in the D&D tradition.

Essentially it is a healbot with lots of staying power (defenses, hit points, etcetera) but with weak offensive powers (sub par weapons, sub par spells).

Its only ‘flavor’ is problematic: the baking of a specific multiverse setting into its mechanics.

In other words, the Cleric actually lacks its own character concept, and the setting flavor replaces it.



Aspects of the Cleric traditions that could be useful are:

• gish − full caster with melee combat survivability
• domains − ability to choose a thematic set of spells
• healer − access to healing spells and features as one of the domains

Flavorwise, both the Warlock and Cleric can derive their powers from powerful creatures.

The Warlock makes a ‘bargain’, a pact, to gain powers. This is its distinctive character concept.

Perhaps what could give the Cleric its own character concept is, it gains its powers from a specific spiritual community.

The themes of the specific spiritual community, then determine the spell list.

Potentially, the Cleric is the most ‘linguistic’ character concept. The powers come from the semiotic language of symbols, ideals, and themes.

Ultimately, the character concept is the magical power of words, in the language that a specific spiritual community speaks.

If so, the player needs the freedom to choose from a diversity spiritual communities, or pioneer a new spiritual community, in order to give the player latitude to personalize ones own unique character concept.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's why we have the DMs Guild... so that someone who feels this should be an option can design it and make it and sell it to people, while the WotC designers do other stuff. There's no need for them to do every single possible idea for people, especially if some of those ideas will only be useful to several dozen folks.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Perhaps what could give the Cleric its own character concept is, it gains its powers from a specific spiritual community.

The themes of the specific spiritual community, then determine the spell list.

Potentially, the Cleric is the most ‘linguistic’ character concept. The powers come from the semiotic language of symbols, ideals, and themes.

Ultimately, the character concept is the magical power of words, in the language that a specific spiritual community speaks.

I could see the ''cleric'' taking the chassis and theme of the ''bard'' instead of the crusading men of gods. Something like a True Namer, using words of creation and tapping in the communal bond created by emotions and common tales to shape the world world around them. Let the player decide if their character use this power to further the agenda of a higher power or a philosophy/belief system.

 

[Yaarel]

I could see the ''cleric'' taking the chassis and theme of the ''bard'' instead of the crusading men of gods.

Something like a True Namer, using words of creation and tapping in the communal bond created by emotions and common tales to shape the world world around them.

Let the player decide if their character use this power to further the agenda of a higher power or a philosophy/belief system.

Yeah, I can see the connection between Cleric and Bard.

I feel the main difference is, the Bard is an individual, whereas the Cleric is a collective.

The concept of the Bard is being an artist, a unique individual who authors and creates new realities.

Even when the concept of the Bard is being a shaman, it is still more like artist. Even in the prehistoric role of a shaman (including the historical Celtic bard), the shaman is a unique individual who reinvents and innovates. Essentially, the community is the audience of the shaman. The shaman specifically includes both the local human population and the surrounding nature spirits as parts within the wider community, literally preforming for both of them. Because of the shamans connection to different groups, the shaman can act as a mediator to help resolve any disputes between these different groups. One can see this role today among artists, popculture icons who can bring different groups together by means of their art, because of a broader point of view, of a wider community.

In any case, D&D seems on safe ground when emphasizing the flavor of the Bard as an artist, an author, an individual. The community is the audience.

By contrast, the Cleric is a collective. The Cleric takes on the identity of a specific community, its language, its symbols, its customs, its point-of-view. The community takes on a life of its own, a unique forceful reality of a unique point-of-view. The Cleric gains power from this ‘meta’. The meta is something like the Platonic realm of ideals, or ideas. The Cleric performs ceremonies and instructions to transmit this ‘meta’ to new adherents, who become able to enter this unique worldview. The adherents are literally entering into a new reality that is fabricated out of language. This meta is forceful and has power to do things.