D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Tony Vargas]

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]

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. ;-)

 

[Undrave]

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]

So a bit like Lana's Summoning Gate from Hyrule Warriors?

A bit, sure! Mix that with the summoning from both Summoner games, and throw in a much more magical and much more powerful pet in a pet (sub)class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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]

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

Never happening.

 

[Garthanos]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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.