D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Undrave]

Oh, I thought you meant a Dwarf who's, like, a complete a tosser.

They could be, if they're a Dwarven Dwarf Tosser.

 

[Yaarel]

In theory you could've done a lot with religion in 1e. In practice, the guidelines you got were few, and the most definitive-seeming official books on the topic were Gods, Demigods & Heroes for 0D&D, and Deities & Demigods for 1e. They painted D&D in a very polytheistic light. Heck, even little things like the character sheet having a space for 'patron deity' did that. Whatever the proto-D&D-campaigns of Gygax & Arneson may have been, they weren't readily accessible to the bulk of the D&D-playing base, who just, like, bought books. Maybe read The Dragon.
1e /did/ spell out that a Cleric's lowest-level spells were the produce of his own Faith & devotion, though, not delivered by the deity nor it's intermediaries nor any other external source, so there was a seed of the idea you see in Eberron, even then.

In 2e, esp the CPH, they expanded on the idea of philosophies & forces as well as deities being objects of faith and granting power. So you could have Clerics of philosophies that were unconnected to the gods as such, gaining spell powers just like more conventional clerics. IIRC, though it didn't make much of a splash, you could also have Clerics who, like most actual polytheists, worshipped (or at least appeased) different deities at different time for different purposes. That further opened the door to alternatives to the seeming-default (only thing presented in official books for a long time) exclusive-patron-deity-based apocryphal (almost pop-culture, really) polytheism of D&D.

My point is, D&D in its origin is inherently open to any kind of setting, including any kind of religiosity (monotheism, polytheism, animism, atheism, etcetera).

Because of their enthusiasm for antiquities in general, and for scifi novels, the D&D creators and players were interested in exploring polytheism. But they also included historical monotheisms, and modern atheisms, Asian religions, including Buddhism, and traditions relating to kung-fu monks, samurai, and ninja. Ultimately anything is possible. Again, whatever the DM finds interesting.

In 0e, 1e, 2e, and even 3e, polytheism is a supplemental option. I always worldbuild, dont buy setting books. I have used 1e and 3e to build (nonpolytheistic) settings, and the core rules have never gotten in the way. The core rules of 4e and 5e get in the way of my worldbuilding.



Personally, I am sick of the monolithic polytheism in 4e and now 5e.



I guess for me, polytheism isnt a ‘fantasy’. I know many reallife polytheists. Hindu, Asatru, Santeria, Ogun, Wicca, Gnostic. Two of these persons are close friends.

For me there is nothing ‘exotic’ about polytheism.

For me, when D&D 5e coerces polytheism, it feels exactly the same as if there were Jehovas Witnesses knocking on my door every single morning of every single week. Even after I have clearly said, no thank you. (Note, I have never actually had this problem. In my experience, Jehovas Witnesses have been respectful, and dont spam.) But D&D 5e does spam polytheism. And I am sick of it.

 

[Yaarel]

[double post]

 

[Tony Vargas]

My point is, D&D in its origin is inherently open to any kind of setting, including any kind of religiosity (monotheism, polytheism, animism, atheism, etcetera).

In theory, sure. In practice, for those of us who were playing it back in the day, the presentation we saw was all that weird D&D patron-deity-polytheism. That didn't much expand beyond the odd hint here or there, until 2e, especially the CPH. And that expansion didn't take. The WotC era has been primarily patron-deity-polytheism, too.

Because of their enthusiasm for antiquities in general, and for scifi novels, the D&D creators and players were interested in exploring polytheism. But they also included historical monotheisms, and modern atheisms, Asian religions, including Buddhism, and traditions relating to kung-fu monks, samurai, and ninja.

Very little of the 'ascetic tradition' of the 0e/1e Monk was expanded upon enough to suggest any sort of religion. There were /many/, almost unconscious-seeming, trappings of Christianity in the 0e/1e Cleric & Paladin, but, Theocracy of the Pale, notwithstanding, it never added up to openly addressing monotheism as legitimate in the D&D cosmology. The many deities, residing in the outer planes, were presented as simple fact.

Like I said, for a while, 2e expanded on that, and it's always been possible for the DM to just unilaterally do whatever he wanted when creating a world - I certainly did, back in the day, there were monotheists placed in my 1e campaign world, for instance.

But D&D 5e does spam polytheism. And I am sick of it.

Not say'n you shouldn't be, just pointing out that it goes back to the beginnings. What might've gone on in the pre-publication campaigns of Gygax & Arneson, or what might've been going through their heads is interesting, but it doesn't re-write what was actually published in the 70s & 80s.

 

[BookBarbarian]

And I am sick of it.

Think you're sick of it now? Just wait until I show up at your door holding the 5e PHB asking if you've heard the word of our good lords Perkins, Mearls, and Crawford.

I just gotta figure out how to attach my black name badge to my chainmail shirt.

 

[Yaarel]

In theory, sure. In practice, for those of us who were playing it back in the day, the presentation we saw was all that weird D&D patron-deity-polytheism. That didn't much expand beyond the odd hint here or there, until 2e, especially the CPH. And that expansion didn't take. The WotC era has been primarily patron-deity-polytheism, too.

Very little of the 'ascetic tradition' of the 0e/1e Monk was expanded upon enough to suggest any sort of religion. There were /many/, almost unconscious-seeming, trappings of Christianity in the 0e/1e Cleric & Paladin, but, Theocracy of the Pale, notwithstanding, it never added up to openly addressing monotheism as legitimate in the D&D cosmology. The many deities, residing in the outer planes, were presented as simple fact.

Like I said, for a while, 2e expanded on that, and it's always been possible for the DM to just unilaterally do whatever he wanted when creating a world - I certainly did, back in the day, there were monotheists placed in my 1e campaign world, for instance.

Not say'n you shouldn't be, just pointing out that it goes back to the beginnings. What might've gone on in the pre-publication campaigns of Gygax & Arneson, or what might've been going through their heads is interesting, but it doesn't re-write what was actually published in the 70s & 80s.

In 1e and 3e, if you choose to not opt in an isolated polytheistic option, and happen to not purchase a premade polytheistic setting, then there is no problem. The worldbuilder can use all of the core rules to worldbuild without polytheistic interference.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 1e and 3e, if you choose to not opt in a polytheistic option, and happen to not purchase a premade polytheistic setting, then there is no problem. The worldbuilder can use all of the core rules to worldbuild without polytheistic interference.

1e never did anything much more than hint at monotheism or the like, and 3e's default setting was Greyhawk. But, sure, it's trivially true that if you ignore everything you don't like in 1e or 3e (or any other game or edition), there's nothing there you don't like. That'd mean opting out of the Great Wheel Cosmology, too, I suppose. (What is it about 5e that you think differs from 1e or 3e, specifically, that way? 5e's back to full-on DM-empowerment, I don't see how it can be said to force anything on the DM, other than responsibility for his own campaign.)

OTOH, there was a time when D&D actually up and acknowledged, even supported, alternatives to it's odd, ahistorical, brand of polytheism, and that was 2e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We're getting off topic a bit here it seems...

Let's get back to archetypes? What would a Rogue with a touch of Divine Power be like?

And Inquisitor, or Critical Role’s “expositor”, or Eberron’s Argentum, are all good places to start. Hell, a lot of the flavor of the vengeance Paladin can work well for a sacred assassin archetype a la the 4e Covenent Agent, which was a multiclass build and Paragon Path for Assassin/Avengers that was both thematically compelling and fun as hell to play.

So, I’d split this off into two basic ideas.

First, the Expositor or Argentum. Inquisitor will get mixed up with Inquisitive rogue, and also connotes some historical evils that I’d rather not saddle a subclass with. This subclass is about finding the truth, seeing through deception and illusion, and either punishing those who deceive and manipulate the innocent and/or corrupt/abuse the power of the church, OR identify powerful Magics and contain them. Two possibly subclasses here, I guess.

Second, we have the Covenent Agent. This is a Divine Blade. A weapon in the left hand of god. So, extra damage/expanded crit range/advantage against certain creature types as a bonus action, hold person and eventual hold monster, ability to mark a creature and they can’t hide from you but you are invisible to them, that sort of thing. Maybe a full Divine Smite x/day or x/short rest as the end cap. Possibly teleportation from early on, especially if it’s range is greater if you end the teleport within 5 ft of your marked target?

I would say its not even an "interconnected story" so much as it is just a definition used to explain why the same names, identities, and themes occur across every single campaign game.

If Eberron and the Realms are supposed to be completely different things, why do they both have a 5-headed dragon named 'Tiamat' in it? How is it that a campaign setting like Mystara, and the campaign setting of the kid down the street from you both have a spell called 'Melf's Acid Arrow'? A name that has nothing to do with either Mystara or the setting of that kid down the street? How do you explain that the same types of angels like Solars and Planetars all seem to have the exact same strengths, weaknesses, abilities, features, offensive and defensive capabilities across hundreds of thousands of different games and settings (as defined for us via the Monster Manual)?

The answer is simple... they just admit that every game of D&D is a part of D&D. If you are playing D&D it is going to have most of the same aspects of D&D regardless of who is running it and where they are setting it. The idea of a 'multiverse' is just a newfangled way of defining that concept using a single, easy-to-understand word.

Some people may way to try and divorce themselves from the idea that their D&D game is connected to the D&D games of others... but it's not. We are all using the same rules, we are all using the same concepts of what it means to have a race or a class, we are all focused on the same statistics to define who our characters are, the same exact entities, definitions and locations can show up across wildly disparate worlds and stories. All of our games are D&D. We are all a part of what it means to play D&D. We and the games we run are all by definition a part of the 'D&D multiverse'.

And if you don't want your game or your world to be a part of the D&D multiverse? Don't play D&D. Then you don't have to ever worry about it.

Or, playDnD how you want, because some person on a forum has no say in what dnd is at your table.

Also, there isn’t a Tiamat in every world. Or a Melf’s Acid Arrow. Or angels, even.

But even if there are angels, that’s a bad case for your argument, because the angels stats are just stats. The fact humans have the same stats doesn’t make it the same world, neither angels. It’s mechanics to facilitate running a game.

The idea that it’s “dnd multiverse or don’t play dnd” is one of the worst takes I’ve seen on this site in a long time.

 

[Yaarel]

1e never did anything much more than hint at monotheism or the like, and 3e's default setting was Greyhawk. But, sure, it's trivially true that if you ignore everything you don't like in 1e or 3e (or any other game or edition), there's nothing there you don't like. That'd mean opting out of the Great Wheel Cosmology, too, I suppose. (What is it about 5e that you think differs from 1e or 3e, specifically, that way? 5e's back to full-on DM-empowerment, I don't see how it can be said to force anything on the DM, other than responsibility for his own campaign.)

OTOH, there was a time when D&D actually up and acknowledged, even supported, alternatives to it's odd, ahistorical, brand of polytheism, and that was 2e.

The problem with 4e and 5e is that everything is infected with references to polytheism. Polytheism is baked into the core rules themselves.

Oppositely, 1e gives an option. It is clearly one of many different options for things that might inspire a DM to worldbuild. And thats it. The rules stay out of the way of what the DM finds inspirational.

Even in 3e − especially the SRD − the core rules are neutral. The DM can easily worldbuild.

By contrast, the core rules of 4e and 5e are infected everywhere by references to polytheism. It is impossible to ignore. I have given up the Sysiphean effort to search and find to delete references to polytheism to rewrite my own nonpolytheistic 5e rulebook. It is way, way, too much polytheistic spam.



The main reason WotC spams polytheism, is because it wants to ‘brand’ the trademarked names of the FR deities. The motive is corporate abusiveness.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem with 4e and 5e is that everything is infected with references to polytheism. Polytheism is baked into the core rules themselves.

Don't see how that's in any way more true than of 1e or 3e.

Oppositely, 1e gives an option. It is clearly one of many different options for things that might inspire a DM to worldbuild. And thats it. The rules stay out of the way of what the DM finds inspirational.

I can't imagine where you're getting that. 1e is adamant that high level spells come direct from a deity you serve, and that deviating from your alignment (or anything else that might offend said god) will see such spells revoked.

Even in 3e − especially the SRD − the core rules are neutral. The DM can easily worldbuild.

OK, if you're talking SRD rather than D&D, sure, it's scrubbed of a lotta stuff. Even so, very first line of the Cleric description in the SRD: "Alignment: A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful–chaotic axis or the good–evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral." Multiple deities with the cleric serving exactly one, baked right in. Not just polytheism, but D&D patron-deity polytheism. A particular cleric might just choose domains without serving a specific deity, but the multiplicity of deities is established.

By contrast, 4e and 5e is infected everywhere by references to polytheism. It is impossible to ignore.

While FR is notoriously, aggressively polytheist (Wall of the Faithless), and 5e defaults to that setting, default can be overridden. 4e, OTOH, had no default setting, and divine classes had relative freedom in how they conducted themselves and used their abilities after their investiture - and players complete freedom in reskinning classes, so philosophies & forces or monotheism or whatever were at least asmuch on the table as 1e, if not with the support of specific mechanics 2e provided.

And, then there are settings that do remove the gods. 1e Dragonlance, and 2e-through-4e Dark Sun, albeit with consequences. And, 3e-4e (and about to be 5e) Eberron, which is a functionally agnostic setting.