D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Remathilis]

I've probably seen them but can't recall them. I had forgotten that the rune priest was in 4e until I was flipping through one of the books. Would be one to look at though for ideas. I find a lot of the 4e paragon paths and 3e prestige classes are good inspiration for subclasses. Maybe I should go back and have a look at water themed divine classes for my clerical ocean domain.

I'm 90% certain 3e Stormwrack had something like this.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

If someone plays Vampire The Masquerade and wants to (respectfully) pretend to be a Christian, have at it. Enjoy the religious freedom. But if one requires someone else to pretend to be a Christian. No.

Uh. All Vampires (Kindred) in V:tM are the descendants of Cain, son of Adam and Eve, brother to Abel and Seth (which they spell as Caine with an e for some reason). He created the playable Vampire clans after the Deluge (Noah's flood) wiped out most of the earlier generations of Vampires. He's still alive but in hiding in the modern day - people joke that he's currently a cab driver in Los Angeles - and Noddists believe that one day he will reveal himself and cast judgment on all his descendants. Kind of casts some assumptions on the setting, doesn't it?

The World of Darkness isn't setting neutral in the slightest. Most RPGs aren't, and most make no pretense at trying to be. This isn't a bad thing; being tied to one specific setting can help designers give thematic grounding to mechanics. Only GURPS and Savage Worlds can really make the claim of being setting neutral with any credence. D&D is in a grey area due to how many settings were built for it, but all of those settings follow the same mechanical, if not thematic trappings.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think we can just be done with category mistakes. 'Forcing' the character (via setting) isn't the same as forcing the player. Once that's established this whole issue disappears in a puff of smoke. That smoke can be sulfur flavoured or not at the readers discretion.

Back on track though, the holy assassin archetype is pretty cool. It's the sort of thing that I'm not sure needs special rules though. Wouldn't a MC of Cleric/Rogue leaning more to rogue get that done just as well? Or any spellcasting class really? For that matter the 'holy' part could just be a choice of religion as part of the character's background. I bring that up as an example because I think there's a limit to how many things it's actually useful to have separate rules for. See the immense bloat of pathfinder for an excellent example.

 

[Umbran]

The CORE RULES must be setting neutral − especially religiously neutral.

The settings must be strictly optional − especially a setting that focuses on a particular religious worldview.

With respect. for all the MUST you put here - this is simply not how games typically work. Most games are not setting-neutral - they are designed with a setting in mind, with elements and mechanics tied to the setting.

So, you may prefer games a particular way. But no, there is no "must be".

There must be zero coercion in spiritual matters.

RPGs are frameworks for creation of fiction. They are strictly opt-in. A game book cannot coerce you into anything - you get to look at the thing, and choose to play it, or not. Just as some people do not want to read some fiction because of the religious or spiritual elements within it, some folks will not want to play some games, for similar reasons. And that's okay. Not all books, or games, are for all people. Not all books and games need to be for all people.

This is not to say that a game cannot present offensive versions of religions, but no game writer is morally or ethically compelled to make their game equally inoffensive, or equally spiritually accessible, to all people. I daresay that would be not be a practical possibility.

 

[Undrave]

Back on track though, the holy assassin archetype is pretty cool. It's the sort of thing that I'm not sure needs special rules though. Wouldn't a MC of Cleric/Rogue leaning more to rogue get that done just as well? Or any spellcasting class really? For that matter the 'holy' part could just be a choice of religion as part of the character's background. I bring that up as an example because I think there's a limit to how many things it's actually useful to have separate rules for. See the immense bloat of pathfinder for an excellent example.

I've tried Cleric/Rogue before and it's... not really elegant. It doesn't really mesh well like a cohesive whole. The Cleric half feels more like a costume you put on every once in a while and the stuff the Trickery domain grants are probably better off gotten elsewhere.

Generally I find multi classing, especially the 5e kind, to be unsatisfying and clunky. And it's too easy to gimp yourself. A subclass is a more streamlined option with a lower barrier of entry.

I can totally get the fear of bloat but I don't think 5e's glacial pace of release has lead to actual player-side bloat. You're lucky to get 15 pages of player crunch a year. Plus, the whole 'PHB+1' rule is a good basis to prevent splat abuse.

 

[Istbor]

I knew about the spinning but not the religious thing... even though I know about the real life religious Dervish...

The spinning thing seems like it's fairly limited for a 5e subclass, it'll need to add more...

Maybe a Barbarian Path of the Whirlwind Warrior? Born in windswept plains and deserts where the Barbarians model their rage on the fury of a windstorm? In addition to specializing in two weapon fighting with Slashing weapons they get movement and wind based powers? Maybe at later level their rage triggers an effect similar to Warding Wind!

The entry I am familiar with is from 3.xE. Dervish – Class – D&D Tools
In fact, it was a prestige class in the Complete Warrior I believe?

There were no religious ties at all on the class. So I disagree that it would be a zealot barbarian at all. Nothing about that subclass evokes the similar feel, having played both. And again, there was not implications that a Dervish in 3.x had to be religious at all.

I would also not characterize the movement as simply spinning. I would say it was like the blade dance/song from other classes or prestige classes. A performance or action you could only do so many times a day, for only so long as allowed. Governed by a number I cannot recall immediately. It as well required movement between each attack. It allowed you to use your full attack while still being able to move about. There were other perks as well.

Likely a more desert feel with scimitars and other real world connections to the word Dervish.

I suppose I just like the image and thought of a character flitting or dancing about some opponents, whether that be skillful flurries of the blade against one. Or graceful but deadly movement through a group.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not threadcrapping, or suggesting that we don't need more archetypes, just that some of the stuff I've seen in this thread can be handled pretty well with a combo of MC and background and/or some easy and harmless reskinning. I also wasn't actually suggesting the trickery domain there specifically either. Something more damage focussed would probably be a better fit, and, really, the answer could well be to go Rogue/Paladin. Even the gloomstalker is a solid base for an aspected assassin depending on your tastes, as is the shadow monk.

If we wanted a Holy Assassin, what would you suggest? A Rogue with some spells, a cleric with some assassin? Something else entirely? Just curious.

 

[Remathilis]

The entry I am familiar with is from 3.xE. Dervish – Class – D&D Tools
In fact, it was a prestige class in the Complete Warrior I believe?

There were no religious ties at all on the class. So I disagree that it would be a zealot barbarian at all. Nothing about that subclass evokes the similar feel, having played both. And again, there was not implications that a Dervish in 3.x had to be religious at all.

I would also not characterize the movement as simply spinning. I would say it was like the blade dance/song from other classes or prestige classes. A performance or action you could only do so many times a day, for only so long as allowed. Governed by a number I cannot recall immediately. It as well required movement between each attack. It allowed you to use your full attack while still being able to move about. There were other perks as well.

Likely a more desert feel with scimitars and other real world connections to the word Dervish.

I suppose I just like the image and thought of a character flitting or dancing about some opponents, whether that be skillful flurries of the blade against one. Or graceful but deadly movement through a group.

I made a college of dance with this theme; dances work like Battlemaster maneuvers, unarmored defense, scimitar, extra attack, etc. I can send you a copy of you like homebrew, but I really want an official WotC one.

 

[Istbor]

I made a college of dance with this theme; dances work like Battlemaster maneuvers, unarmored defense, scimitar, extra attack, etc. I can send you a copy of you like homebrew, but I really want an official WotC one.

Sure! I would like taking a look. It sounds interesting for certain. I think there are some interesting options for it on DMGuild but I agree, an official option could be nice. Validation and all... not to mention some testing on their behalf.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The CORE RULES must be setting neutral − especially religiously neutral.
The settings must be strictly optional − especially a setting that focuses on a particular religious worldview.

You say that, yet you endorse 1e, which was far from religiously neutral, and 3e, which defaulted to Greyhawk.

It is easy for WotC to clarify core rules to make them more religiously neutral − and setting neutral.

Apparently not. TSR wasn't even trying in 1e, and somehow got away with it, by your estimation, 5e has been trying like crazy, and still not good enough?

Polytheism is a reallife fact. Our world is too small too think polytheism is ‘fantasy’ or ‘exotic’.
To cartoonize polytheism is ignorant religionism.

Like the blatant sexism and orientalism of 1e, sure, it could be judged that way. If it's in any way presented as representative of RL beliefs rather than purely fictional. D&D's handling of divine classes does not bear much of a resemblance to RL religious beliefs, though, Gods, Demigods & Heroes, Dieties & Demigods, and, it seems, an appendix in the 5e PH, arguably cross those lines.

Uh. All Vampires (Kindred) in V:tM are the descendants of Cain, ... He's still alive but in hiding in the modern day -

I hear he wandered around the old west, disguised as a Shao-lin monk.

I had forgotten that the rune priest was in 4e until I was flipping through one of the books.

Like the Seeker, it was orphaned by the Essentials bootlegger reverse. The Warpriest and Hunter(Ranger) prettymuch stepped into their abandoned shoes.

some of the stuff I've seen in this thread can be handled pretty well with a combo of MC

Part of the point of archetypes is to enable concepts without MCing. EK, for instance, has no reason to exist if you can just do fighter/wizard, but MCing is optional, archetypes are core. FWIW.

Out of curiousity, if 5e were to redo Tome of Battle, would those here want new classes to implement such a system, work entirely within existing classes, or a combination?

New. The fighter chassis wouldn't be able to support them.