D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Yaarel]

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.

According to Gygax, both Conan the Barbarian and John Carter on Mars are equally valid D&D settings. D&D 1e is a toolkit for the DM to invent worlds. For Gygax, that is the whole point. And the DM tradition of worldbuilding is strong. The proliferation of settings in 2e is also part Gygaxs vision of any setting being possible.

The fact that 5e fails to give adequate tools to support this D&D worldbuilding tradition, drops the ball of the D&D tradition.

I as a D&D traditional worldbuilder DM, require 5e setting-neutral core rules, to make it easier for me to continue this D&D tradition to invent new settings, even while using 5e.

 

[Arnwolf666]

According to Gygax, Conan the Barbarian and Carter on Mars are equally valid D&D settings. D&D 1e is a toolkit for the DM to invent worlds. For Gygax, that is the whole point. And the DM tradition of worldbuilding is strong. The proliferation of settings in 2e is also part Gygaxs vision of any setting being possible.

The fact that 5e fails to adequately support this D&D worldbuilding traditions, is dropping the ball of the D&D tradition.

I as a D&D traditional worldbuilder DM require 5e setting-neutral core rules, that make it easy for me to continue this D&D tradition, even while using 5e.

I do not think d&d 5E discourages world building. I feel many players do my the disdain players have for homebrew. And there desire to be official and playing the right way. This mindset that it’s only correct if you are playing an officially published adventure is beyond me.

It’s not the rules that are the problem. There seems to be a mindset that the dm is doing it wrong and cheating.

 

[Yaarel]

I do not think d&d 5E discourages world building. I feel many players do my the disdain players have for homebrew. And there desire to be official and playing the right way. This mindset that it’s only correct if you are playing an officially published adventure is beyond me.

It’s not the rules that are the problem. There seems to be a mindset that the dm is doing it wrong and cheating.

For me the baked in ‘wrong’ setting information, makes the 5e rules themselves immersion destroying.

I cant use 5e for worldbuilding.

For the exact same reason someone else wants the setting to be baked into the rules − to vivify and articulate the setting − is the exact same reason why I unwant a wrong setting to be baked into the rules − because the wrong setting kills and distracts from the actual setting.

In order for me to be able to use 5e for worldbuilding, the 5e core rules must be setting neutral so as to support new settings that are unlike Forgotten Realms.

Especially the rules that the players consult.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

For me the baked in ‘wrong’ setting information, makes the 5e rules themselves immersion destroying.

I cant use 5e for worldbuilding.

For the exact same reason someone else wants the setting to be baked into the rules − to vivify and articulate the setting − is the exact same reason why I unwant a wrong setting to be baked into the rules − because it kills and distracts from the actual setting.

The core rules must be setting neutral.

Especially the rules that the players consult.

This isn't 1e anymore. Times have changed, the playerbase's interests have changed, and Gygax is dead in the ground. D&D has accumulated cultural baggage over the years to the point that it has become a genre unto itself with its own tropes and conventions. If you want a generic system, go play GURPS or Savage Worlds.

Also, please make a new thread for this, people went back to discussing subclasses they want for 5e.

Edit: does he have me on ignore...?

 

[Yaarel]

And there desire to be official and playing the right way.

I can sympathize with the players who want to play ‘the right way’.

When the 5e core rules are officially setting neutral.

Then the central D&D goal of creating any setting is ‘the right way’ to play.



Part of the point of 5e is to support grognards. This includes worldbuilder grognards.

 

[DammitVictor]

I mean, not to start another contentious off-topic argument, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the 5e multiclass rules are not good for representing any specific character archetype... because they are based on the similarly dysfunctional 3e multiclassing rules except deliberately, unforgivably worse.

Even rules that 5e handles better on their own, like Extra Attack, are turned into hot garbage when the multiclassing rules are applied to them.

If we want a character concept to function on its own, it has to be designed as its own class or subclass unless and until WotC provides MC/hybrid rules that actually serve their intended purpose.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

How complex and multifaceted are the incarnum rules? Why couldn’t a subclass just use ki in a new way?

You never spend essentia. You just move it around. That's the core gimmick of incarnum magic, and why I think it's such a good match for quasi-Buddhist/Taoist mysticism. Mechanically, I could probably shoehorn ki points into that paradigm, but it'd be clunky and ad hoc, and there'd still be the problem of spending ki points on core monk features like Patient Defense. So rather than deal with all those square-peg-round-hole problems, why not just make a new peg that's round to begin with?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I mean, not to start another contentious off-topic argument, but I'm going to go ahead and say that the 5e multiclass rules are not good for representing any specific character archetype... because they are based on the similarly dysfunctional 3e multiclassing rules except deliberately, unforgivably worse.

If you want people to take you seriously, consider stating specific problems calmly, rather than spewing abusive language vaguely.

 

[Tony Vargas]

... because they are based on the similarly dysfunctional 3e multiclassing rules except deliberately, unforgivably worse.

The 5e take actually fixes a thing or two, like the way 3e MC'd casters ended up like two lower-level casters, standing next to eachother, with one unable to act each round. It was sad, 5e fixed that part....

Even rules that 5e handles better on their own, like Extra Attack, are turned into hot garbage when the multiclassing rules are applied to them.

But then broke Extra Attack, and ASIs, for that matter, the same way. ::

If we want a character concept to function on its own, it has to be designed as its own class or subclass unless and until WotC provides MC/hybrid rules that actually serve their intended purpose.

Depends on the intended purpose. 3e-style MCing had a lot of potential, it just would've required class designs that were as module as it implied: that is, the next level of each class you already have would have to balance with eachother, and with the first level of each class you don't have, yet. The fighter was the only class even flirting with that degree of design elegance.

 

[DammitVictor]

The 5e take actually fixes a thing or two, like the way 3e MC'd casters ended up like two lower-level casters, standing next to eachother, with one unable to act each round. It was sad, 5e fixed that part....

The spell slot thing is only partially fixed, and then only if the two classes are both spellcasters of some kind. A Cleric/Wizard might benefit a little from the higher-level slots at the expenses of having fewer lower-level slots, but a Fighter/Cleric is still in the exact same boat.

Doesn't change that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is still only throwing souped-up 5th level spells from both classes compared to the (no longer available) Mystic Theurge's double 8s or even 9s and 7s... and in 3.5, at least multiclassed noncasters could still be kinda good since BAB and Skills stacked.

Depends on the intended purpose. 3e-style MCing had a lot of potential, it just would've required class designs that were as module as it implied: that is, the next level of each class you already have would have to balance with eachother, and with the first level of each class you don't have, yet. The fighter was the only class even flirting with that degree of design elegance.

Like Rogue Genius Games' Genius Guide to the Talented class series... except with more support for adding a ratio of non-class levels to class level.