D&D 5E Archetypes to add to 5e

[Tony Vargas]

The spell slot thing is only partially fixed, and then only if the two classes are both spellcasters of some kind. ...
Doesn't change that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is still only throwing souped-up 5th level spells from both classes

That's a big step up from just casting 5th level spells, not souped up at all.
And, lower-level spells retain more relevance, in 5e, since their saving throw DCs /do/ scale with proficiency, not slot level, like in 3e, and as you alluded too, you do get the higher-level slots to up-cast them.

As for fighter/caster combos, well, there's always the EK.

I could have imagined 3e handling it better with a caster-level for all classes, even those with no spells at all, who don't use it for anything, just like how pure-caster wizards still get BAB, and bad saves still slightly improve. A high level fighter who finally learns a little wizardry should find that some of his experience applies, afterall.

 

[Arnwolf666]

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.

Must be setting neutral for world building ? Really

There have been 1000s of settings homebrew created.

 

[Yaarel]

@Arnwolf666, really. For the sake of building, illustrating, communicating, and bringing to life a new setting, I need the rules themselves to only ever refer to the new setting − the one that I am building. I am going for immersion − and ‘wrong’ rules break the immersion that I require. I want better support for worldbuilding. (This support also helps other people who want settings with different kinds of religions, and other kinds of settings.) When I play with a 1e group, I have experienced many weird and wonderful settings. This is the part of the D&D game that I love best. As much as some people need to bake their setting into the rules, my need is to remove their setting that I dont want, from the rules. I want the rules to be my setting. The one that I built. This is only easy when the core rules are setting neutral and open to whatever I add that is relevant to my setting.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

@Arnwolf666, really. For the sake of building, illustrating, communicating, and bringing to life a new setting, I need the rules themselves to only ever refer to my setting − the one that I am building. I am going for immersion − and ‘wrong’ rules break the immersion that I require. I want better support for worldbuilding.

All the references to levels and dice and hit points and spell slots would seem to break immersion more than a "wrong" rule. (Not that you've ever actually been able to cite any particular "wrong" rule that does what you allege.)

 

[Xenonnonex]

@Arnwolf666, really. For the sake of building, illustrating, communicating, and bringing to life a new setting, I need the rules themselves to only ever refer to my setting − the one that I am building. I am going for immersion − and ‘wrong’ rules break the immersion that I require. I want better support for worldbuilding. (This support also helps other people who want settings with different kinds of religions, and other kinds of settings.) When I play with a 1e group, I have experienced many weird and wonderful settings. This is the part of the D&D game that I love best. As much as some people want to bake their setting into the rules, my need to remove their setting that I dont want is even stronger. I want the rules to be my setting. This is only easy when the core rules are setting neutral.



Reading the awesome Sword & Sorcery thread about the Xoth setting, it reminds me, one of the missing archetypes is a class that focuses on dazzling sexual beauty, the Seducer. None of the official character classes really do the archetype well. The concept is an important trope for the sword & sorcery genre, but it is also important for high fantasy, including the stunning and charming supernatural of eladrin elves and so on.

What is a "wrong" rule?

 

[Parmandur]

@Arnwolf666, really. For the sake of building, illustrating, communicating, and bringing to life a new setting, I need the rules themselves to only ever refer to my setting − the one that I am building. I am going for immersion − and ‘wrong’ rules break the immersion that I require. I want better support for worldbuilding. (This support also helps other people who want settings with different kinds of religions, and other kinds of settings.) When I play with a 1e group, I have experienced many weird and wonderful settings. This is the part of the D&D game that I love best. As much as some people want to bake their setting into the rules, my need to remove their setting that I dont want is even stronger. I want the rules to be my setting. This is only easy when the core rules are setting neutral.



Reading the awesome Sword & Sorcery thread about the Xoth setting, it reminds me, one of the missing archetypes is a class that focuses on dazzling sexual beauty, the Seducer. None of the official character classes really do the archetype well. The concept is an important trope for the sword & sorcery genre, but it is also important for high fantasy, including the stunning and charming supernatural of eladrin elves and so on.

For Pete's sake, please, please stop threadcrapping.

 

[Arnwolf666]

@Arnwolf666, really. For the sake of building, illustrating, communicating, and bringing to life a new setting, I need the rules themselves to only ever refer to my setting − the one that I am building. I am going for immersion − and ‘wrong’ rules break the immersion that I require. I want better support for worldbuilding. (This support also helps other people who want settings with different kinds of religions, and other kinds of settings.) When I play with a 1e group, I have experienced many weird and wonderful settings. This is the part of the D&D game that I love best. As much as some people need to bake their setting into the rules, my need is to remove their setting that I dont want, from the rules. I want the rules to be my setting. The one that I built. This is only easy when the core rules are setting neutral and open to my setting.



Reading the awesome Sword & Sorcery thread about the Xoth setting, it reminds me, one of the missing archetypes is a class that focuses on dazzling sexual beauty, the Seducer. None of the official character classes really do the archetype well. The concept is an important trope for the sword & sorcery genre, but it is also important for high fantasy, including the stunning and charming supernatural of eladrin elves and so on.

Then why are u on a 5E board. The game has settings baked in the rules. You are not going to change that. Sorry you can’t divorce the rules yourself. It’s never ruined any of my settings and 1000s of others. I got an idea. Write WOTC or start a petition and tell them to stop it. That should do it.

 

[Yaarel]

Reading the awesome Sword & Sorcery thread about the Xoth setting, reminds me, one of the missing archetypes is a class that focuses on dazzling sexual beauty, the Seducer. None of the official character classes really do the archetype well. The concept is an important trope for the sword & sorcery genre, but it is also important for high fantasy, including the stunning and charming supernatural beauty of eladrin elves and so on. It is a concept that projects the force of Charisma magically in a form of larger-than-life beauty.

 

[Parmandur]

Reading the awesome Sword & Sorcery thread about the Xoth setting, reminds me, one of the missing archetypes is a class that focuses on dazzling sexual beauty, the Seducer. None of the official character classes really do the archetype well. The concept is an important trope for the sword & sorcery genre, but it is also important for high fantasy, including the stunning and charming supernatural beauty of eladrin elves and so on. It is a concept that projects the force of Charisma magically in a form of larger-than-life beauty.

The Bard, man.

 

[Remathilis]

When I play with a 1e group, I have experienced many weird and wonderful settings. This is the part of the D&D game that I love best. As much as some people need to bake their setting into the rules, my need is to remove their setting that I dont want, from the rules. I want the rules to be my setting. The one that I built. This is only easy when the core rules are setting neutral and open to whatever I add that is relevant to my setting.

:: Fails Wisdom save::

Tell me, when you play those "weird and wonderful" 1e settings, do all druids belong to a global hierarchical organization that ties advancement to combat and only has one character of max level IN THE WORLD?

Likewise, do those settings have multinational assassin guilds that require the assassination of the guildleader to advance to max level in? Or monastic traditions that allow only a single member of a given level beyond name level to exist in the world?

Do they all enforce true neutrality in druids, lawful goodness in paladins, forbid elves from being clerics, dwarves from being magic-users, and half-orcs from being thieves? Furthermore, do they limit all nonhuman class levels except in thief? Cap strength for females and other ability scores per race?

Because is they did, you played with the implied setting of AD&D affecting your rules. Might as well say all those "weird and wonderful" homebrew settings were really just Greyhawk, since Greyhawk was baked into the mechanics of those classes and races.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled subclass discussion.

I think we need a wizard subclass to represent witches, hedge mages, and other "doesn't go for the schools of magic theory" mages, perhaps with a touch of druid theming to it.