D&D General Ditching Archetypes 6E?

For my own answer to the question, as I have said before, I think 5e is missing somewhere between six and twelve classes (and I favor the higher end). That would allow us to more neatly focus each class. With a set of, say, 4-6 total subclasses for each class, we can have enough depth for folks who really love to tinker, and enough accessibility for folks who just want something straightforward.

The Wizard as it existed in 5.0 would become all one subclass: the Specialist archetype, with each school specialty having its own power. (Perhaps presented on a table?) Other Wizard types would have other focuses that have nothing to do with spell school, and everything to do with the academic study of magic. Cleric domains would be relatively condensed, but as a result, punchier; I suspect Life, War, Light, Shadow (Trickery/Twilight), and then maybe something more archetypal, perhaps Luck and Order. (Note, these are opposing pairs; this is intentional.) With the option of a Swordmage class, there's no longer a need for the Fighter to carry the Eldritch Knight weight, and its archetypes can be more focused on being as good of a Fighter as it can be; likewise, there'll be no need for a Bladesinger Wizard. (Warlock would remain as the build-it-yourself class for those who want that kind of experience.)

By having a larger number of classes, a bunch of specific archetypes can be given full-throated, clear support, some of which clearly very much need that, hence the seventeen different ways to make "person who uses magic and also a weapon". An infinite number of classes isn't achievable, and even publishing 25 all in a single book is probably beyond the limits of a single book. So, publish the first (say) 13 in a single book, and then publish three new classes each in the next three books, along with a slow drip of new "archetypes" for each.

Expand feats--slightly. Perhaps one every three levels instead of every four--and for God's sake decouple them from stats! Perhaps start them at 2nd level, so you get your 7th and final regular feat at 20; that's just two more than 5e baseline, which is what 5e Fighters already get (naturally, redesigns would need to account for any power shifts like this). Keep them chunky and useful--avoid chains longer than at absolute most 3 feats, and those 3 feats better be some of the best-written feats ever made by human hands, and I don't mean "powerful", I mean "good-quality", as in, worth taking and also cool/neat/flavorful/fun. Definitely make sure absolutely all feats get very close eyes on at the editing stage--while it's unavoidable that some feats will be weaker than others, that's just how math works, have people on staff who review this stuff to avoid the "wow this feat is...almost total trash" problem. It was an issue in 3e, 4e, and 5e--let's not make it a fourth consecutive edition where a third of all feats are kinda $#!+.

De-spell-ify the game. Actively. Reduce spell lists whenever possible. Make absolutely every spell justify its existence. That doesn't mean "remove all weird/quirky spells"--it means don't include a spell just because it could maybe be present. Spell bloat is an enormous but often overlooked problem in 5e. Personally, I'd go back to the spells vs rituals distinction from 4e, but if that isn't in the cards, then at least avoid having more than (say) two dozen or MAYBE three dozen total spells at any given spell level (for reference, there are sixty-four 1st level spells ALONE in 5.5e! It doesn't drop below 40 until you reach sixth level spells!!!), and make spell lists (where possible) more distinct from one another. Spells are a huge huge huge space of character customization bloat where a ton of them are just...they aren't useful, they don't do anything, they don't even add worldbuilding. The ceremony spell is neat to read on the page, but it's not even something you'd actually have NPC spellcasters use!

So: 13 classes (e.g. add Warlord to the 5e baseline of 12), with a slow drip of additional new classes across the edition's lifetime to add spice and interest. Players usually love new classes, as long as they're reasonable and doing something neat, and getting only a few every year or two means it's always important when a new one arrives. Subclasses can be added only slowly, judiciously, when we understand how all of the existing ones tick (and can fix any errors in how we made them the first time around). Feats are boosted just a smidge compared to 5e baseline, getting just a smidge more over 20 levels and still being chunky and strong, but allowing for limited (and again I stress limited) chains, with a VERY sharp eye for weak, unnecessary, or just badly-made feats. Likewise, trim the spell list significantly, even if it requires painful sacrifices--spells are bloating out of control here, almost as bad as feats in 4e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think we should go back to the Speciality idea in DnD next where you can get a set list of feats in a row.

Like you choose a Origin at level 1.
Then a Subclass at level 3, and get features at level A, B, and C.
Then a Specialty at level 4 and get set feats at levels D, E, and F
Then a Paragon Path at level 10 and continue it at level X.
Then a Epic Destiny at level 15 and and get the final feature at 19.
 

Opposite: take the archetypes and lean into them hard. Ironclad niche protection for each class. No jacks of all trades. No workarounds to sneak one class' benefits into another class. Make it hard to impossible to cover over a class' weaknesses, thus soft-forcing interdependence within a party.

The only time a jack-of-all-trades character makes any sense is if-when you're running a long-term party of one, which I would guess is fairly rare.
Marry me. And we will eliminate some of subclasses and the warlock.
 

Opposite: take the archetypes and lean into them hard. Ironclad niche protection for each class. No jacks of all trades. No workarounds to sneak one class' benefits into another class. Make it hard to impossible to cover over a class' weaknesses, thus soft-forcing interdependence within a party.

The only time a jack-of-all-trades character makes any sense is if-when you're running a long-term party of one, which I would guess is fairly rare.
Uno Reverse!

All features should be available to all characters. A feature's cost to take though depends on your class. Fighters can buy martial skills at cost, but it costs a greater amount to buy magical or skill expert abilities. You can then layer on prestige abilities that cost higher for everyone (representing niche expertise or epic abilities). No character is barred from learning anything, but it costs a lot more to go outside your field.

For example: A fighter can buy weapon mastery at cost of 1 point or buy an arcane spell slot for 2 points. He could also buy a Commander ability for 2 points as its an elite skill, but buying an elite divine skill (like divine intervention) is going to cost him 3 points. The PC gets 2 points per level and can bank them. (all numbers are made up for illustrative purposes)
 

So: 13 classes (e.g. add Warlord to the 5e baseline of 12), with a slow drip of additional new classes across the edition's lifetime to add spice and interest. Players usually love new classes, as long as they're reasonable and doing something neat, and getting only a few every year or two means it's always important when a new one arrives. Subclasses can be added only slowly, judiciously, when we understand how all of the existing ones tick (and can fix any errors in how we made them the first time around). Feats are boosted just a smidge compared to 5e baseline, getting just a smidge more over 20 levels and still being chunky and strong, but allowing for limited (and again I stress limited) chains, with a VERY sharp eye for weak, unnecessary, or just badly-made feats. Likewise, trim the spell list significantly, even if it requires painful sacrifices--spells are bloating out of control here, almost as bad as feats in 4e.
I'd be curious as to what the additional classes might look like that you were thinking of to get upwards to the 25 or so that you mentioned... as a lot of classes I see in many products end up looking like they could easily just be subclasses of other classes? For instance, the 4E Warden / 5E Ancients Paladin-- narratively they seem similar enough (to my eye) and I would think that mechanically there's not much difference to be found between the two unless one was to create a whole bunch of new combat mechanic formats to divvy up amongst other classes.

Not saying the game couldn't have both a Warden and an Ancients Paladin... but it makes me wonder just how different could or would one have to make them to warrant having both? Is there enough narrative space between the two (especially if the Warden needs an additional 4-6 subclasses on top of its own existence.) It's kind of like splitting off say the Samurai from the Fighter subclass as another one, or the Assassin off of Rogue. Do they warrant needing to be their own classes (presumably because would get their own unique mechanics) as opposed to remaining subclasses? I dunno. I'm not opposed to it out of hand, but I do wonder just how different these identities need to be where one is willing to accept something as a new class versus being a subclass. Especially living in a world where we still have players who insist Rangers and Paladins should be subclasses themselves, LOL!

One place where I think it could possibly benefit having more classes would be if the game did go further into the Exploration and Social pillars as people have suggested, thereby it making sense to have more classes that are focused on those pillars and are less so on Combat. But I think that would require a much larger change to the foundation to the game, as the game is still very much a combat-centric one in terms of mechanics. Almost all defined mechanics are combat-centric, and one-third of the Core book foundation is entirely combat-mechanic enemy stats. I think that balance inside the game would definitely need to change in order to make exploration and social classes with their own mechanical heft be worth having new classes made. Scouts, aristocrats, gamblers, detectives, etc. It certainly would add a lot to the game were one to do this... I just don't know if enough people would want to slide the game's focus away from its combat-centric roots?
 

I think we should go back to the Speciality idea in DnD next where you can get a set list of feats in a row.

Like you choose a Origin at level 1.
Then a Subclass at level 3, and get features at level A, B, and C.
Then a Specialty at level 4 and get set feats at levels D, E, and F
Then a Paragon Path at level 10 and continue it at level X.
Then a Epic Destiny at level 15 and and get the final feature at 19.
Do you intend to address the issues that led Specialties to be abandoned in the first place?

That is, the problem with them was that you hard-locked yourself into one and only one path and you did so at an extremely early point. But including a "build it yourself" Specialty functionally eliminates most of the benefits of the subsystem, since that's essentially equivalent to letting you choose your feats anyway.

I certainly had my beefs with the way Specialties were considered during the playtest, but the ultimate conclusion that they didn't really work for the intended purpose seemed sound.
 

Remove ads

Top