D&D General Ditching Archetypes 6E?

[CreamCloud0]

an idea i'd like to see explored is versatile mix-and-match class design, like if subclasses were more of a 60/40 split than a 75/25 and you could put them on any class, some of the more specific class building blocks only exist as top halves(like bladesinger), plus we have some of those 4e? feats that let you dip into other class mechanics and thematics cause i'm removing multiclassing

put a rogue top on a fighter bottom and you've got a bulky warrior who can second wind and sneak attack
put a fighter top on rogue bottom and you've got a stealthy guy with expertise and martial manoeuvres
put a cleric top on a fighter bottom and you've made yourself a pseudo-paladin *may not contain smite (take the druid dip feat and now you're an ancients paladin)
put a fighter top on a cleric bottom and you've made yourself a war cleric

I want to explain this better but I’m making the decision to instead go to bed rather than spend the next best part of an hour overthinking my explanation

 

[TigerDude]

Archetypes built via tech trees are still archetypes

 

[Remathilis]

Which rather defeats the whole point of distinct classes and niche protection, right?

It also blows up the idea of recognizable archetypes; and while that's the premise of this thread, it's a premise I oppose

No more than multicasting does. It just breaks the base unit of down further for more granularity.

A fighter can buy martial skills easier and cheaper than he can arcane, divine and expert abilities. Trying to match a wizard in arcane skill is a fools errand as the wizard will get those skills far easier than a fighter can. What it does do though is let you create a fighter who picks up some expert abilities (skill use, uncanny dodge, etc) and be a swashbuckler or a ranger. The idea was already experimented with in Skills and Powers, but it didn't work there because it has to fit the 2nd edition base game and classes. A 6e where classes are defined by what skills they can get cheaper would keep elements of class identity without forcing them into specific niches like cleric being the healbot. Classes become guides to picking skills, but not straightjackets.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd start - and stop - with 15-20 hard-coded and easily-identifyable classes. No subclasses. Each of those classes has clear strengths in some things and obvious weaknesses in others, with limited bleed-over and hard niche protection. Bang - there's the archetypes.

Except that's not what "archetypes" means in the 5e context.

"Archetype", in the 5e context, means a branch within an "easily-identifyable [sic] class". So your "offer" here is, "Okay, here me out: We delete everything you're looking for, and replace it with something that has none of what you're looking for. Cool? Cool."

I get where you're coming from. I just fundamentally disagree with class minimalism. That doesn't mean I believe in maximalism. But it does mean you need to give me an argument more than "but what about less?"

What's intentionally missing?
--- Swordmage - the classic "I wanna do it all" class - gone in any form.
--- Bard - can't make it fit between Charmer and Illusionist - gone.
--- Warlord or Leader - classic "I'm the boss" class, also healing is strictly Clerical.
--- Barbarian - can't make it fit between the other Warrior classes except as a very boring one-trick pony - gone.
--- Multi-classing - gone.

You'll never succeed at killing Swordmage-type characters. People want them. They sell well. They can be quite balanced (look at the 4e one--it's arguably one of the weakest Defenders, but it was neat and tricksy, and definitely had its fans.)

Also, LOL, eliminating BOTH archetypes AND multiclassing? No, I'm sorry Lanefan, this is...not something that will ever happen in D&D. Period. There literally hasn't been a numbered edition of D&D that lacked multiclassing. Even OD&D allowed a certain limited flavor of it. The thing you're proposing is--genuinely--in contradiction to what D&D has offered for 50 years.

Frankly, I'm shocked to see you suggest something that is so radically out of step with traditional D&D. Like legit actually traditional here, not "it was done in 3e so it's traditional".

 

[Remathilis]

Healing is the Cleric's hard-line niche. If it doesn't say "Cleric" somewhere in the class name then you can't do healing, period stop end.

Laughs in Druidic

 

[Zardnaar]

Why? What problem are you trying to fix? Without knowing what you are trying to achieve, The only comment I can make is “if it ain’t broke don’t try and fix it”.

Mostly conceptually at this point.

 

[Zardnaar]

Archetypes built via tech trees are still archetypes

Not really depends on execution. I do gave a couple of talent trees based off 5.5. They are locked eg you can only pick one.

SWSE had open talent trees. 5 talents you can pick from any of the trees.

 

[Zardnaar]

Laughs in Druidic

Well played.

 

[payn]

Id take a scalpel to 3E/PF1 and add bounded accuracy to it.

 

[Lanefan]

No more than multicasting does. It just breaks the base unit of down further for more granularity.

Well, multiclassing as the WotC editions do it has to go as well.