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.
 

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.
For me, this is like saying that a Barbarian and a Fighter are thematically similar enough, just reflavor your Champion crits as "oh I was raging then." Like...I guess you can do that? But doing so makes it so "Barbarian" is literally nothing more than a nametag, which is deeply unsatisfying to a fair chunk of people. Ancients Paladins..are Paladins. They have all the (extensive) baggage associated with being Paladins, and have only the most limited, tenuous, arm's-length association with anything actually natural. (The text does an enormous amount of heavy lifting to make the Ancients Paladin actually sound nature-y....when in reality it's much more of a fey knight than a nature knight. It's about preserving beauty, not incarnating Nature's wrath.)

I am much more upbeat than you seem to be about defining interesting, worthwhile mechanical niches for different classes. For your Warden example, 5e lacks for a class that exploits stances and limited change between them. That's a relatively straightforward concept, but one with a lot of potential depth. Perhaps the "basic" Warden subclass goes through a seasonal cycle? And then other Warden subclasses could explore other concepts that (physically) embody and manifest natural power actually surrounding a person. I could see a "Cycle of the Spheres" (Sun -> Moon -> Eclipse, perhaps?), a "Cycle of Fate" (Creation -> Preservation -> Destruction), or a "Cycle of Progress" (Extract -> Refine -> Construct).

And, to be clear, the other classes that I think merit inclusion are, in no particular order: Alchemist, Warlord, Warden, Avenger, Summoner, Shaman, "Machinist" (still workshopping names; 100% non-magical clockwork- and device-user), Assassin, Psion, Swordmage, Invoker. I have specified archetypes each is intended to fulfill; this is more than just "oh I liked these ideas", I genuinely surveyed the field and tried to come up with a set that was still clean and finite, but which got us to the point where it really genuinely does become "IS there anything else left? Is there room to squeeze in anything more?" Anything else would in fact result in us so thoroughly double-covering something that at least one class would be superfluous, or at least that's where I'm at. I'm willing to listen to external voices, of course, but anything beyond a max of 25 is a tough sell, and anything less than about 18 even tougher.

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!
I do in fact split away Assassin from Rogue, because "Assassin" doesn't actually include or really feature "skillmonkey" elements, while Rogue does. I see the Assassin as a distinct thing for exactly the same reason as Paladin and Ranger being distinct things from Fighter. I'm aware there are those who deny that there is value in these distinct classes. I disagree.

Samurai, there's a very simple reason not to: It's racist. "You're a Japanese Fighter, so you're Different" is Orientalist exoticism, plain and simple. Druid, over and above anything else, probably shouldn't have been its own thing--but it has a clear and defined mechanical niche now (shapechanger), which has completely outgrown and transcended any cultural associations of the term "Druid" to the point that D&D has now got the primary sense of the term, not "priest and sometimes poet-critic of certain Celtic cultures".

In simple terms, the class fantasy of the Warden is someone who physically embodies and manifests the raw, unfettered, storm-like fury and strength of Nature herself. Ancients Paladins...just...they aren't that, and they never will be. They're all about beauty and charm; it's only two spells (eugh), gained at extremely high level (13th), that even remotely manifest this fury-of-nature component, and that's really being generous since one of them is stoneskin. Hell, the so-called "Nature's Wrath" Channel Divinity...isn't even wrathful! It's a bloody snare. And its aura is about resisting spells, which...again, looks way more like a fey-knight whose allies shrug off the manipulations of the fey because they've got an inside man, and not really at all like Nature's representative manifesting her presence before those who would despoil her.

Yes, this class fantasy has similarities to the Druid, the Ranger, the Barbarian, and to an extremely limited extent the Ancients Paladin. That's the nature of stories. No man is an island, and neither are stories. They bleed into one another, and they fuel one another.

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?
My approach would ensure that every class, regardless of whether it is magical or non-magical, has clear things it can do to contribute to all game pillars, whatever things get defined as such.
 

6E or homebrew.
So I'e started a stretching Bounded accuracy thread. This one's about conceptually ditching archetypes. Main reason is you're the one writing this and its more work.

Do you prefer a one true way design a'la OSR/Shadowdark or something sort of build options (feats, talent tree, powers, invocations etc). Keep in mind you're the one writing it. More options more work and complexity. (4 classes to lvl 5 would be a decent start point imho).

If things go well might do monsters or feats concepts next weekend.
I'd go with one of the following:

* Feat chains. But short, simple ones. 3-5 feats. The prereq would either be the feat before it or a specific level or minimum stat. Not both, and certainly not multiple of anything. You can get a new feat every X levels. Take a look at Level Up's Synergy Feats.

* Ditch the classes altogether (or have a single Adventurer class) in favor of lots of archetypes. The archetypes would actually be kind of similar to feat chains, in the sense that in order to get the second-tier feature, you need the first-tier feature, but be more involved. You can get the next tiers every X levels, or you can multiclass. Each archetype tier would give you bonuses to attacks, saves, DCs to resist your effects, etc., which would get replaced by higher bonuses as you get higher-tier archetype levels. (I haven't worked out all the details yet.) Use a list of standardized features, so you can have something like: Brawler 1, Feature: Rage; then you can just look up Rage to see what it does.

Edit: "Invocations" should give social and exploration-type abilities, not combat abilities.
 

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.
That's why I did it as 5 choices.

At level one you only have to pick your origin.

But you get Subclass, Specialty, Paragon Path/Prestige Class, Epic Destiny for 4 more choices.
 

I'd go with one of the following:

* Feat chains. But short, simple ones. 3-5 feats. The prereq would either be the feat before it or a specific level or minimum stat. Not both, and certainly not multiple of anything. You can get a new feat every X levels. Take a look at Level Up's Synergy Feats.

* Ditch the classes altogether (or have a single Adventurer class) in favor of lots of archetypes. The archetypes would actually be kind of similar to feat chains, in the sense that in order to get the second-tier feature, you need the first-tier feature, but be more involved. You can get the next tiers every X levels, or you can multiclass. Each archetype tier would give you bonuses to attacks, saves, DCs to resist your effects, etc., which would get replaced by higher bonuses as you get higher-tier archetype levels. (I haven't worked out all the details yet.) Use a list of standardized features, so you can have something like: Brawler 1, Feature: Rage; then you can just look up Rage to see what it does.

Edit: "Invocations" should give social and exploration-type abilities, not combat abilities.

Way I'm dealing with combat vs non combat is classes essentially get bonus options or curated free stuff. In 3.5 terms I have expert feats and some classes get more of them.

Its kind of a problem with talent trees as well. I suppose at certain levels XYZ class gets a non combat talent/feat for free. My rogues for example get as many feats as a 3.5 fighter but its a 50/50 split between expert feats and normal feats.

Expert feats are things like skill training, skill focus, languages, tools etc. Fighter should get some as well but not as many as say Rogue while other classes get curated list of talents at XYZ level or locked class abilities.

Talent
Feat
Talent
Feat

Kinda works but 5E influence can help it out IMHO.
 

Remove ads

Top