Have you played without archetypes?

[Ath'kethin]

5e is built around the archetype tack-on. Playing without them entirely leaves over half the game on the table.

Having restricted or predefined archetype choice seems a better avenue for what the OP is talking about, and as someone else mentioned Basic does that very handily. After all, each class (except maybe for the wizard) has a subclass directly mirroring the pre-WotC versions of the class. It's no coincidence that these are the locked-in subclasses used in Basic.

Rogue Comet realeased a similarsetup called Dungeonesque a ways back, too, and some people argued at the time that it made a better Basic D&D than the official version did.

So you could look into that too, but be aware that it is largely SRD content in a nostalgic repackaging. It does have some cool new twists, though.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

Concerning the original question:
No way!
Having options is what I love about the latest editions.
Archetypes are core to this.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I second the call to just use the 5E SRD as the baseline "non-archetyped" classes.

And if even the idea that certain abilities at certain levels in the SRD are split out from the base class listing and put in a separate "archetype" section identified as such at the end of the class... "Ranger Archetypes - Hunter" or "Wizard Archetypes - School of Evocation" as they list it... if even that separation bothers you... just do a copy/paste out of the PDF and into a Word doc and then re-insert each of the archetype's abilities out of the archetype section and into the base class list in level order.

So 'Hunter's Prey' is put into the Ranger's feature list after 'Primeval Awareness', 'Defensive Tactics' is put in between 'Extra Attack' and 'Land's Stride', etc. etc. etc. Once you do that you have a baseline class listing that makes no indication of any archetypes, but all the classes still get all the abilities and features they are meant to have in some form or fashion.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I'll double-check the SRD and see if that more fills the roles I am looking for.

For me though, I have to disagree about many of the archetypes, as most offer 4 features or so, only which typical characters will realize two or three of them as the higher levels where final features are gained don't seem to be as common from what I have read on this forum. Also with any serious degree of multiclassing, those features won't be seen. Many of them don't provide the options players seek, so homebrew are made to fill the gaps or sometimes players feel trapped, taking the best option but still not satisfied with it. For example, a player in my group has a Wizard who just made 2nd-level and was looking at the archetypes, not happy with any of them and took War Magic simply for the combat benefits.

With some exceptions, such as the Warlock class whose Eldritch Invocations are sometimes based on their Pact, most classes offer enough benefits that the extra few features provided by archetypes are just there for variety, instead of using the player's imagination to add variety.

Obviously most of you feel the archetypes are wonderful, giving you a "direction" for your character, more options, etc. which was what was intended by them. I simply don't feel they are necessary and the classes can be easily tweaked to remove them. We'll see.

Either way, thanks for all of your input!

 

[Volund]

Most classes would be significantly nerfed without their archetype. The classes that pick an archetype at first level would be most affected. Clerics without a domain would lose 10 free spells, a channel divinity, possible armor and weapon proficiencies, damage upgrades at 8th level, and a signature ability at 17th if they ever got that far. And what's a warlock without a patron? As others have said elsewhere, the rules should be taken as a whole - a drastic change to the rules in one area impacts the use of the whole system.

Eliminating archetypes would flatten the power progression of most classes, which was a feature of 1e but not one I look back on fondly. I do however appreciate your interest in preserving an old school adventuring vibe. It's not the same as not having any archetypes, but our group is going to try a campaign with severely reduced archetype choices. After our current campaign wraps up a player in our group is eager to run a campaign of classic AD&D modules converted to 5e. To ease running the game and give it more of a 1e feel, we're working on a single archetype that most corresponded to each 1e class (and no MC), even locking in a few sub-choices, like choosing forest for land druids, and humanoids/giants for the UA ranger's favored enemies. Once a class is selected, there won't be any other choices for class features so in that sense it's kind of like playing without archetypes. This will be a major change for our group that usually plays with a wide-open 5e character toolkit!

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Actually in taking away the archetypes you have left much of the core class abilities reflected from much of 1E. True, some adjustments would be needed, but not as much as many people might imagine. Once I work on it some this weekend, I might present the ideas for discussion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Many of the abilities that where core in 1st edition are archetype abilities in 5e - for example, thief: climb walls, cleric: heavy armour proficiency, paladin: turn undead, monk: quivering palm.

2nd edition introduced kits, so suggesting that removing archetypes would make the game more like 2nd edition is being disingenuous.

Even 1st edition had subclasses: Illusionist, Assassin.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Many of the abilities that where core in 1st edition are archetype abilities in 5e - for example, thief: climb walls, cleric: heavy armour proficiency, paladin: turn undead, monk: quivering palm.

2nd edition introduced kits, so suggesting that removing archetypes would make the game more like 2nd edition is being disingenuous.

Even 1st edition had subclasses: Illusionist, Assassin.

True, many were.

What I am working on is restoring those abilities into the main class and then removing archetype choices. I am also adding abilities that more reflect the 1E feel of the classes. I don't like how so many archetypes adding spells or spell-like abilities to non-casting class. Such as the Path of the Zeaolt's Divine Fury.

But again, if you check the OP, I don't expect many people (if any LOL!) to appreciate what I am doing. I prefer the 1E feel, but want to try it with the 5E mechanics. Some people have suggested using a "core" archetype and going with that. I suppose that is what I am doing, crafting my own "core" archetypes. For the people who argue about choices and flavor, I have to disagree. D&D, in all its forms, has always had choices and flavor--it was called your imagination and playing your character as your own. We didn't need all the "extras" provided by archetypes to enjoy the game, at least not in my groups.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But that's exactly what the Thief, Oath of Devotion Paladin, Open Hand monk etc are: The 1st edition version of the class*. There is no need to add or remove abilities because the work is already done for you, along with the balancing. Just tell your players that only have one archetype available.


*strictly speaking, you should allow thief and assassin, since both where in 1st edition, along with illusion specialist wizards.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

I don't get it why people want 1e stuff back?
The ONLY thing I miss a tiny little bit: the names by level of the classes. Funny!

Or why limit the players' options?
In some classes, the archetypes only slightly affect the base class, but for some it let's them go some really different ways, at least it feels different (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, moon druid, some cleric domains, ...).