Have you played without archetypes?

[generic]

In response to the OP, I don't think the archetypes are "fluff" at all. They contain many potent abilities.

 

[TwoSix]

I think 5e could have gone in a interesting direction where the classes are much more fixed (liked the sidekick classes), and there was simply a greater diversity of classes.

Instead of using 70 pages of the PHB for 12 classes plus subclasses, use it for 30 classes, each of which are 2-3 pages.

I don't think 5e's design is bad, but I do agree that putting most of the modularity into subclasses means that low level games can lack diversity.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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, ...).

As a 1st edition veteran, I have to agree with this sentiment. 5e is by far superior to 1st edition.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

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.

They are very similar, of course, and I am certain that was the intent in their design. But, as I've been focused only on the Barbarian so far, so much was left out from the 1E version. And to my style of play, I am seeing too much from the archetypes that are making the characters OP.

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, ...).

A lot of the archetypes are also 1E multiclassing options (Eldritch Knight for instance is a Fighter/Magic-User basically). I would rather the characters just multiclass. Also, I am in no way limiting player options any more than I did in 1E. I am just asking the players to define their characters themselves instead of using pre-made archetypes. Players has plenty of options in 1E when we played it and no one ever complained about a lack of them!

I think 5e could have gone in a interesting direction where the classes are much more fixed (liked the sidekick classes), and there was simply a greater diversity of classes.

Instead of using 70 pages of the PHB for 12 classes plus subclasses, use it for 30 classes, each of which are 2-3 pages.

I don't think 5e's design is bad, but I do agree that putting most of the modularity into subclasses means that low level games can lack diversity.

I agree and I don't think 5E's design is "bad" either, it just doesn't fit the style of play I want as a DM. Removing the archetypes and folding necessary features from them back into the core classes resolves this for me. Part of this is also born from the fact that very few of my players find archetypes that really appeal to them in any way. When it comes to choosing an archetype, you are still forcing your character down a preconceived path, and most are *meh* at best IMO. My players end up choosing what they see as the best option, but still aren't happy about them.

As a 1st edition veteran, I have to agree with this sentiment. 5e is by far superior to 1st edition.

And if you are that happy with it, I am glad for you. I am not. Like many people here I have been playing D&D in various forms for 40 years or so, and there are a lot of aspects of 5E I like, but just as many that I feel were over-simplified or deviated WAY too much from established conceptions of the classes. Paladins are no longer restricted by alignment, neither are Barbarians, Monks, Rogues, Rangers, etc. In fact, alignment is basically worthless in 5E and should have just been removed completely if that was their intent. Multiclassing makes certain combinations laughable compared to 1E! "Sure, go ahead and play your Barbarian/ Sorcerer/ Paladin... that makes tons of sense." LOL! Sure, a Barbarian which in 1E detest magic and distrust it, can now pick up a level of Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard at 2nd-level...

Also, too many options, especially for new players, is overwhelming. Most of my players (3 of the 5 have only played 5E and for just a few months now) debate back and forth with themselves about what to do next with their character. "Should I go this archetype or that? When should I multiclass to my first level of Monk?" and so on. And when an archetype doesn't fit their view of the character, they start exploring homebrew stuff online, most of which they have shown me is way OP!!! It is laughable and I can only smile and shake my head, saying, "No, but maybe we can tone it down so it might work," and then we are left with yet another homebrew variant archetype. Sigh...

I know most of you like that direction. I don't obviously. I think playing the game is more important than worrying about what features you can get that make your character so powerful that the encounters which should be difficult aren't. I'd rather play a 1E/5E hybrid, like I did with 1E/2E fo decades, than quit 5E altogether. There really is a lot I like about it, but for me the feel is just too far "beyond" (beyond what? I don't know... it just doesn't sit well with me).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would hardly consider Barbarian a 1st edition class, since it was added in Unearthed Arcana only a couple of years before 2nd edition launched.

And the lawful good paladin thing highlights exactly what was wrong with 1st edition: every paladin was pretty much identical to every other paladin, both in terms of abilities and personality. Once you had played one game of 1st edition there was no point in playing any more because you could be sure the characters in the new game would be identikit versions of the characters in the old game.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I would hardly consider Barbarian a 1st edition class, since it was added in Unearthed Arcana only a couple of years before 2nd edition launched.

And the lawful good paladin thing highlights exactly what was wrong with 1st edition: every paladin was pretty much identical to every other paladin, both in terms of abilities and personality. Once you had played one game of 1st edition there was no point in playing any more because you could be sure the characters in the new game would be identikit versions of the characters in the old game.

You might not consider Barbarians 1E, but I certainly do since it was removed from 2E completely until the source books later came out. For our group, also, we didn't jump into 2E until it was out for a couple years, making the time span of the Barbarians in 1E longer for us at least.

As far as the Paladin, maybe that was your experience, but it was far from mine. So, experiences differ as do playing styles. Nothing new there LOL!

Paladins varied in how they served their god, etc. and observed their tenants. Prior to UA and the re-subclass into Cavalier, you could also have Paladins favoring a variety of armor and weapons, deploying their spells differently when the got them, and so on. Lawful Good can be played in many ways and to different degrees as well. But the Paladin is also only one particular class, which was designed to fit a very specific niche. If your experience always saw the Paladin being played the same way, I don't know what to tell you other than I would have to attribute it to a lack of imagination.

One Paladin I played in high school was named "Raymond the Black" because he struggled between obeying the commands of his liege and his patron, and accepting the consequences that sometime came with following through on the tenants of Lawful Good. He also had his shield heraldry covered, like the "black knights" of old. He also used a two-handed sword as his primary weapon. During that same era, a player Jason had his Paladin, Banedon, and was very much the "In the name of all that is righteous and good" type, willing to sacrifice all for another. Years later, in graduate school, a friend of mine, Shawn, played his Paladin, Xavier, who was more the "tally-ho! and sally-forth!", more interested in making a name for himself by doing those good-deeds than in the result of the goodness he did. All three still obeyed their alignment restriction, but to different degrees and in different ways.

So, not Paladins are the same by any means, even in 1E, at least not here.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

They are very similar, of course, and I am certain that was the intent in their design. But, as I've been focused only on the Barbarian so far, so much was left out from the 1E version. And to my style of play, I am seeing too much from the archetypes that are making the characters OP.

You're mentioning the 1e barbarian (wasn't that UA stuff?), and you call 5e archetypes overpowered?
Sorry, but that is ridiculous! Most 1e-UA stuff was not allowed at our table, mostly because basically all UA stuff was really OP.

I haven't found an overpowered archetype until now. I'm actually always amazed how equal in power the classes and archetypes are designed. Almost too levelled!

A lot of the archetypes are also 1E multiclassing options (Eldritch Knight for instance is a Fighter/Magic-User basically). I would rather the characters just multiclass. Also, I am in no way limiting player options any more than I did in 1E. I am just asking the players to define their characters themselves instead of using pre-made archetypes.

Why multi-classing (remember the ultra-crappy 1e multi/dual-classing rules?)? I like MC since 3e, but it's good to simply stay fighter, but cast some spells later on. Or a cleric who can sneak and pick a lock.

... Players has plenty of options in 1E when we played it and no one ever complained about a lack of them!

Haha! So what again could the fighter do in 1e?
The martial classes had weapon and armor selection (maybe 2-weapon-fighting), the casters had their spell selection.
Okay, I have a baaaad long-time memory, but no matter how hard I try, I can't remember too many options.

Sure, I really had fun playing 1e AD&D, and I never complained about options. But that was because I didn't know there could be any. But the options became more with (almost) each edition, and I loved them all (except 4e, that's when we switched to Pathfinder...), mainly because of OPTIONS!

Never complained... yeah, as a kid I never complained about our typical daily german lunch (meat, vegetables, potatoes) that my mum cooked, but heck I was a happy boy when I discovered italian, indian, asian, ... food later on in my life.

 

[Azzy]

I would hardly consider Barbarian a 1st edition class, since it was added in Unearthed Arcana only a couple of years before 2nd edition launched.

Not to mention that UA was mostly trash—especially the Barbarian and Cavalier (it's no wonder that those two didn't make the cut for 2e).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

When it comes to choosing an archetype, you are still forcing your character down a preconceived path, and most are *meh* at best IMO. My players end up choosing what they see as the best option, but still aren't happy about them.

How is this different than the class system in general? A class with no choice points is clearly an even more preconceived path.

Sure, a Barbarian which in 1E detest magic and distrust it, can now pick up a level of Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard at 2nd-level...

Assuming all barbarians hate magic seems like forcing such characters down a preconceived path to me.

So, not Paladins are the same by any means, even in 1E, at least not here.

If not all paladins are the same, even in 1E, then surely not all 5E battlemasters or totem warriors or whatever are the same either.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Sigh...

You know what, you're all right. What was I thinking?

5E is AWESOME! Best D&D EVER!!! All hail WotC and the Lords of Options and Choices!!

HAH-ZAA! HAH-ZAA! HAH-ZAA!

Thanks for convincing me that D&D is basically dead. Like most things it's become a game of so many choices where if options and rewards aren't shoved down your throat you can't even think of what to do on your own. There is a constant need for reward and accomplishment where before it was just the fun of a great adventure.

If you felt that options were limited in 1E and even 2E, then I pity your games. Your options were your imagination. Remember that? An imagination? No, I suppose you probably don't since no one seems to use it anymore. I find it comical how many people also rely on the published adventures, many designed to take your characters from zero to hero and then be done with them. Sure, I loved some of the module adventures in 1E, but over 95% of my stuff was good, old-fashioned, home-made adventures.

There is so much stuff in 5E that is crap and has irked me from the beginning: (of course, much of this was born in 3E...)

• Way too many oversimplified mechanics
• Dragonborn, Tieflings, and monster-PCs
• Same XP for every class
• Max HP at Level 1
• Super-quick advancement through the first levels
• Archetypes with extra abilities that are either OP, unimaginative, useless, or step on the toes of other classes
• Three different types of Arcane casters (four if you include Bard)
• Backgrounds
• Feats
• The Multiclass system
• The many "oh, its up to you" systems (like Surprise)
• The Bounded Accuracy concept
• Monsters with 100s and more hit points
• and so much more!

The game couldn't even keep me interested for 3 months without being overwhelmed by flaws and feeling it needed so many houserules it is ridiculous. I'll finish out the campaign I am currently running since I owe that to my players, but after that my 5E books will be posted on Ebay. If you find the link, they will be available cheap.

Since everyone here seems to love 5E so much, keep enjoying it. I'm glad at least someone is happy with it. I'll be dusting off my 1E books and introducing real D&D to my players.