Have you played without archetypes?

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Inspired by the Archetypes thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?656745-Archetypes), I did a (very) quick review of the classes and it got me thinking:

What about running a game and not using the archetypes/subclasses?

Having grown up playing OD&D and AD&D and then mixing in 2E, I realized most of the "basic" stuff is there with the class, and the archetypes are the fluff that, personally, I don't find very appealing in most cases.

So, I wanted to ask: Has anyone played a campaign or even just an adventure without using the archetypes?

I'm expecting a resounding "never" but maybe I'll be wrong... Thanks.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Certain classes would be severely disadvantaged. Some classes would see hardly any impact.

But no, never done it.

 

[77IM]

I think the better option would be to lock-in the subclass selection ahead of time, to the simplest or most archetypal option. For example, in Basic D&D, all fighters are Champion fighters, which is the simplest subclass and arguably the most fightery. This way you don't gimp the classes that get a lot of their power from the subclasses.

 

[vpuigdoller]

I think the better option would be to lock-in the subclass selection ahead of time, to the simplest or most archetypal option. For example, in Basic D&D, all fighters are Champion fighters, which is the simplest subclass and arguably the most fightery. This way you don't gimp the classes that get a lot of their power from the subclasses.

Expanding on this idea you could use the SRD instead which includes the other classes not in the basic version.

 

[ccs]

No, and honestly I doubt I ever would.
Because then I wouldn't have access to abilities xyz. The fluff surrounding those abilities doesn't terribly concern me. THAT can be altered at a whim. (For ex: my 1/2ling warlock - unlike most warlock characters - has in no way sold her soul for power, or obtained forbidden knowledge.
Instead she's in a willing partnership with an elderly pseudo-dragon she befriended. She's helping him add to his hoard & he's teaching her magic - including how to summon an aspect of himself) How (for ex) would I go about getting the Pact of the Chain features for my warlock? (Without rewriting rules)?

 

[drl2]

When I first started back into RPG gaming a few months ago, I began with a superhero game called Mighty Protectors that does away with archetypes entirely - instead, characters begin with a number of powers (randomly generated or selected based on a character concept) and allocate points to them from a starting pool, potentially buying power modifiers or getting points back by applying disadvantages. Levels are gone also, with experience points being directly invested back into powers. In a lot of ways it's very freeing in terms of lending itself to a wide variety of characters and a lot of creativity in terms of coming up with character backgrounds, personalities, etc.

The trade-off, of course, is the increased complexity of character generation, especially if you get into potentially complex stuff like the "arsenal" power (designed to simulate, for instance, a utility belt full of gadgets, a quiver full of magic arrows, etc.). With D&D, on the other hand, once you've decided on a race/class, character generation and leveling up seems much simpler.

But to do away with archetypes in D&D? I suppose you could devise some sort of ability points, assign a certain number at each level, and have the character spend them into specific schools of magic to pick up spell slots, or pick options from a list of combat abilities, stealth abilities, or miscellaneous. If you balanced it well enough you could probably even manage to not ruin compatibility with all the published supplemental materials for the game

 

[bedir than]

I'd be willing to play the Sidekicks expert, but not a traditional 5e class without the archetype

 

[Gladius Legis]

No, and I have zero interest in attempting it. For one, because classes are specifically designed with archetypes in mind.

 

[Azzy]

Given how classes would be lacking necessary features to balance against each other, it doesn't seem to be a fruitful idea without heavy houserules to compensate.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No. And I think it's worth noting that Baldur's Gate 2, a 2nd edition CRPG, added a version of archetypes into the game (using optional 2nd edition rules) and was much improved by it.


1st edition classes are far too narrow and restrictive.