D&D 5E Heroic Archetypes and Gaps in Class coverage

[Lanefan]

The baggage I wish 5e did carry over is an equivalent of customized powers for all classes. In 5E terms it would be maneuvers for martial classes to match spells for casters.

Thanks, but if nobody minds I'll leave those bags unclaimed at the terminal.

 

[Dualazi]

Thanks, but if nobody minds I'll leave those bags unclaimed at the terminal.

I mind, for one. Combat Superiority dice should have been given to all martials, and probably some others, hands down. There's a huge wealth of untapped potential there for power design and resource management for the other classes, and it still would have been very distinct from spellcasters so as to belay people claiming everyone has spells.

 

[Irda Ranger]

many classes in D&D are packaged with too much narrative fluff, which has people looking to fill in narrative stuff with additional classes, when, mechanically speaking, an existing class could easily have been used to fill that purpose.

Yeah, that's true. I think they did that on purpose because of the bad reaction that a lot of people had to 4E where the fluff and the mechanics were so strongly separated that it created jarring verisimilitude problems for many people. I was among them. The fluff description said something like "Your sword glows with blue flame" and the mechanics said "Extra d6 damage", and when the designers were asked if the blue flame shed light or could set drapes on fire they steadfastly said "No, only d6 damage". People flipped out, because this is a role-playing game that requires suspension of disbelief, which in turn requires the narrative and the mechanical effects to be at least in the same ballpark.

So the results is that the narrative elements (which you see as archetypically restrictive) are more integrated.

My solution though is that I sometimes will take a class or collection of spells, strip them down to their bare mechanics, and then re-write the fluff from the ground up so that it makes a cohesive narrative. Sometimes this results in a damage type or ribbon effects being different, so that an Ice Bolt might freeze liquids whereas the Fire Bolt it's based on ignites flammables. When I'm the DM I of course have unlimited flexibility here, but even now as a player my DM has been cool with letting me do this; for example, my current PC is a GOO Warlock with the Magic Initiate (Bard) feat, but I rewrote the spells I got from that to be "Lovecraftian", so instead of "Vicious Mockery" I have "Gibbering Secrets", and instead of "Guidance" I have "Akashic Whispers". The effects are exactly the same, but the narrative is consistent with someone who's brain has been tuned to the frequency the GOOs broadcast their dreams at.

So it's definitely possible to use the current framework to cover more archetypes, although maybe not in Organized Play situations.

I like the idea a lot. That way, you sort of particulate mechanical and narrative functions in a way that lets people splice them together to form their own character. However, I suspect it works better (or is more easily designed) because combat is a relatively small portion of that game's mechanics. It doesn't have scads of picayune tactical detail. Instead, you sorta pick a strategy, make an appropriate roll and see how it turned out. That lightweight combat (I mean a fight could be one roll) frees up a lot of design space.

I'm definitely going to have to check that out.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The baggage I wish 5e did carry over is an equivalent of customized powers for all classes. In 5E terms it would be maneuvers for martial classes to match spells for casters. That would create a ton of customize choices without much effort, versus cranking out class/subclasses to fill in missing niches.

I'm 100% the other way on this. I'd rather have 20 classes and 5-10 sub-classes for each one, with a pre-defined class advancement, than have to "build" my PC with powers. I hated 3E and 4E because of Feats, Prestige Classes, and "Builds", and never played either edition more than a handful of times. I stuck with AD&D/BECMI or their OSR equivalents until 5E came out.

My thinking is that I don't play D&D to tinker with character builds. I play D&D to kill orcs. Just give me a character and point me at the dungeon. Having to pick a race, background, class, equipment, and (maybe) a Feat at 1st level is already pushing it.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I mind, for one. Combat Superiority dice should have been given to all martials, and probably some others, hands down. There's a huge wealth of untapped potential there for power design and resource management for the other classes, and it still would have been very distinct from spellcasters so as to belay people claiming everyone has spells.

No.

No.

No no no no no.

If you want Combat Superiority dice, there's a sub-class for that. For people who just want a simple Fighter, there's a sub-class for that. Don't make the rest of us play the way you like to play.

I would never have bought 5E if this was the design approach they took. There's a reason the OSR flourished during the 3E and 4E years.

 

[Lanefan]

I mind, for one. Combat Superiority dice should have been given to all martials, and probably some others, hands down. There's a huge wealth of untapped potential there for power design and resource management for the other classes, and it still would have been very distinct from spellcasters so as to belay people claiming everyone has spells.

Everyone might not have spells in such a system, but everyone would have complicated stuff they'd have to keep track of whether they wanted to or not.

There's nothing at all wrong with some classes being very simple to both generate and play; and if that means I-as-Fighter "do nothing but swing my axe" that's fine...because that's why I'm playing a Fighter - to chop things down with an axe!

Lan-"my name is Axwell Smart"-efan

 

[Dualazi]

No.

No.

No no no no no.

If you want Combat Superiority dice, there's a sub-class for that. For people who just want a simple Fighter, there's a sub-class for that. Don't make the rest of us play the way you like to play.

I would never have bought 5E if this was the design approach they took. There's a reason the OSR flourished during the 3E and 4E years.

Correlation doesn’t equal causation, and I’d be suspicious of any such claims since the 3e fighter was also a full-attack spammer prior to the application of feats, which in my experience were often merely spent on improving the aforementioned attack spam.

Everyone might not have spells in such a system, but everyone would have complicated stuff they'd have to keep track of whether they wanted to or not.

There's nothing at all wrong with some classes being very simple to both generate and play; and if that means I-as-Fighter "do nothing but swing my axe" that's fine...because that's why I'm playing a Fighter - to chop things down with an axe!

Lan-"my name is Axwell Smart"-efan

If they put in a default option to simply increase damage with the Superiority die, it would functionally add no additional complexity. It would just let you hit with your favorite axe slightly harder sometimes, which is something you already contend with anyway on account of action surge being baked into every fighter by default.

Likewise, it’s easier to dumb down than it is to build up. If every martial class had Superiority dice, nothing would compel you to use them in ways you didn’t want to, any more than the game forces you to cast things other than cantrips. It’d be sub-optimal, sure, but evidently there’re no shortage of people on the forums who adamantly claim that optimal play isn’t required, so it shouldn’t be an issue, right?

Mearls himself has come out and said the fighter was one of the larger areas he would have liked to have improvements on, and there have been numerous threads here on the boards about the deficiencies of fighters, champion most of all. It bothers me that an interesting resource system was squandered on one subclass, possibly for the sole sake of preserving the champion fighter.

 

[clearstream]

I was listening to Matt Mercer talking about his design process behind the Blood hunter homebrew class, and I was interested how little he touched on the mechanical aspect of where the class fitted (Glass Cannon), and focused much more on the archetype the character fits into – namely the hero that poisons part of himself for a greater good.

I sort of sat down, and came the conclusion I could (very very) loosely attribute classes to general heroic archetypes (So the rogue is the criminal antihero, the wise intellectual is the wizard, the young person with power but low control is a sorcerer, the quiet self-sufficient capable type is the ranger, the girl with the secret curse/boss is the warlock…..as I said, they are quite loose). Previously when looking at gaps where it might be fun to homebrew I was taking a bit of a 4e approach and looking at combat roles….but what Mercer said about the Blood Hunter got me thinking.

What general heroic archetypes do you think are missing from the current class suite (narratively, not mechanically), specifically ones you think are distinct enough to warrant a class. Specifics and theories would be nice too.

I’d be interested in people’s general thoughts on missing heroic tropes, so if you can refrain from slanging off other people’s choices, that’d be greatly appreciated. This isn’t an argument about whether John McClane is a Barbarian or a Fighter, Batman a Rogue or an artificer, or Walt Kowalski a Druid or a Cleric. It’s a conversation about the overlap of heroic archetypes represented in the class structure (as opposed to how their mechanics define them), and the gaps available for homebrewing distinctive classes.

Fire away!!!

(Also - Correct answer: Barbarian, Paladin, Druid)

Great question for a thread! I certainly agree with coming at class concepts from different angles such as from narrative first. However, I think sometimes a new type emerges from the mechanics. For example, I love the Diviner Bard "fate-mancer" that has emerged fully-fledged from 5e. Two Portent rolls a day. Bardic Inspiration. Cutting Words. Lucky feat. Bane. For me, each time a new dimension is added to the rules - like using Blood Magic from the DM's Guild - one or more new heroic types emerge! Conversely, if the mechanics aren't there, the type struggles to properly exist.

 

[Irda Ranger]

If every martial class had Superiority dice, nothing would compel you to use them in ways you didn’t want to, any more than the game forces you to cast things other than cantrips. It’d be sub-optimal, sure, but evidently there’re no shortage of people on the forums who adamantly claim that optimal play isn’t required, so it shouldn’t be an issue, right?

Dude, it's the complexity of using Superiority Dice at all that some people don't want. It's not about optimal vs sub-optimal. It's about rules complexity. The Champion Fighter isn't preferable to some people because they think his DPS is 0.5 HP/turn better under expected campaign conditions; he's preferable because they don't have to think about Superiority Dice; their character works exactly the same every round.

Mearls himself has come out and said the fighter was one of the larger areas he would have liked to have improvements on,

Mearls' opinion in meaningless here. He can play whatever game he wants, of course, but we are talking about what people who aren't Mearls prefer and want from a system.

It bothers me that an interesting resource system was squandered on one subclass, possibly for the sole sake of preserving the champion fighter.

And it would bother me if everyone was forced to use Superiority Dice just because Dualazi finds them personally interesting.

 

[Hillsy7]

[MENTION=6775000]Uchawi[/MENTION], [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]g, [MENTION=28653]ird[/MENTION]a_Ranger, [MENTION=6800071]Dua[/MENTION]liza

I know I can't actually do anything about it, but I'd like to ask if you wish argue about how Fighters are built and what about them rocks/sucks, there's a couple of other mechanics based threads ongoing. Could you move your discussion over there please as this isn't the thread for it. I mean, I know I can't stop you, and I know you didn't start it, but just asking for a little consideration for the topic and why it was created.

Cheers