Base Class Strength vs Archetype Strength

[ciarannihill]

Which classes have the strongest and most vital core abilities and which ones are influenced most heavily by the archetype selections? And by extension which class's archetype selection impacts character power level the least.

Just curious about peoples' opinions on this subject.

Barbarians, Monks, Warlocks and Paladins seem to all have very strong base toolkits and archetypes seem to just enhance or alter playstyle a bit more than changing anything core to them.

Fighters, Wizards, Druids, Clerics and Rogues seem to have archetypes that change up playstyle, but a lot of the power level still comes from the base class features.

Rangers, Sorcerers and Bards seem to me to be more dependent on their archetype not just for playstyle, but also for powerful abilities and features.


Having said that, I could be wrong, what do you all think?

EDIT: Typos

[jaappleton]

This is a very interesting question, and one I haven't though of for quite some time.

Barbarian, I think, is a little mixed. Some archetypes add so much on top of the base class, while others just provide a more unique playstyle. A fine example would be the Totem Barbarian VS the spiked armor wearing Battlerager.

Any full caster gets their style augmented a bit based on whether or not they get Extra Attack in their archetype. Beyond that, I think anything an archetype adds is nice, but not exactly game altering.

[ciarannihill]

This is a very interesting question, and one I haven't though of for quite some time.

Barbarian, I think, is a little mixed. Some archetypes add so much on top of the base class, while others just provide a more unique playstyle. A fine example would be the Totem Barbarian VS the spiked armor wearing Battlerager.

Any full caster gets their style augmented a bit based on whether or not they get Extra Attack in their archetype. Beyond that, I think anything an archetype adds is nice, but not exactly game altering.

True enough, my main thought was there are classes you might multiclass into for the sake of class features, and some for specific archetype features.

Rage and Unarmored defense are the reasons you might multiclass into Barbarian, the Archetype is icing by comparison. Meanwhile if you multiclass Ranger it's almost certainly for the sake of archetype features. Fighter is always a strong pick to multiclass thanks to Action Surge, but certain archetype features are as attractive as that for certain builds (Riposte for Rogues, Improved Critical for Barbarians, and War Magic for gishes), so I think it finds a cool middle ground. It helps that it's a very versatile class.

Sorcerer I have only a small bit of experience with, but it feels like Draconic Bloodline, Shadow, Storm all play and feel quite different relative to each other. And then you have Wild Magic and Divine Soul that feel totally unique compared to other Sorcerer archetypes. Maybe my lack of experience with them is showing in this description, though.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I’d say the class with the most impactful archetype would be the cleric. Cleric is almost entirely his spell list without the domain. It’s so a fundamental element to the character of any cleric too.

Now all the classes are pretty close to to each other as well for this. Base features and archetype features relationships is usually inverse. If base class is strong then archetypes are less impactful. Archetypes still alter gameplay though across the board.

Rogue, I think, has the strongest baseline and the archetype choice is not very important. All the iconic features are in the base class, and the subclasses are icing on a cake that almost didn’t need any.

I think the biggest outlier in all of this is the Warlock. Mainly because it has the most variance with baseline features and how the patron choice is affected is effects these things.

I wouldn’t say one is more important than the other but I also couldn’t say if they are equal. Which I think is fitting the most unique caster in the game

[ciarannihill]

When it comes to roleplaying and "play feel" I agree the Cleric gets a lot from it's Domain. Even just whether or not it wears heavy armor.


What I find sort of interesting is that I think if you were to pose this question pre-Xanathar's you might come away from it differently than post-Xanathar's, in particular due to Hexblade Warlock, Gloomstalker Ranger, and Swashbuckler Rogue. All of these archetypes feel like substantial variations on their base class or, in the case of Gloomstalker, a substantial power bump relative to most of the other archetypes available previously.

[Mortis_Elrod]

When it comes to roleplaying and "play feel" I agree the Cleric gets a lot from it's Domain. Even just whether or not it wears heavy armor.


What I find sort of interesting is that I think if you were to pose this question pre-Xanathar's you might come away from it differently than post-Xanathar's, in particular due to Hexblade Warlock, Gloomstalker Ranger, and Swashbuckler Rogue. All of these archetypes feel like substantial variations on their base class or, in the case of Gloomstalker, a substantial power bump relative to most of the other archetypes available previously.

I agree. Though the swashbuckler was in SCaG, which is another bag of beans entirely.

I have the opinion that the reason why Ranger is where it is right is because it was designed to be one of classes who’s baseline and archetypes were supposed to be about equal to each other. But they didn’t make a strong baseline and that dragged the archetypes further down and the flawed ones became even more flawed because of this.
The patch job would be archetypes that are a lot stronger than the baseline . Which is what we’ve seen.

But that’s neither here nor there.

What’s interesting is that there’s not a lot of choices to be had in almost all the classes base featuers

[ciarannihill]

I find it somewhat interesting how the Archetypes, with notable exceptions, only feel like they matter for 1-2 real features, 1 niche feature and a ribbon or two. The base classes determine a lot of your kit, and the archetypes sadly have to compensate for the classes with weaker base kits and feel almost tacked on to the classes with powerful base kits...Or they feel like they give too many extra tools to the base kit and are therefore a bit overkill. The base class kits really overshadow the archetypes, with a few exceptions (like Hexblade), which is part of why I love multi-classing as a mechanic to keep things fresh.

One of the reasons I'm interested in this stuff is because if you try to come up with a homebrew archetype I feel like you have to take this into account...

For example, I was interested in making a "Beast Master" Barbarian archetype, but the balancing act is super hard, trying to make your pet matter and be meaningful, without making the playing super overpowered by adding such a meaningful tools via archetype to a class that probably shouldn't get tools that useful.

Druids are tough for a different reason, it feels like by their nature they don't allow for as much potential variation as Clerics, Wizards, Fighters, etc. Their base kit establishes a flavor that's somewhat narrow in terms of design space, in part because it's tough to make a Druid that makes effective use of Wild Shape that doesn't either overshadow or be overshadowed by Moon Druid.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I find it somewhat interesting how the Archetypes, with notable exceptions, only feel like they matter for 1-2 real features, 1 niche feature and a ribbon or two. The base classes determine a lot of your kit, and the archetypes sadly have to compensate for the classes with weaker base kits and feel almost tacked on to the classes with powerful base kits...Or they feel like they give too many extra tools to the base kit and are therefore a bit overkill. The base class kits really overshadow the archetypes, with a few exceptions (like Hexblade), which is part of why I love multi-classing as a mechanic to keep things fresh.

One of the reasons I'm interested in this stuff is because if you try to come up with a homebrew archetype I feel like you have to take this into account...

For example, I was interested in making a "Beast Master" Barbarian archetype, but the balancing act is super hard, trying to make your pet matter and be meaningful, without making the playing super overpowered by adding such a meaningful tools via archetype to a class that probably shouldn't get tools that useful.

Druids are tough for a different reason, it feels like by their nature they don't allow for as much potential variation as Clerics, Wizards, Fighters, etc. Their base kit establishes a flavor that's somewhat narrow in terms of design space, in part because it's tough to make a Druid that makes effective use of Wild Shape that doesn't either overshadow or be overshadowed by Moon Druid.

For Druid I think the best way to approach it is how determine if wild shape is used with the archetype. If it’s not then do the Spore Druid way and convert the use into something else.

[Willie the Duck]

There are also classes where other 'toggles' besides archetype have greater or lesser importance. Clerics on whether to be on the frontline with mace and shield vs stand back with cantrips (yes, archetype can influence this) can be a big deal. As can decision on using spells mostly for combat buffing or keeping in reserve. Fighter types weapon style (and Str/Dex admixture) can be a bigger deal than archetype.

[MaxWilson]

I agree. Though the swashbuckler was in SCaG, which is another bag of beans entirely.

Do note that the SCAG Swashbuckler and the Xanathar's Swashbuckler are slightly different. The Xanathar's Swashbuckler has more restrictions on its sneak attack--SCAG Swashbucklers make better archers.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Do note that the SCAG Swashbuckler and the Xanathar's Swashbuckler are slightly different. The Xanathar's Swashbuckler has more restrictions on its sneak attack--SCAG Swashbucklers make better archers.

I may have done the biggest double take of my life right there. was 99% sure you were wrong until i opened my books.

This is actually crazy. Why would they change this? and also does this count as errata? It was my understanding that the repeat subclasses would just be reprinted and not changed.

[ciarannihill]

I may have done the biggest double take of my life right there. was 99% sure you were wrong until i opened my books.

This is actually crazy. Why would they change this? and also does this count as errata? It was my understanding that the repeat subclasses would just be reprinted and not changed.

Maybe it's because of Sword Coast flavor vs more generic DnD flavor? I'm AFB atm so I can't double check it, but it makes me curious about Sun Soul Monks and other SCAG reprints in Xanathar's -- have they been altered as well?

[Mortis_Elrod]

Maybe it's because of Sword Coast flavor vs more generic DnD flavor? I'm AFB atm so I can't double check it, but it makes me curious about Sun Soul Monks and other SCAG reprints in Xanathar's -- have they been altered as well?

flavor is no reason for hard nerf. the way it was before wasn't game breaking. I just checked Storm sorcerer and no change there. Now i will check sun soul.

[ciarannihill]

flavor is no reason for hard nerf. the way it was before wasn't game breaking. I just checked Storm sorcerer and no change there. Now i will check sun soul.

What exactly are the differences? Didn't realize it was a nerf.


There are also classes where other 'toggles' besides archetype have greater or lesser importance. Clerics on whether to be on the frontline with mace and shield vs stand back with cantrips (yes, archetype can influence this) can be a big deal. As can decision on using spells mostly for combat buffing or keeping in reserve. Fighter types weapon style (and Str/Dex admixture) can be a bigger deal than archetype.

That's certainly true, especially with Fighter and Ranger. Paladin's fighting style basically determine if you're Sword + Board or Great Weapon, whereas Ranger and Fighter both have melee and ranged variations, and Fighter in particular has a lot of ways of playing it's various archetypes.

Part of why I feel like Fighter's archetypes should allow for interesting distinct branched playstyles, I should feel like it makes practical sense to play a bow fighter with every archetype, as well as a melee fighter with every archetype (part of why I dislike Arcane Archer personally). /very opinion