The breadth of D&D class archetypes

[Tanarii]

I have a player, who usually ties to start with a character concept in his head, then make the character in the game. In a 5e campaign with no optional rules btw: no Feats or multiclassing.

He complained to me that D&D archetypes are too narrow, and more damning in his eyes too D&D-specific. Basically, the vast majority of character concepts he comes up with boil down to being best represented as "Fighter or Rogue with a Background". Some of the more wuxia ones work okay as Monks, and occasionally others as a Barbarian.

Now, I've played D&D since AD&D / BECMI. So my initial reaction to this was basically, so what? That's normal. Most fictional-based characters are usually best as Fighters or Thieves. :smallamused:

The more I thought about it, the more I realized many D&D archetypes are a product of the time the rules were first written, a blend that only someone who was into 60s fantasy, medieval war games, and esoteric pre-medieval lore (Celtic, Norse, etc) could have come up with. Berserker Barbarians & Skald bards, tribal barbarians, Druids & Druid-trained bards, Crusader clerics and Paladins. And an entire magic system based around war game resource tracking, spells per session/scenario, justified by vancian "forget once cast".

I ended up telling the player yup, he was right. D&D archetypes are strong D&D archetypes, grounded in the history of the game. Not "build any fantasy character" archetypes. And I'm fine with that for my specific campaign, because that's what I wanted. But I agreed that it can be limiting from a concept-first perspective.

There should probably be a question in there or something, but I thought I'd share and see where this goes. Hopefully nowhere bad. :smallbiggrin:

[Naanomi]

I’m hard pressed to think of any fantasy character that I couldn’t approximate with 5e stuff (though some are more of a stretch than others); excepting that power levels in fantasy literature vary greatly and some sort of baseline had to be arbitrarily assigned to maintain the ‘game’ portion of DnD... so that the ‘incarnate Demi-Gods’ and the like of fantasy literature are relegated to NPCs in many cases at the table

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree that 5e's class archetypes are relatively narrow and not comprehensive. I find no evidence in the books themselves or in the promotional materials that the intent was to allow the emulation of any fantasy archetype one could dream up. So, basically, CLOSED_WON'T_FIX_WORKING_AS_DESIGNED.

I'm not fond of the idea of a "character concept" at all, though. I'd rather have organic characters that grow as play progresses rather than top-down designs built to emulate X character from fiction or Y mechanical niche or Z "big concept." For me, having strong, distinct archetypes is useful because it's part of answering the fundamental questions

a) Where did I come from? (race + background)
b) What did I do before I started adventuring? (background + class)
c) What kind of person am I? (background + personality + class)
d) What are my goals (personality + events of the game)

I'd almost say that in some cases, the archetypes presented are too broad and should require more specialization/focus than they already do. For example, I don't like the nature of D&D spells (as atomic units that are presented buffet style). Two "optimized" wizards will have basically the same spells, even if one is a pyromancer who loves fire and the other is a necromancer. Or clerics, where the god of disease and poison grants access to the same "cure me/buff me/protect me" spells as the god of goodness, protection and fluffy bunnies. I've tried to mix and match the lists, but it's unsatisfying from a game perspective.

[Tanarii]

I’m hard pressed to think of any fantasy character that I couldn’t approximate with 5e stuff (though some are more of a stretch than others);
Sure. His point wasn't he couldn't fit them. It was that most often they ended up best fitting in two classes.

Specifically the two classes with no D&D spellcasting, now that I think about it. But also the two with the broadest archetypes.

[Naanomi]

Sure. His point wasn't he couldn't fit them. It was that most often they ended up best fitting in two classes.

Specifically the two classes with no D&D spellcasting, now that I think about it. But also the two with the broadest archetypes.
Ah, I misread. Yeah, obviously the two classes with the least ‘baked in’ flavor have the broadest application in such a sense; whereas the classes with the deepest inherent lore roots (Druid, Paladin... perhaps Warlock) are the ones least represented

[Unoriginal]

He complained to me that D&D archetypes are too narrow, and more damning in his eyes too D&D-specific. Basically, the vast majority of character concepts he comes up with boil down to being best represented as "Fighter or Rogue with a Background".

...

You could tell him that it's the exact opposite of "narrow".

If you can fit many items into the same bag, the bag is not narrow. If you can fit a lot of terms into a couple of categories, it means the categories are not narrow. If you can fit any concept you can think of into two different classes, it means that the classes are *wide*.





But I agreed that it can be limiting from a concept-first perspective.


... So you mena you had a conversation that went on more or less like that (in an hyperbolic fashion):


"I want to do A because I like this concept."

"Well, that sounds like a Fighter to me."

"Really? Damn, that's not good. Well, I like concept B too, let's do this"

"Sounds like a Rogue to me."

"No. How about C?"

"Fighter."

"D?"

"Rogue."

"F?"

"Either Fighter or Rogue. Mostly a question of background, I have to say."

"Man, the classes of this game are sooo limiting!"

and you concluded the person was right?

I don't know the person you're talked with, but logically, if somebody actually cared about the concept first. they wouldn't care that their concepts are best represented by Fighter or Rogues. They would care about playing the concept, not about playing classes.



Sure. His point wasn't he couldn't fit them. It was that most often they ended up best fitting in two classes.

Which, against, is the exact opposite of narrow and limiting.

[Tanarii]

Ah, I misread. Yeah, obviously the two classes with the least ‘baked in’ flavor have the broadest application in such a sense; whereas the classes with the deepest inherent lore roots (Druid, Paladin... perhaps Warlock) are the ones least represented

Agreed. That's the conclusion I came to.

I also tend to have the same though process as PhoenixPhyre. Start with the archetypes, and come up with a character from there. 5e certainly helps newcomers with that approach. Not only does it have Backgrounds and Personality to help you come up with more than just "I'm my class", but each class gives examples of 3 different typical members in their intro, plus has a series of questions to think about for your character. And of course Xanathars expands on that even further, with class specific hooks/tables, who you were & are tables, and "why did I become a ..." tables with ideas for class and background.

[Naanomi]

If we ignore the specifics of the spellcasting, I’d guess a lot of fantasy literature also has a ‘ranger’ type character as well

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. That's the conclusion I came to.

I also tend to have the same though process as PhoenixPhyre. Start with the archetypes, and come up with a character from there. 5e certainly helps newcomers with that approach. Not only does it have Backgrounds and Personality to help you come up with more than just "I'm my class", but each class gives examples of 3 different typical members in their intro, plus has a series of questions to think about for your character. And of course Xanathars expands on that even further, with class specific hooks/tables, who you were & are tables, and "why did I become a ..." tables with ideas for class and background.

I've had great success helping new people build characters by doing the following in order:

a) Describing in thematic generalities the races available (I have a lot, and I deviate from the book lore quite a bit here). Not mechanical detail, but a 1-2 sentence description of each race's thematics. Legolas vs Galadriel for wood vs high elf. Adaptable and found most places for humans. Etc. Ask them what stands out, narrowing down on races that seem interesting.
b) Asking who they were before they were an adventurer. From this, either choose a specific background or modify one to fit. For my world, I also place them as coming from a particular region based on their answers and their chosen race (because not all races are found in all nations). This gives me an idea of what they'd know without question.
c) get them to choose personality traits/ideal/bond/flaw.
d) Giving them a short description of the thematics of each class and a few archetype-defining features. Often they have an aesthetic in mind already, and we fit that to a class pretty easily. Contra Tanarii, I only have fighters occasionally (usually 1 per every other group, with people gravitating toward wizards, paladins, barbarians, and a few others). Clerics are rare, and there's one kid who always plays a wood elf TWF urchin/outlander rogue, but :shrug:

All of this happens before we write down any stats. The skills, stats, and other mechanical choices usually fall out trivially based on what we know about the character. Does it make optimal characters? No. But no one cares. Certainly the game engine doesn't--it's forgiving of a wide range of things.

Sometimes I'll have someone with a concept already in mind (one was "mortal grim reaper/servant of death") and we have to negotiate and work out a good representation, but most often it falls out of the thematic discussions.

[ImproperJustice]

I’m really curious:

Player A: I have a specific concept I want to bring about.

GM: Okay, but no multi-classing

Player A: I am thinking kinda Fighter/ Rogue with a splash of Monk.

GM: OK, but no multi-classing

Player A: Man, classes are so limiting.


The solution he is looking for is multi-classing. It’s the easiest way to bring about tge right concept.

I mean, people on this forum have created Batman, Harley Quinn, almost every GoT character, a sentient house cat, and a single class fighter that can literally do everything, The Nameless King (and family), and the past several presidents.
It all took some creativity and multi-classing.

Post what your buddy wants to make and let’s make some magic happen.
Hint: It may require multi-classing.

[ad_hoc]

I agree and I like it this way.

I don't want D&D to be everything. I don't want the game to be a jumbled mess of 5 people's version of the fantasy genre. I want it to be focused with its own identity.

I want it to be a specific kind of fantasy.

I also want it to be about an ensemble of action heroes doing the thing. I don't want it to be about nuanced characters exploring the human condition. It is just not the right medium for that and will fail horribly every time.

[Pelle]

I have a player, who usually ties to start with a character concept in his head, then make the character in the game. In a 5e campaign with no optional rules btw: no Feats or multiclassing.


Concept first is a bad approach for a class based system, with strong archetypes. It will work better to look at the classes first, and hope for inspiration to find and interesting twist. He should rather be playing a point buy system...

[Unoriginal]

Concept first is a bad approach for a class based system, with strong archetypes. It will work better to look at the classes first, and hope for inspiration to find and interesting twist. He should rather be playing a point buy system...

Not really. As long as you're accepting with the mechanical parts, there is no issue with that.

[Tanarii]

The solution he is looking for is multi-classing. It’s the easiest way to bring about tge right concept.He can play AL if he wants that. I'm not change a rule that applies to a game with over thirty active (on average) players monthly for one player.

Edit: not to mention that his point still would mostly hold, outside of adding Fighter/Rogue to the mix.


I want it to be a specific kind of fantasy.
Generally speaking so do I.

What I find interesting is that when classes were evolving in the first place, certain very specific archetypes came into being, based on what the players of the original campaigns had as charcater concepts. Now most of them are fairly D&D specific archetypes, because that's where most modern players experience them. Or because of other media that D&D has strongly influenced. A whole lot of video gaming and other TRPGs, for example.

[Pelle]

Not really. As long as you're accepting with the mechanical parts, there is no issue with that.

I mean, it works fine if you are lucky and there's a class that works for it. If the mechanical parts don't fit the concept, then that sucks.

[Tanarii]

...

You could tell him that it's the exact opposite of "narrow".

If you can fit many items into the same bag, the bag is not narrow. If you can fit a lot of terms into a couple of categories, it means the categories are not narrow. If you can fit any concept you can think of into two different classes, it means that the classes are *wide*.Two classes are very wide archetypes. The rest range from somewhat to very specific.

As a thought exercise to demonstrate, let's imagine someone tries to make a no magic game. If the game had been that from the get go, or someone were designing a spin-off version of 5e for that, some number of the current 5 Fighter subclasses and 7 Rogue subclasses would probably spin out to be core full fledged (and far more specific) archetypes. With a few Barbarian or Monk style archetypes tossed in. Or they might be spun out from Fighter fighting styles. Or historical: Spanish Duelist, Brave, (crossbow) Pistoleer, Landsknecht, etc.

What it really says to me is for my campaign, he might be better off reviewing the classes, and then when he goes to build his character concepts in his head do it with a blend of that and whatever source is triggering the idea in his head. I don't know what his fantasy idea source is for character concepts.

[RedWarlock]

Could it be more that he's bored with those mechanics?


Player: I want to make a <character who does things w/o magic>.

DM: That sounds like a Fighter.

P: Okay. *makes fighter, plays for a while, and comes to a point to want to try something new*

P: Okay, now how about a <character who does things a very different way, but still non-magical>.

DM: That sounds like a Rogue.

P: Okay. *makes rogue, plays a while, wants something new*

P: Okay, how how about a character who does <other things, in narratively a different way, still no magic>.

DM: That sounds like a <insert either>.

P: Again?

Sometimes a player gets bored with how that character is being presented mechanically. They've tried other backstories, other weapon selections, and other class variants, but still want something that feels distinct, because the round-by-round of the character is just too similar to what's come before. 5e has been out for, what, 5/6 years now? Maybe he's exhausted the options in other games even before yours, and feels like those mechanics are just retreads of what other characters have done before.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just hopefully you can understand how he feels. "Thems the breaks" isn't exactly a great answer, if you have any investment in him as a player.

[strangebloke]

DND simulates a very specific sort of setting with lots of magic. Most settings don't have much magic, and the magic they do have tends to be very different from DND. Therefore, no character really fits as a cleric/druid/warlock/ranger/paladin.

Like, Aragorn is a human fighter, right?

...Well, no, not aesthetically. I mean, yes, a fighter can do everything Aragorn does and a ranger can do stuff Aragorn can't but the point of classes is to simulate a certain feel, not mimic a certain set of abilities. And in order to feel like Aragorn, the ranger is better, since the ranger can heal, track, and has some magic, but not as much as the people specialized in that. Within DND's setting, the ranger occupies the same space that Aragorn does in the LotR setting.

So, thinking of it that way, suddenly lots of characters fall into different archetypal categories.

Jon Snow is a fighter/rogue with a pet wolf if we just want to mimic his abilities. But he's a ranger with an animal companion if we want to get the feel right.

Galahad is a fighter, or he's a paladin. Which feels better?

Eugenides is a straight thief rogue.... but given his divine connection, isn't he better with Trickery Cleric levels?

[ImproperJustice]

Well. I guess I am confused about this entire post.

You have a player that wants to play a particular character but the mechanics as you define then at your table prevent that from being a reality.

You are fine with this, because that is how you run your game, which is well established and long running.

As a result, you wanted to express that core classes and subclasses are limited from a concept first approach.

The OP was not to present a problem, or pose a question. Merely to make a statement.

That about sum things up?

[Morty]

D&D classes do run the gamut from being overly narrow to overly broad, with some arguably well-balanced ones in the middle. That's their major design flaw, or rather a result of years of design flaws that became tradition. Fighter and rogue are indeed the two classes that have to cover every non-magical concept that doesn't suit the highly-specific baggage of the other classes. Want a hunter and tracker without the ranger's spellcasting? Probably a rogue. Want a marksman without the ranger's wilderness focus? Fighter. Want a knight without divine magic and focus on oaths? Fighter. A vanguard that's not a raging berserker? Fighter. A trickster and socialite who doesn't use magic, music or neither? Rogue.

So yeah, I would say your player has it right. Most D&D classes only really represent themselves, nothing outside D&D's own frame of reference, so trying to emulate anything else falls onto the few broader classes. Wizards, warlocks and sorcerers are pretty generic as long as you don't mind D&D's specific take on magic. But clerics are a very specifically D&D thing, as are druids.

[Tanarii]

The OP was not to present a problem, or pose a question. Merely to make a statement.To start a conversation, about the origin of D&D archetypes, and possibly philosophy behind then and as a result of them, as well as the game impacts.

You are correct I'm not looking for a solution to a specific problem. That's why there wasn't really a question in my OP.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To start a conversation, about the origin of D&D archetypes, and possibly philosophy behind then and as a result of them, as well as the game impacts.

You are correct I'm not looking for a solution to a specific problem. That's why there wasn't really a question in my OP.

I'll put out my personal opinion:

Strong and broad are in tension when it comes to archetypes. I prefer to have broader base classes and more narrow/strong sub-classes.

[Kane0]

I like the broad class, specific subclass design philosophy but that didnt really pan out this time around.
The good news is that it’s easily brewed in

[Spriteless]

Fighter and rogue are the classes for competent people who do things real life people can do. And most fantasy is based on real life, actually. So all that design space isn't used by your friend.

Is this a problem? Is your friend is bored? Well, instead of starting with a concept whole cloth, read the classes for a hook as a seed for a concept. The Warlock's pact could be a fairy godmother, or a stupid mistake made on a dare (wait that's horror not fantasy), or, with a little flavor fudging, aid from an ancestor spirit. The classes aren't perfect rules wise, outside of being themselves, but D&D has always been more video-gamey than Heroquest. I mean war-gamey.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like the broad class, specific subclass design philosophy but that didnt really pan out this time around.
The good news is that it’s easily brewed in

There were also tensions from historical needs (don't want to run the risk of another 4e, justified or not).

In addition, I don't see how most of the base classes are that narrow. Some of the sub classes are too broad (wizards!), but there's considerable breadth in the base classes as I see it. Some (fighter, rogue) could be stronger archetypes, but a mix is ok too.

[Darth Ultron]

Archtypes, like Prestige Classes and Kits before them will always have three huge, nearly unsolvable, problems:

1.There will never be enough. Even if Wizards would put out 500 page Archtype books for each class...that still would not be enough. Each class has to have at least fifty possible archtypes, maybe even as many as a hundred or more. I'm sure they were at the top of the list of things to cut from the PH. After all, Wizards can always put a couple in each book that comes out. Couple books a year, couple archtypes per class, and they could be up to twenty for each class in just a couple years or so.....maybe.

Worse, most people can only think up of ten or maybe twenty of each class...before doing repeats or just drawing a blank.

2.Creation is Hard To think up a vague idea for an archtype is only part of the work: then you have to add in game rule abilities. It's can be hard and a challenge. And, when it comes to creating things, a lot of people can't think ''outside the box". Steady Aim is a easy one for a sharpshooter.....but the Monster Hunter only gets pure combat stuff and detect magic, oddly does not get any special monster hunting abilities. The ranger horizon walker can detect a portal, but the ranger hunter again just gets pure combat things and no 'hunting' things. The wizard lore master can blast away with attack spells...by using lore?...but does not get much in the way of 'lore' type abilities. To bad, for example, the 'hunter' archtypes can't ''detect prey" or something like that....

3.Blance is Hard Well one archtype gets a small bonus to a roll, the other gets a new ability, and another gets a huge boost. It is hard to pin down what ones are 'powerful'. Some are active all the time...some can be used once...some do something else...and so on.


As always, it would be nice IF Archtypes (Prestige Classes and Kits) offered three things when you gain something: and attack ability, a defense ability and a utility ability. Like the ranger hunter would get Attack Prey, Protection from Prey and Track Prey. But, we won't likely see that...

[opticalshadow]

the thing is, fighter and rogue can do so much, and the vast majority of things in any setting be it sci fi, fantasy, real life, cartoon whatever will be a fighter or a rogue. Fighter or rogue probably sums up what class the vast majority of what any non magical setting in all of literature and history because thats about the extent of what a human could be. His problem of approaching this concept first, is hes taking experience from other things he likes (outside of dnd that is virtually only martial strong types or sneaky types) or if hes fond of martial in dnd...hes picked the capstone of pure martial in dnd.

Hell there was huge threads about Gandalf being built as a fighter in the world of DnD, because the absolute bredth of what fighters can do, compared to how vastly more magical dnd is to nearly any other setting. Hell, some of the rogue stuff and ranger stuff is far more magical then most other settings have anywhere near.

Thats the issue, if your applying outside influences to what you want dnd to be, most things outside of maybe comic superheros all fit into the very wide abilities of the two most human like classes we have. thats not narrow on dnd's part, that's narrow on their conceptual part.

[ImproperJustice]

To start a conversation, about the origin of D&D archetypes, and possibly philosophy behind then and as a result of them, as well as the game impacts.

You are correct I'm not looking for a solution to a specific problem. That's why there wasn't really a question in my OP.

Fair enough.
I feel it’s pretty common knowledge that D&D very much has it’s roots in tactical wargaming along with Gygax’s love of numbers.

As the hobby has reached more and more of a broad audience you can see the shift in the hobby from GM is lord of the game, to it becoming a more collective story telling experience.
I look at the progression of systems like Savage Worlds, Dungeon World, FUDGE, the apocalypse engine and the micro-rpgs out there where rules adherance matter less and less, compared to encouraging everyone to partake in collectively and equally shared fun experience.

I sometimes theorize that if D&D had been born out of say an improvised drama class vs. tactical war gaming, how incredibly different the hobby would be.

I would share your sentiment that classes are narrow, and require a board game mindset of my piece can only take these moves, while your piece can only take those.

I think my preference and the majority of my gaming friends preference is to be able to create a character concept in their head, and then find a way for the rules to work themselves around having that happen.

[Thrudd]

Character concept is meaningless outside the context of the setting it belongs to, so players coming up with concepts without considering the game and the setting is backwards and pointless. D&D as a game has a specific setting/range of related settings. Your character concept needs to be derived from the possibilities the game/setting presents you.

Secondly, not every single detail of a character idea is, should be or can be represented with game mechanics. D&D especially is very abstract in terms of specific combat styles, for example. Backgrounds cover a lot, and descriptive narration covers a lot in terms of how a character looks or performs.

[Zalabim]

The problem is a lot of people are single-minded-ly bad at translating character concepts to D&D characters. They don't consider a character's personality, temperament, role, or style and look at classes that fit that 'character.' They tend to look at gross descriptions like "has a pet" or "punches people" and decide that means the character must be a ranger or a monk. A lot of characters in Street Fighter are monks. But they aren't all monks. Even some of the ones that look most like monks. Dhalsim is clearly some kind of mystic, or some other magic-user. Oh, my character can't be a bard because they don't use magic. Forget that. Does your character do the things that bards use spells to do? Then maybe you're actually a bard. At least consider it, since the playstyle matches your character's style and your character is from a setting where nobody uses magic. There's usually multiple options for how to represent any character anyone ever asks about too. D&D is too narrow to let me play my Pokemon Master? No, you're too narrow to play anything but your one-true-pokemon-master. It is 110% of the time a player problem.

[Tanarii]

As the hobby has reached more and more of a broad audience you can see the shift in the hobby from GM is lord of the game, to it becoming a more collective story telling experience.Not really. Some deluded rpg designers have tried to drive it that way, and theres a vocal minority that likes to claim that its what RPGs are about. But neither of those make it the reality.



I look at the progression of systems like Savage Worlds, Dungeon World, FUDGE, the apocalypse engine and the micro-rpgs out there where rules adherance matter less and less, compared to encouraging everyone to partake in collectively and equally shared fun experience.And those rules vary from poorly designed to meh.


I sometimes theorize that if D&D had been born out of say an improvised drama class vs. tactical war gaming, how incredibly different the hobby would be.It certainly wouldn't be as popular as it is today. Most geeks grok tactical and strategic game, and it really gets them excited. Improv drama not so much.

[Ignimortis]

Archtypes, like Prestige Classes and Kits before them will always have three huge, nearly unsolvable, problems:

1.There will never be enough. Even if Wizards would put out 500 page Archtype books for each class...that still would not be enough. Each class has to have at least fifty possible archtypes, maybe even as many as a hundred or more. I'm sure they were at the top of the list of things to cut from the PH. After all, Wizards can always put a couple in each book that comes out. Couple books a year, couple archtypes per class, and they could be up to twenty for each class in just a couple years or so.....maybe.

Worse, most people can only think up of ten or maybe twenty of each class...before doing repeats or just drawing a blank.

2.Creation is Hard To think up a vague idea for an archtype is only part of the work: then you have to add in game rule abilities. It's can be hard and a challenge. And, when it comes to creating things, a lot of people can't think ''outside the box". Steady Aim is a easy one for a sharpshooter.....but the Monster Hunter only gets pure combat stuff and detect magic, oddly does not get any special monster hunting abilities. The ranger horizon walker can detect a portal, but the ranger hunter again just gets pure combat things and no 'hunting' things. The wizard lore master can blast away with attack spells...by using lore?...but does not get much in the way of 'lore' type abilities. To bad, for example, the 'hunter' archtypes can't ''detect prey" or something like that....

3.Blance is Hard Well one archtype gets a small bonus to a roll, the other gets a new ability, and another gets a huge boost. It is hard to pin down what ones are 'powerful'. Some are active all the time...some can be used once...some do something else...and so on.


As always, it would be nice IF Archtypes (Prestige Classes and Kits) offered three things when you gain something: and attack ability, a defense ability and a utility ability. Like the ranger hunter would get Attack Prey, Protection from Prey and Track Prey. But, we won't likely see that...

I dunno, PF seems to have that handled pretty well. There are tons of classes, so the basic concepts are easy to satisfy, and there are tons of archetypes for most core/base classes and even 3PP usually have at least 2 or 3, so that's specific flavoring done. The only problem I have with PF is that the best content is 3PP, especially PoW, which is necessary for many of my own concepts.

If 5e wasn't so slow with content (after 4 years we have at most 4 more official archetypes for any single class, usually for those that started with 3 already), we could actually have things. And it's still struggling with "let me play my character in the first 5 levels" that PF 1e usually aced.

[ad_hoc]

Character concept is meaningless outside the context of the setting it belongs to, so players coming up with concepts without considering the game and the setting is backwards and pointless. D&D as a game has a specific setting/range of related settings. Your character concept needs to be derived from the possibilities the game/setting presents you.


Exactly this.

Here is a controversial statement: It requires more creativity to create a character who is confined by parameters than it is to make one up whole cloth.


It certainly wouldn't be as popular as it is today. Most geeks grok tactical and strategic game, and it really gets them excited. Improv drama not so much.

I don't think hobby gamers are the majority of 5e players anymore. By a wide margin.

[Theodoric]

In between Class, Background, Race and Subclass there are already plenty of tools to pick the rules to fit a character concept in 5e, and that's before reflavouring comes in. My players have some pretty non-standard characters but we've been able to choose decently-fitting rules for them with just the Player's Handbook.

Obviously the game caters to some archetypes better than others, but that doesn't mean it's not flexible enough that it can fit others. I don't agree with the argument that D&D's archetypes are obscure. D&D has had such an effect on fantasy gaming in general that they're hardly esoteric anymore, and anyone interested in playing D&D is very likely to have played a fantasy game on a computer/console at some point, and so has some knowledge of underlying clichés.

[opticalshadow]

In between Class, Background, Race and Subclass there are already plenty of tools to pick the rules to fit a character concept in 5e, and that's before reflavouring comes in. My players have some pretty non-standard characters but we've been able to choose decently-fitting rules for them with just the Player's Handbook.

Obviously the game caters to some archetypes better than others, but that doesn't mean it's not flexible enough that it can fit others. I don't agree with the argument that D&D's archetypes are obscure. D&D has had such an effect on fantasy gaming in general that they're hardly esoteric anymore, and anyone interested in playing D&D is very likely to have played a fantasy game on a computer/console at some point, and so has some knowledge of underlying clichés.

Agreeing with this , it is stunning to me how many people go out of there way to homebrew races and classes and spells and abilities, that already exist with different adjectives. So many people see ink to the paper and forget to use imagination.

[Dr. Cliché]

To my mind, the main issue when converting a lot of character concepts to D&D is the magic system.

Whilst 5th has stepped a little further away from Vancian Magic, it's still pretty heavily grounded in it. Yes, spell slots are now a little more flexible, but the issue is that very few fantasy works actually use spell slots to begin with. Hence, many magical character concepts may well find D&D's magic decidedly rigid. And that's before we even get into the spells themselves (which are even more rigid).

I actually think a Sorcerer which basically used the Mystic's casting system would be a lot of help here, at least in terms of overall feel.

There's also the issue that all magic is basically the same. It doesn't matter if your spells come from a connection with nature, a draconic bloodline, a pact with a demon, the favour of a god or years of study - all of them are cast in the exact same way and work in the exact same way. Moreover, compared to most fiction, casters in D&D are extraordinarily powerful. They suffer no drawbacks or risks to their magic, and won't be at all tired even after expending the entirety of their spell slots.

To be clear, I understand why D&D magic works the way it does (well, for the most part, anyway). What I'm saying is that it will likely be very jarring when contrasted with other fantasy works, and makes it very difficult to effectively translate most caster types/ideas from those other works to D&D.

[Unoriginal]

To my mind, the main issue when converting a lot of character concepts to D&D is the magic system.

Whilst 5th has stepped a little further away from Vancian Magic, it's still pretty heavily grounded in it. Yes, spell slots are now a little more flexible, but the issue is that very few fantasy works actually use spell slots to begin with. Hence, many magical character concepts may well find D&D's magic decidedly rigid. And that's before we even get into the spells themselves (which are even more rigid).

I actually think a Sorcerer which basically used the Mystic's casting system would be a lot of help here, at least in terms of overall feel.

There's also the issue that all magic is basically the same. It doesn't matter if your spells come from a connection with nature, a draconic bloodline, a pact with a demon, the favour of a god or years of study - all of them are cast in the exact same way and work in the exact same way. Moreover, compared to most fiction, casters in D&D are extraordinarily powerful. They suffer no drawbacks or risks to their magic, and won't be at all tired even after expending the entirety of their spell slots.

To be clear, I understand why D&D magic works the way it does (well, for the most part, anyway). What I'm saying is that it will likely be very jarring when contrasted with other fantasy works, and makes it very difficult to effectively translate most caster types/ideas from those other works to D&D.

Honestly, I'm hoping for a DnD cartoon or movie or the like where they show DnD magic working like DnD magic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think a disconnect for some people is that they think that D&D is supposed to promote/allow/support emulation of other fiction, whether characters or situations. It's not. D&D is its own thing. The only characters it supports are D&D characters.

You can at best emulate some thematic elements of non-D&D characters or situations, but any attempt to match power levels, mechanical elements, or otherwise directly emulate the other-setting character will cause either frustration or system breakage...or usually both.

D&D is not a generic fantasy emulator. It doesn't claim to be. It's always had its own brand of things, its own internal assumptions. This lets it be (sort of) coherent. In this context, the archetypes available span a very wide range of the D&D character archetypes available. Note there's no significant mechanical support for playing a merchant or sage or a primary crafter, or any other non-combatant. Or a noble who does mostly political dealings. All character classes are explicitly adventurers who are supposed to be able to handle themselves in combat.

Personally, I think the game is better for that tightened focus. YMMV.

[Unoriginal]

I think a disconnect for some people is that they think that D&D is supposed to promote/allow/support emulation of other fiction, whether characters or situations. It's not. D&D is its own thing. The only characters it supports are D&D characters.

You can at best emulate some thematic elements of non-D&D characters or situations, but any attempt to match power levels, mechanical elements, or otherwise directly emulate the other-setting character will cause either frustration or system breakage...or usually both.

D&D is not a generic fantasy emulator. It doesn't claim to be. It's always had its own brand of things, its own internal assumptions. This lets it be (sort of) coherent. In this context, the archetypes available span a very wide range of the D&D character archetypes available. Note there's no significant mechanical support for playing a merchant or sage or a primary crafter, or any other non-combatant. Or a noble who does mostly political dealings. All character classes are explicitly adventurers who are supposed to be able to handle themselves in combat.

Personally, I think the game is better for that tightened focus. YMMV.

True.

It could also be that DnD entered popular culture as this "generic fantasy" fiction, so they think other works put under the "generic fantasy" umbrella also applies to it.

And 3.X tried to be more universalist about what it covered, which added to the confusion.

[Dr. Cliché]

I think a disconnect for some people is that they think that D&D is supposed to promote/allow/support emulation of other fiction, whether characters or situations. It's not. D&D is its own thing.

The problem is that D&D very obviously *isn't* its own thing.

First off, it's probably the best example to date of a Fantasy Kitchen Sink, one where every monster from basically every mythology ever conceived is running around somewhere.

Further, not only does D&D have recognisable monsters from other fantasies and mythologies, it has literal named characters from other mythologies. The PHB includes Celtic deities, Greek deities, Egyptian deities, and Norse deities. If D&D really wanted to be its own thing, it would not be including Zeus, Poseidon, Odin, Thor, Loki etc.

The fact that it does include these does nothing but cement D&D as the aforementioned 'Fantasy Kitchen Sink' and, if anything, encourages players to bring in stuff from other fantasies and mythologies.

[PhoenixPhyre]

True.

It could also be that DnD entered popular culture as this "generic fantasy" fiction, so they think other works put under the "generic fantasy" umbrella also applies to it.

And 3.X tried to be more universalist about what it covered, which added to the confusion.

I think the causation went the other way around. D&D entered when fantasy was becoming a big thing. And so much of D&D has filtered out into the popular conscious that they think that D&D was supposed to be generic, even though it didn't originally advertise itself as such.

But yes, 3e's hubris in trying to be a universal system didn't help either.

[ImproperJustice]

I definitely seem to have a minority opinion but I remember the financial state of D&D during the 4th edition period.
It’s full embrace of wargaming at that point gave birth to a lot of variant (more story based) systems and the OSR movement.
Pathfinder exploded as well, since it was less rigid in its character design than D&D.

5th edition fixed a lot of that by creating something that captured old school aesthetics, but there is a lot of new school elements as well.
Backgrounds, bonds, flaws, etc.... along with a streamlined and more intrepetive set of rules..

I think the more flexible the rules can be, the more it allows players to be creative and express themselves, the better and longer lasting the hobby will remain.

I also believe a good character concept can work well regardless of setting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is that D&D very obviously *isn't* its own thing.

First off, it's probably the best example to date of a Fantasy Kitchen Sink, one where every monster from basically every mythology ever conceived is running around somewhere.

Further, not only does D&D have recognisable monsters from other fantasies and mythologies, it has literal named characters from other mythologies. The PHB includes Celtic deities, Greek deities, Egyptian deities, and Norse deities. If D&D really wanted to be its own thing, it would not be including Zeus, Poseidon, Odin, Thor, Loki etc.

The fact that it does include these does nothing but cement D&D as the aforementioned 'Fantasy Kitchen Sink' and, if anything, encourages players to bring in stuff from other fantasies and mythologies.

You're falling prey to namespace confusion. It has character named the same as earth mythology, but they're not the same characters. Nor are the monsters the same as the mythological ones. They borrow names and themes, but those themes are pretty much universal across all of mythology. D&D's gorgon is not the same as mythology's gorgon. Nor are the elves (who aren't even that similar to Tolkein's elves, other than in size). Etc.

And most people who pick up books don't even know about those things. They're hidden in monster manuals or those dusty tables at the back of the PHB as examples, with big warnings that each DM's world is different. They're not frontal in the fiction (where they focus much more on the D&D-specific things) either. So I think you're overstating things quite a bit.

[Dr. Cliché]

You're falling prey to namespace confusion. It has character named the same as earth mythology, but they're not the same characters.

I'm sorry but that is just a ridiculous excuse. These are literally named as Greek, Norse, Egyptian and Celtic Gods by the PHB.

To claim that they aren't intended as the same is utterly ridiculous.

Even more so when you consider that D&D has its own pantheons. Several of them, in fact. It doesn't need to borrow names of gods from mythology.

Literally the only reason for it to do so is to use those specific gods.

To claim otherwise is to indulge in pure self-delusion.

[Unoriginal]

I'm sorry but that is just a ridiculous excuse. These are literally named as Greek, Norse, Egyptian and Celtic Gods by the PHB.

To claim that they aren't intended as the same is utterly ridiculous.

Even more so when you consider that D&D has its own pantheons. Several of them, in fact. It doesn't need to borrow names of gods from mythology.

Literally the only reason for it to do so is to use those specific gods.

To claim otherwise is to indulge in pure self-delusion.

Are you claiming that Marvel's version of Thor is the same character as Norse Mythology's Thor?

[Darth Ultron]

The problem is that D&D very obviously *isn't* its own thing.

First off, it's probably the best example to date of a Fantasy Kitchen Sink, one where every monster from basically every mythology ever conceived is running around somewhere.

This right here though IS D&D's ''own thing".

Yes, D&D has taken vague ideas and inspiration from a dozen different sources. And then altered and changed them and put them in a big Melting Pot and called it all D&D.

As anyone with any know how will tell you, D&D is not even close to the original sources of anything. D&D takes the 'whatever' and makes it D&D. In most cases it is just the name that remains.



The fact that it does include these does nothing but cement D&D as the aforementioned 'Fantasy Kitchen Sink' and, if anything, encourages players to bring in stuff from other fantasies and mythologies.

Except that does make sense?

It's like saying....''oh the game uses ideas from mythology and some old novels....so automatically that means I must be able to take my favorite cartoon or video game and use it in the game? Seems like a crazy leap.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Point your player at something like HERO System, which will let you customize stuff to your heart's content. D&D's not really designed to be uber-flexible, and, if your player wants to be a martial character with no magic, well, yeah, there aren't a lot of options in a game where the default setting is magic-infused high fantasy. Kind of goes with the territory here.

[Unoriginal]

OP, if it's not indiscreet, could you tell us a couple of the concept your player thought of?


Rethinking about it, I'm suddenly curious.

[strangebloke]

I definitely seem to have a minority opinion but I remember the financial state of D&D during the 4th edition period.
It’s full embrace of wargaming at that point gave birth to a lot of variant (more story based) systems and the OSR movement.
Pathfinder exploded as well, since it was less rigid in its character design than D&D..

I think there's a miscommunication about what wargaming is. Wargaming is heavy on realism/simulation, and conventionally is only balanced by rules that enforce balanced scenarios.

3e and 2e were all about setting up imbalanced scenarios so that by the time an encounter happened you had the perfect contingency plan. It was a weird type of wargaming, but the way those systems were constructed did not reward fighting in a straightforward manner.

4e had no simulation whatsoever. Abilities were tied to abstract units of time, monster HP was circumstantially dependent, and many spell effects were purely abstract game mechanics. In this respect it was much closer to an abstract system like fate than conventional DND was.

5e is designed to be a big tent in terms of game play relative to previous editions. The backgrounds and traits appeal to the narrative focused people, the exhaustion and encumbrance rules and shadows and flameskulls are there for the wargamers, and the hit dice and cushy rest rules are there for the filthy casuals.

It's still a very very narrow system. Less narrow than DND 3e or 4e, and less narrow than Warhammer 40k or exalted, but more narrow than basically everything else.

TBH, you don't really need much more. The biggest things DND needs are time rules and rules for social encounter resolutions. But none of those things work for a narrative focus.

[Tanarii]

5e is designed to be a big tent in terms of game play relative to previous editions. The backgrounds and traits appeal to the narrative focused people, the exhaustion and encumbrance rules and shadows and flameskulls are there for the wargamers, and the hit dice and cushy rest rules are there for the filthy casuals.Indeed. I can use it with application of select optional/variant rules and some minor tweaks to run an open table focused on dungeon and wilderness adventuring in an attempt to find and old school feeling campaign. Others can use it for wotc adventure path hardcovers, with a focus on epic save the world adventures. Yet others will use it for telling stories. It ccan be used for setpiece tailored-to-party level adventures, or for more free form combat as war, sandboxes (either multiparty or single party), or fairly linear.

This probably belongs in the philosphy of 5e thread but eh ...

[Ignimortis]

It's still a very very narrow system. Less narrow than DND 3e or 4e, and less narrow than Warhammer 40k or exalted, but more narrow than basically everything else.

TBH, you don't really need much more. The biggest things DND needs are time rules and rules for social encounter resolutions. But none of those things work for a narrative focus.


Indeed. I can use it with application of select optional/variant rules and some minor tweaks to run an open table focused on dungeon and wilderness adventuring in an attempt to find and old school feeling campaign. Others can use it for wotc adventure path hardcovers, with a focus on epic save the world adventures. Yet others will use it for telling stories. It ccan be used for setpiece tailored-to-party level adventures, or for more free form combat as war, sandboxes (either multiparty or single party), or fairly linear.

This probably belongs in the philosphy of 5e thread but eh ...

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand how 5e is less narrow than previous editions. 5e is centered around having much less power and much more focus in its' style than 3.5, and perhaps even 4e did. It is, to me, very confining thematically, with strict balancing and a rather narrow range of concepts playable.

In fact, I've played in three various 5e campaigns and a few one-shots by now. There were wildly different themes through the stories - one was a very local quest without much global importance, one was about saving the world, and the third one was somewhere in-between. But even though I've seen a large part of 5e's levels (three characters, one got to level 5 at the end, one at level 9, and the world-saving hero got to 14), it felt about the same. As in, even the 14th level hero still felt quite vulnerable and fallible, unless he could get a Teleport off in time.

Those three were also of varying concepts and mostly different playstyles (low-level archery-based ranger, mid-level Fighter with some warlock levels, high-level blasty Storm Sorcerer), and there aren't any concepts that I'd like thematically and which 5e would support mechanically.

On the other hand, I can build a few concepts I've wanted to play using only 3.5 PHB+Tome of Battle, and if all the 3.5 books are in play, this amount might triple. Same with Pathfinder, except I'd have to retrofit Warblade for it in one or two cases (I'm kinda surprised that PoW left out the niche of "supremely confident and intelligent martial adept who is primarily geared for offense" - Warlord tries to be a team player, I don't want that), but instead I'd get Magus which does gishes better than anything ever produced by WotC, IMO.

The power level would be highly customisable, too - 5e just doesn't do "army-slaying gods" at any level at all. 3.PF? Grab some regeneration, because this is gonna sting, but you can slaughter low-level mooks by thousands, if they don't understand the futility of trying to oppose this particular one-man army. Don't want that, and you need the reverse? First 3-4 levels in 3.5 are way more vulnerable than 5e characters, especially without consumables or easy healing.

P.S. I'm not saying 5e is a bad system. It's ok for what it tries to be, but I simply can't see how it's more appropriate for what it isn't than the system that actually tried to be all-encompassing within its' genre.

[Tanarii]

Having played 3e extensively, i dont actually feel that 3e vs 5e is a big difference in terms of playstyles they can support. They have a fairly big philisophical difference (see the philosphy of 5e thread) but thats not the same as the kinds of games they can be effectively used for.

4e, which I also played extensively, was a different beast. It was astounding for combat-as-sport single session adventures. That also made it particularly suited for official play. It was clearly designed with that in mind. The 5e "adventuring day" is its legacy in that regard.

In terms of archetypes, I agree eventually 3e supported far more, due to release of splat content, especially PrCs. I also also felt 4e had good support across 3 PHBs and multiple 'Power' books, within the constraints of its design goals.

Personally as a DM I like the 5e devs approach to less splat content. But obviously, it does mean less mechanical variety from players to chose amongst.

[Morty]

I don't see 5E's class list as designed so much as grown, myself. In the beginning there were the fighter/thief/mage/cleric classes, running the gamut from the very generic "fighting man" to the cleric which was made whole-cloth for D&D. Then classes came and went, but from around AD&D 2E they've mostly got added, rarely changed or removed. 4E is the only edition that actually removed classes, and one can argue it didn't remove the right ones. And none of the removed ones were the "classics". 5E takes the 3E list and staples the warlock to it, because it's popular enough to be accepted. But either way this is still the core four + attachments, without any real design direction in mind.

[2D8HP]

I have a player, who usually ties to start with a character concept in his head, then make the character in the game.* In a 5e campaign with no optional rules btw: no Feats or multiclassing.

He complained to me that D&D archetypes are too narrow, and more damning in his eyes too D&D-specific. Basically, the vast majority of character concepts he comes up with boil down to being best represented as "Fighter or Rogue with a Background"....



To start a conversation, about the origin of D&D archetypes, and possibly philosophy behind then and as a result of them, as well as the game impacts.

You are correct I'm not looking for a solution to a specific problem.* That's why there wasn't really a question in my OP....


Fighter and rogue are the classes for competent people who do things real life people can.

the thing is, fighter and rogue can do so much, and the vast majority of things in any setting be it sci fi, fantasy, real life, cartoon whatever will be a fighter or a rogue. Fighter or rogue probably sums up what class the vast majority of what any non magical setting in all of literature and history because thats about the extent of what a human could be....


Yes, multi-class 5e Fighter/Rogues are AWESOME!!!

Now for the orgin/philosophy part:

oD&D started with the Elf as sort of a multi-class "Fighting-Man"/"Magic-User" that*"can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure, but not during the course of a single game. Thus, they gain the benefits of both classes and may use both weaponry and spells"), and that was that for "multi-classing",

You had three classes "Clerics" (divine magic), "Magic-Users" (arcane magic) and "Fighting-Men" (no spells).

They were no rules for skills or other classes!

D. Wagner (http://paizo.com/people/DrDeth) with some suggestions from others playing D&D at Aero Hobbies in Santa Monica, California invented the Thief class, E. G. Gygax heard about it, typed up a version as "The Thief Addition" for the Great Plains Games Players Newsletter which sold well at Gen Con, and then the Thief class was in the 1975 Greyhawk supplement (the first real D&D "edition change", and yes people were "homebrewing" new classes within a year of D&D's publication, and yes it's ironic that Gygax swiped a west coast idea when he later moans about "west coast style play" being "Dungeons and Beavers not Dungeons & Dragons" in the '79 DMG.

Anyway, some of the characters cited by Gygax in the forward to 1974 D&D as inspiration, such as John Carter, Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, demonstrated both "Fighting-Men" and "Thief" abilities, so how could a referee adjudicate a PC attempting those feats ("feat" in the dictionary not WotC sense)?

Well...

...the afterward of 1974 D&D said:

"...we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!..."

so you made up a ruling on the spot, and there was nothing preventing your PC from trying "thief" stuff until that class was made, and they were no rules for skills at all!

But it's too late now to fix that division without multi-classing, right?

Plus in 5e you can't multi-class at first level anyway.

Right?

*ahem*

5e D&D has rules for Backgrounds, and from the 5e PHB:

"You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coins on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coins, you can't also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can't find a feature that matches your desired background"

Yep.

As one co-playing said on looking over my first level PC's Character Record Sheet "We do have a Rogue, our Fighter is it!"

I like having a first level Fighter PC with the Outlander Background "Wanderer" feature, the Archeologist Background (from Tomb of Annihilation) starting equipment (you get a tent!), and is skilled in Stealth, Survival, and is proficient with Thieves tools.

Yeah, a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue (sort-of) at first level baby!

That is far from lame!

What's the opposite of lame?

Ah yes, AWESOME!!!!


To be honest, I'm not sure I understand how 5e is less narrow than previous editions. 5e is centered around having much less power and much more focus in its' style than 3.5, and perhaps even 4e did. It is, to me, very confining thematically, with strict balancing and a rather narrow range of concepts playable.

In fact, I've played in three various 5e campaigns and a few one-shots by now. There were wildly different themes through the stories - one was a very local quest without much global importance, one was about saving the world, and the third one was somewhere in-between. But even though I've seen a large part of 5e's levels (three characters, one got to level 5 at the end, one at level 9, and the world-saving hero got to 14), it felt about the same. As in, even the 14th level hero still felt quite vulnerable and fallible, unless he could get a Teleport off in time.

Those three were also of varying concepts and mostly different playstyles (low-level archery-based ranger, mid-level Fighter with some warlock levels, high-level blasty Storm Sorcerer), and there aren't any concepts that I'd like thematically and which 5e would support mechanically.

On the other hand, I can build a few concepts I've wanted to play using only 3.5 PHB+Tome of Battle, and if all the 3.5 books are in play, this amount might triple. Same with Pathfinder, except I'd have to retrofit Warblade for it in one or two cases (I'm kinda surprised that PoW left out the niche of "supremely confident and intelligent martial adept who is primarily geared for offense" - Warlord tries to be a team player, I don't want that), but instead I'd get Magus which does gishes better than anything ever produced by WotC, IMO.

The power level would be highly customisable, too - 5e just doesn't do "army-slaying gods" at any level at all. 3.PF? Grab some regeneration, because this is gonna sting, but you can slaughter low-level mooks by thousands, if they don't understand the futility of trying to oppose this particular one-man army. Don't want that, and you need the reverse? First 3-4 levels in 3.5 are way more vulnerable than 5e characters, especially without consumables or easy healing.

P.S. I'm not saying 5e is a bad system. It's ok for what it tries to be, but I simply can't see how it's more appropriate for what it isn't than the system that actually tried to be all-encompassing within its' genre.




Having played 3e extensively, i dont actually feel that 3e vs 5e is a big difference in terms of playstyles they can support. They have a fairly big philisophical difference (see the philosphy of 5e thread) but thats not the same as the kinds of games they can be effectively used for.

4e, which I also played extensively, was a different beast. It was astounding for combat-as-sport single session adventures.That also made it particularly suited for official play. It was clearly designed with that in mind. The 5e "adventuring day" is its legacy in that regard.

In terms of archetypes, I agree eventually 3e supported far more, due to release of splat content, especially PrCs. I also also felt 4e had good support across 3 PHBs and multiple 'Power' books, within the constraints of its design goals.

Personally as a DM I like the 5e devs approach to less splat content. But obviously, it does mean less mechanical variety from players to chose amongst.


I like that about 5e as I get options fatigue from Pathfinder, the limitlessness of PF confuses me.

[Sigreid]

I'll put out my personal opinion:

Strong and broad are in tension when it comes to archetypes. I prefer to have broader base classes and more narrow/strong sub-classes.

So something like where Everquest II had you start as one of a very few classes and narrow? For example, a Mage would start as a mage and have access to all the core magey stuff. Then at level 10 (I suppose in 5e the logical point would be the tier shift at 5) you would choose a subclass that would focus your powers, such as Summoner. Then at the next tier you would select your final focus, for example narrowing your Summoner to a Necromancer or Conjuror with the conjuror focusing on elemental powers.

Is that close to what you would have preferred to see?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So something like where Everquest II had you start as one of a very few classes and narrow? For example, a Mage would start as a mage and have access to all the core magey stuff. Then at level 10 (I suppose in 5e the logical point would be the tier shift at 5) you would choose a subclass that would focus your powers, such as Summoner. Then at the next tier you would select your final focus, for example narrowing your Summoner to a Necromancer or Conjuror with the conjuror focusing on elemental powers.

Is that close to what you would have preferred to see?

Sort of. I'd just like to see different routes having more distinctness from each other. So you don't say "he's a evocation wizard", but "he's a evocation wizard." This is particularly bad for wizards, for whom the sub-class benefits are nice but not that archetypal. You can be an evoker with 99% of your list (and active casting) non-evocation spells. You can be an abjurer purely for the extra HP. For wizards, in particular (whose archetypal nature is largely at the class level), I'd like to see a bunch of separate spell list fragments, spell-chains if you will. So you choose to be a blaster, with a secondary of warding (for example). That would set your spell choices at level up.

Or for clerics, having an anemic "core" list and much more enhanced domain lists. So every (PC) cleric gets the basic healing/condition-removal spells (since that's expected) and then gets most of their list from their domain. So a death domain cleric and a life domain cleric would look very different except the very core features.

[Sigreid]

Sort of. I'd just like to see different routes having more distinctness from each other. So you don't say "he's a evocation wizard", but "he's a evocation wizard." This is particularly bad for wizards, for whom the sub-class benefits are nice but not that archetypal. You can be an evoker with 99% of your list (and active casting) non-evocation spells. You can be an abjurer purely for the extra HP. For wizards, in particular (whose archetypal nature is largely at the class level), I'd like to see a bunch of separate spell list fragments, spell-chains if you will. So you choose to be a blaster, with a secondary of warding (for example). That would set your spell choices at level up.

Or for clerics, having an anemic "core" list and much more enhanced domain lists. So every (PC) cleric gets the basic healing/condition-removal spells (since that's expected) and then gets most of their list from their domain. So a death domain cleric and a life domain cleric would look very different except the very core features.

You might appreciate the 3rd party supplement Master's of Death. I don't have any connection to it other than having purchased it. It essentially has a paladin, a rogue and a wizard that are very death focused.

[Darth Ultron]

Sort of. I'd just like to see different routes having more distinctness from each other.

The problem is the D&D is stuck with the Core Classes. And, likely this will always be true. 3E very much cemented the idea of ''D&D must have the following Core Classes" and ''Each Core class Must do X".

Even like you said, for example: A cleric Must have healing spells. "All" the players demand this and won't accept anything else.

Once upon a time, D&D did try ''different distinct classes", especially for clerics....in 2E. ''Most people" did not like it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem is the D&D is stuck with the Core Classes. And, likely this will always be true. 3E very much cemented the idea of ''D&D must have the following Core Classes" and ''Each Core class Must do X".

Even like you said, for example: A cleric Must have healing spells. "All" the players demand this and won't accept anything else.

Once upon a time, D&D did try ''different distinct classes", especially for clerics....in 2E. ''Most people" did not like it.

I'm fine with the core classes, for the most part. Yes, the fighter could have a little bit tighter of an archetype, but "martial weapon person" is a fine (if bland) base. Honestly, of the last 7 groups I've been in, there has been a total of 1 cleric (a new player this year). IIRC, the breakdown has been (mostly new players):

Barbarians: 2 (ancestors & totem)
Bards: 1 (lore)
Clerics: 1 (life)
Druids: 3 (2 land + 1 moon)
Fighters: 2 (battlemaster x2)
Monks: 1 (open hand)
Paladins: 2 (ancients + ??)
Rangers: 0
Rogue: 2 (AT x2)
Sorcerer: 0
Warlock: 3 (GOO + Celestial x2)
Wizard: 4 (evocation, abjuration, necromancy, ??)

No one's had a problem fitting a character to their concept. Mostly because they don't come in with concepts to begin with. Of those, I think 4 had concepts (all 3 warlocks and one wizard). But those concepts were:

* GOO lock: a character convinced that he's the incarnation of a Far Realms "god" whose patron is his supposed "wife" (a Far Realms nautiloid-tentacle-thing).
* Celestial Warlock 1: A servant of the God of (Unnatural) Death, a vengeful reaper.
* Celestial Warlock 2/Bard: A wannabe bard who made an unfortunate deal with a chaotic good patron and ended up getting stuck adventuring. This one is my character, and it's evolved a lot since I chose the framework for it.
* Wizard: wanted to be a summoner, but when I said that doesn't work well in 5e (mainly due to table time), he ended up with a warforged-esque metal man wizard who is obsessed with figuring out why his race exists (because that's a mystery in-setting). He's only just hitting level 2, so I'm curious what sub-class he'll take.

All of these fit very well into their archetypes--it's obvious which class fits the concept best. And none of them were "I want to play character X from fiction Y". I've never really seen that, and I play mostly with teenagers.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem is a lot of people are single-minded-ly bad at translating character concepts to D&D characters. Thank you for identifying the elephant in the room.

Here is a controversial statement: It requires more creativity to create a character who is confined by parameters than it is to make one up whole cloth. Indeed, and we have some neat threads here on GiTP that show what the art of the possible is.

For the OP: since you are running D&D, run D&D. if someone doesn't like that system, they can play another game. there are so many games nowadays, unlike how it used to be. (The point made up thread on HERO system wasn't a bad one).

[Pex]

Allow multiclassing and feats to diversify the options.
:smallbiggrin:

Only half-joking. Character concept is great, but the game mechanics can reinforce them. In simpler terms there are the damage cantrips. They're generally glorified crossbows. Not exactly equivalent, but cantrips took their place in comparison to previous editions. It is more aesthetically pleasing to say I cast Ray of Frost for 1d8 damage than I shoot a crossbow for 1d8 damage when you want to play a spellcaster. When you tell the player the only options for his concept are fighter or rogue, he may not feel the mechanics fit his concept. If it's not his first game with you he may not want to play another fighter or rogue like his previous character. There's nothing wrong with having fun with game mechanics.

[GlenSmash!]

Yup. I largely base my concepts on characters I like in fiction, and since most of these characters a"mundane" in a non-mundane world I play a lot of Barbarians and Fighters and the occasional Ranger. If there was a Rogue that made great use of a Longsword I might play them more often.

I haven't tired of making them yet.

But I do think there is room for more non-spellcasting archetypes. Adventures in Middle Earth took a great stab at 6 non-spellcasting classes based on 5e, and got 2 out of 3 pretty decent.

I wouldn't mind something like Iron Heroes for 5e.

Maybe I'll take a crack at adapting some of them to 5e subclasses.

[Tanarii]

Allow multiclassing and feats to diversify the options.
:smallbiggrin:

It certainly added more mechanical options. But whether or not that adds more archetype breadth & support for character concepts depends on how you view the term "character concept" in the first place.

But overall, I don't really disagree. I chose not to because I like strong archetypes, because I was looking for a more old school D&D flavor, and because AL is right there at the next table over if you really want that. (Besides, most of them also play AL at the next table over on days when I'm running games at a different store.)

[Markoff Chainey]

There is always a way to relate the picture of a hero from one "setting" to another "setting" (fiction or real).

The main problem with that is, IMO, a character / hero is defined by her story, not by her attributes and potential!

So when I take Conan or Aleister Crowley or Drizzt Do'Urden, those are regarded as heroes for their vast experiences that moleded them. Now, it may be possible to translate the traits of a given character into a given system, but the problem is that those characters won't fit into a "level 1 character" because they are what they are through their experiences they already lived through which place them higher on the power-ladder.

The difference of a very young Conan and a very young Lancelot may be quite insignificant.

When you play D&D, you start as a competent character and end your career as a demi-god, that is inherent in the rules.

This is also one of my main struggles when building a character out of a concept from my mind - that character is underpowered for a while, just right for 3-6 sessions and overpowered for the rest, because the concept does not change, yet the PC does tremendously.

[ad_hoc]

When you play D&D, you start as a competent character and end your career as a demi-god, that is inherent in the rules.

That is table dependent. Most games don't go past Tier 2 (or dip into the beginning of tier 3).



This is also one of my main struggles when building a character out of a concept from my mind - that character is underpowered for a while, just right for 3-6 sessions and overpowered for the rest, because the concept does not change, yet the PC does tremendously.

How fast is your levelling?

Or what do you consider overpowered?

In 5e I think characters come into their own at 5th level. Advancement is then slowed down significantly from 5-10.

[KorvinStarmast]

Have your player look again at all of the backgrounds. Include SCAG if need be.

[Markoff Chainey]

That is table dependent. Most games don't go past Tier 2 (or dip into the beginning of tier 3).



How fast is your levelling?

Or what do you consider overpowered?

In 5e I think characters come into their own at 5th level. Advancement is then slowed down significantly from 5-10.

Levelling is about 2 Levels after 6 sessions.

I agree, some tables do not go past Tier 2, that is quite popular. Why? My guess is because that is where the "theatre of mind" breaks down and people cannot (or do not want to) reasonably imagine playing such a powerful character.

The powerlevel changes dramatically during play with every step and rarely matches the fantasy of a player who invented a character. That's when the rules of the game hit a player's fantasy...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Levelling is about 2 Levels after 6 sessions.

I agree, some tables do not go past Tier 2, that is quite popular. Why? My guess is because that is where the "theatre of mind" breaks down and people cannot (or do not want to) reasonably imagine playing such a powerful character.

The powerlevel changes dramatically during play with every step and rarely matches the fantasy of a player who invented a character. That's when the rules of the game hit a player's fantasy...

I'd say the biggest reason is just plain Real Life--

At 3 sessions/level, you're looking at about 4 months of weekly sessions to get to T2. And another 4.5 months to get to level 10. And most groups don't play weekly (they might skip some weeks, etc). You're looking at about 3/4 of a year at a fast pace to hit level 10. What are the odds of any of

a) someone leaving the group
b) significant other aggro
c) schedule changes
d) interpersonal fights, etc.
e) vacations, etc

during that time? Quite large.

And under normal conditions, T1 goes a lot faster than T2. Like 2x as fast (about 2.5 adventuring days on average through T1, about 4.5-5 through T2. Just to go from 5 -> 6 is more XP as going from 1-5 combined (6500 for 1-5 vs 7500 for 5 -> 6).

[strangebloke]

I'd say the biggest reason is just plain Real Life--

At 3 sessions/level, you're looking at about 4 months of weekly sessions to get to T2. And another 4.5 months to get to level 10. And most groups don't play weekly (they might skip some weeks, etc). You're looking at about 3/4 of a year at a fast pace to hit level 10. What are the odds of any of

a) someone leaving the group
b) significant other aggro
c) schedule changes
d) interpersonal fights, etc.
e) vacations, etc

during that time? Quite large.

And under normal conditions, T1 goes a lot faster than T2. Like 2x as fast (about 2.5 adventuring days on average through T1, about 4.5-5 through T2. Just to go from 5 -> 6 is more XP as going from 1-5 combined (6500 for 1-5 vs 7500 for 5 -> 6).

Well, a lot of games start at level 5 or so.

But yeah, I've never had a campaign longer than 4 months where I didn't have a large number of characters/players cycling in and out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, a lot of games start at level 5 or so.

But yeah, I've never had a campaign longer than 4 months where I didn't have a large number of characters/players cycling in and out.

I guess I'm a bit biased.

I've had 3 real main types of games:

1. long-running adult games (1-20 over a bit more than a year). Only turnover was right at the beginning due to girlfriend aggro and one player's wife joining in.
2. known-in-advance short term adult games (1-3 over a few sessions during a summer). No turnover.
3. School club games with teenagers. Those run 1-6 (although I have a continuing campaign picking up at 6+) and run through a school year. Those have limited turnover, and mostly at the beginning.

[Darth Ultron]

The main problem with that is, IMO, a character / hero is defined by her story, not by her attributes and potential!


This is fine for the fluff of the character, but this does nothing for the mechanics. And D&D is all about the mechanics.

Sure you can role play anything you want, and then roll a d20 to hit and have a good game. And, sure, you could just play the game and randomly pick powers and abilities as your character goes up levels.

Often though, it's fun to play a 'type' of character right from the start. You don't want to just ''say'' your character is sneaky...you want it to have a real game effect.


I'd say the biggest reason is just plain Real Life--


The real problem is 'Choice'.

You can have a game everyday of the week. It is possible. Though most people will respond it is ''impossible", and not just because they don't ''want" to do it....they think it is impossible. But it is.

It is also possible to do a game two or three times a week, like Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. Or any other combo.

All you need is 1)A player that wants to game a lot and 2)players that choose to make it happen.

And it's not just more game days, but also more fast paced games. Some games start at 6PM, and by 6:01 are fulling into deep immersion role playing. Some games start at 6pm...and everyone chats and jokes around and watches you tube videos and play on their phones....and then the 'game play' starts at about 9:30, and everyone 'must' go home at 10 pm. Guess the game that gets more done?

[ad_hoc]

Levelling is about 2 Levels after 6 sessions.

If we're talking levels 5-10 that is fairly fast.

We do about 1 level every 5 sessions or so once we hit 5.



I agree, some tables do not go past Tier 2, that is quite popular. Why? My guess is because that is where the "theatre of mind" breaks down and people cannot (or do not want to) reasonably imagine playing such a powerful character.

The powerlevel changes dramatically during play with every step and rarely matches the fantasy of a player who invented a character. That's when the rules of the game hit a player's fantasy...

I wouldn't characterize it as 'some'. I think it is the vast majority. I would guess that at least 95% of 5e play happens in tiers 1 and 2.

I don't think it is a lack of ability. It's just preference. It's also how the game is designed. 5-10 is the sweetspot.

[MeeposFire]

The sweet spot of the game has pretty much always been around there. In most editions somewhere around levels 3-13 or so is about where most games get played and are often seen as most fun. The first few levels depending on edition are seen as either too rough or too lacking in ability (or both) and the later levels have various issues with some getting magnified by certain editions to varying degrees. Now you tend to see the lowest levels more than the higher ones because starting off at lower levels is still easy and will go by fast but starting at higher levels and continuing is harder since the start up time is greater, you do nto get to know the characters if you start right off powerful which ruins an important part of getting attached to a character, and starting off with all that power can be hard to understand since you did not grow into that power.

Same is true on the DM side by the way. Trying to DM a high level game is harder and is made much harder if you have not built up experience over the slow growth so you have time to figure out how to handle the game at higher levels.

[Kane0]

It may be because D&D scales at a fixed rate as you level up. If it was tapered to give diminishing rewards as you obtained higher levels it would probably go a long way to seeing more of those post-level-11 games

[MeeposFire]

It may be because D&D scales at a fixed rate as you level up. If it was tapered to give diminishing rewards as you obtained higher levels it would probably go a long way to seeing more of those post-level-11 games

You could but then you start running into an issue of why bother with the trouble of leveling up if it is not significant? There are a number of groups that significantly slow down leveling just so that they can stay where they like it so that can be the option if you really do not want to play at that higher level of play or at least that is how I would see it. I mean what is the real point of working up to level 30 when it is not really anything more than level 10? You might as well just stay at level 10 and drop the farce and then when you actually want to do something with more power then you start leveling up again.

The funny part is this conversation seems to assume that playing at those levels more is something that is really desired when in fact that may not really be the case. The game could just have those those higher levels so you have the option to play these higher power campaigns but that does not mean that they are designed to be played as much as the "sweet spot" levels. The designers seem to feel this way since the XP tables appear to be designed to push you towards this naturally by putting you in the sweet spot levels quickly and keeping you there for a long time.

[GreyBlack]

I have a player, who usually ties to start with a character concept in his head, then make the character in the game. In a 5e campaign with no optional rules btw: no Feats or multiclassing.

He complained to me that D&D archetypes are too narrow, and more damning in his eyes too D&D-specific. Basically, the vast majority of character concepts he comes up with boil down to being best represented as "Fighter or Rogue with a Background". Some of the more wuxia ones work okay as Monks, and occasionally others as a Barbarian.

Now, I've played D&D since AD&D / BECMI. So my initial reaction to this was basically, so what? That's normal. Most fictional-based characters are usually best as Fighters or Thieves. :smallamused:

The more I thought about it, the more I realized many D&D archetypes are a product of the time the rules were first written, a blend that only someone who was into 60s fantasy, medieval war games, and esoteric pre-medieval lore (Celtic, Norse, etc) could have come up with. Berserker Barbarians & Skald bards, tribal barbarians, Druids & Druid-trained bards, Crusader clerics and Paladins. And an entire magic system based around war game resource tracking, spells per session/scenario, justified by vancian "forget once cast".

I ended up telling the player yup, he was right. D&D archetypes are strong D&D archetypes, grounded in the history of the game. Not "build any fantasy character" archetypes. And I'm fine with that for my specific campaign, because that's what I wanted. But I agreed that it can be limiting from a concept-first perspective.

There should probably be a question in there or something, but I thought I'd share and see where this goes. Hopefully nowhere bad. :smallbiggrin:

I both agree and disagree. On one hand, I totally agree that some of the archetypes are based almost totally on the historical D&D archetypes. Great. I'm sold on that.

On the other hand some of the stuff is definitely not in that same classic vein, stuff like Tieflings or Dragonborn. Those aren't so much archetypes of "classic" D&D and they're more archetypes of modern D&D. Also, some of the archetypes of classic D&D (e.g. the druid-skald you mention) don't exist from the classics. That said, I'm overall in agreement with your assessment.