Justifying Archetypes

[Lvl45DM!]

Just started a new game at 1st level. Everyone in it has their subclass planned out, except of course the Cleric who already has Tempest.
I'm just wondering what you guys all think of both giving them opportunities to roleplay choosing and gaining their archetypes at 3rd level and sort of enforcing the archetypes they choose to fit what their characters have done.

We have a...
Blood Hunter -> Order of the Mutagen
Fighter ->Sharpshooter Archetype
Artificer -> Artillerist Specialist
Paladin -> Order of the Ancient (with extra fire theme)
Monk -> Way of Shadow
And maybe a Barbarian ->Berserker

So my rough plan at the moment is that the Blood Hunter must find potion formulae, the Artificer must forge his Turret, the Paladin must find a fey creature to make the Oath to, the Monk must mix his Ki with a being or place of Shadow, and the Berserker would have to eat the heart of a bear or wolf or find an appropriate hallucinogen or experience a rage inducing trauma. The Sharpshooter, I dunno honestly but he can get trained by the local Ranger?

But of course the downside of this is that, it locks them into their choice early. I dont want to do that, but I dont want to have to come up with an option for every subclass. But if I do it to some of my players and not others if they change their mind then it cheapens the other characters choices, as well as giving too much time to the others.

Thoughts?

[Contrast]

So my rough plan at the moment is that the Blood Hunter must find potion formulae, the Artificer must forge his Turret, the Paladin must find a fey creature to make the Oath to, the Monk must mix his Ki with a being or place of Shadow, and the Berserker would have to eat the heart of a bear or wolf or find an appropriate hallucinogen or experience a rage inducing trauma. The Sharpshooter, I dunno honestly but he can get trained by the local Ranger?

How long are you planning on it taking to get to level 3? Because in my experience is usually only takes a couple of sessions and finding opportunities to do all those things you listed seems like it would place some strain on things.

I'd be inclined to handle it how most of the unusual leaps in levelling up are handled - they have been involved with things in the background all along and that has just paid off.

[Lvl45DM!]

How long are you planning on it taking to get to level 3? Because in my experience is usually only takes a couple of sessions and finding opportunities to do all those things you listed seems like it would place some strain on things.

I'd be inclined to handle it how most of the unusual leaps in levelling up are handled - they have been involved with things in the background all along and that has just paid off.

Yeah not long maybe 4 more sessions. The trick is not how feasible this is, but how good an idea it is.

Im using Milestone XP and they are about to Save The Ranger who will lead them to the Lair of the Lizardfolk when theyll hit 2nd level, who will give them the key and map to The Bloodstone Tower, which they can conquer to become 3rd.

The Lizardfolk have the special metal that can be used to make the turret, and their swamp holds a powerful Fey thats being weakened by the Necromancer. The Necromancer of course has a portal to the Shadowfell and lots of potion formulae.

[EggKookoo]

I think the answer is, it's a great idea provided your players are on board with it. That's really the metric.

[Randomthom]

I think it largely varies from class-to-class.

Some, gaining the archetype just seems like a natural progression from what they were doing lvl 1-2 (Thief Rogue just getting a bit quicker with their hands) while others seem like a significant divergence that could do with some in-world explanation. Either that or ask your players to narrate minor/ineffective/failed attempts of the abilities they will be getting at lvl 3.

e.g. in some downtime, your soon-to-be-shadow monk is experimenting with the hand gestures to summon a cloud of darkness and manages to briefly dim the room. His master taught him how but he hasn't managed it yet.

[MoiMagnus]

How much communication with the players do you have out of game sessions? And how much in-game time can happens between gaming sessions?
Assuming "probably enough" is an answer for both, you can probably handle this between sessions:
+ You let your players have vague background / almost no background / changing background for the first levels.
+ Once they need to chose a subclass, you take some time with the player to determine how did he got that subclass, and how it works within their background.
+ Out-of-session discussions at the beginning of the campaign are also a great time to build some links between the PCs (distant family members? previous collaborators? childhood friends? tavern buddy? ...), but that's not required.

My personal feeling is that personal quest are difficult to handle at low levels, both at RP level (why do the PCs help each others?), player level (you're so weak compared to NPCs that what happen to you mostly depends on what the DM allow you to do) and mechanical level (stuff can go wrong quite easily).

But if your players are interested, you make it possible, and you are good at improvising what happens if it fails, then you can still have a lot of fun trying it.

[Sigreid]

It would annoy me, but others may think it the greatest thing since sliced bread. Most would probably be between those extremes

[RatElemental]

I'm a fan of allowing some leeway on the fluff of things as long as the crunch still broadly makes sense. Personally, having to explain why I suddenly have an animal following me around should be handled the same way I explain suddenly having more spell slots or an extra favored enemy: I've been training/studying in the background or I'm just applying experience I've earned in my adventures.

[Duff]

I suggest anything which a story sets, a different story can change.

In a game I was running I'd see 2 ways to apply your idea:
1 - Narrate a cut scene for each character it applies to. No more than 10 Minutes. May well do it by social media post. If the player wants to change path later, they get to (have to) narrate a cut scene to justify it.
2 - Run a solo adventure for each character it applies to. Probably by arranging a session with each player unless I expected the session to be a spectator sport or wanted other players playing NPCs. In this case, you need to consider whether other players will feel they've missed out if you give xp, will the participating players feel ripped off if you don't give xp for this solo session or do you need to give each character a solo, even if some are more character forming than others. Later changes of mind might require a plot reason, but I'd be ok with cut scening this.

Either way, ideally this takes place across the course of a pause in the character's adventuring life. "During the year after [adventure] you go about your lives. During that time [quest thing] happens. Tell me what else you do?
I'd feel free to allow the story part to occur a level before or after after the choices are made as fits the timeline

[Evaar]

It sounds like a cool idea to the extent that you’re willing to provide opportunities to the characters to do those things. I would feel very miffed if I joined a game only to be told I don’t get to play the subclass I want because I didn’t go hunting down some shadow thing to meld my Ki with or whatever.

So it’s cool inasmuch as it lets players explore their chosen archetypes a bit more, but you want to make sure you don’t cross over into stopping players from playing what they want. I think there’s a case for asking each player if this is something they’d like to do and skipping it for those who aren’t into it.

[djreynolds]

I think the answer is, it's a great idea provided your players are on board with it. That's really the metric.

I had a player who was rogue and was going to multiclass to barbarian. I felt like his character needed not a reason to multiclass, but that something happened.

So during play in a cave system there was a quake and his rogue was separated from the party and had to really survive on his own.

I felt this help give his character the experience he needed to say "hey now I can rage", his experience allowed him to be able to tab into some primeval survival mode he wasn't aware he had in him.

Now its not say that some rogue on the run in a city, chased and hounded by authorities or a rival gang get cornered and now has to fight for his life... if he survives this... perhaps now he can progress a barbarian.

But the player was on board with this, EggKookoo is 100% right.

[Asensur]

I make my players choose their archetypes with their class, regardless of level. So their archetype is fixed since level 1.

For multiclassing, I allow it only between adventures (when they have downtime activities), and only if they choose to retain their last level gained for that purpose instead of gaining another level of their class. It is considered side training for "free" when out of adventures.

[Corsair14]

I think its a great plan. The biggest issue I have with 5th and 3rd is spontaneous multi-classing/archetypes "Durr, now my fighter can cast spells."

I enforce a training period and cost for multiclassing and my own characters already follow a path towards an archetype. Good to see others doing so. Makes zero sense for a rogue with no background to suddenly begin casting arcane spells and so forth.

[firelistener]

I think the answer is, it's a great idea provided your players are on board with it. That's really the metric.

+1 to this. Personally, I would abhor the DM pushing some requirement on me that I didn't create and isn't in the rule books, but my players have sometimes enjoyed stuff like this in the past. Ask them about it first, maybe in a way that doesn't completely spoil it, and see if they'd like the extra role play challenge.

[False God]

+1 to this. Personally, I would abhor the DM pushing some requirement on me that I didn't create and isn't in the rule books, but my players have sometimes enjoyed stuff like this in the past. Ask them about it first, maybe in a way that doesn't completely spoil it, and see if they'd like the extra role play challenge.

Quoting for emphasis. There's a real danger of mismatch of expectations unless the players are notified up front that the DM believes in order to get their "special subclass" they have to do some DM-designed ritual.

---
You've already noted that someone like the Ranger can just get trained in a local town. Forcing some of the players to go off on epic quests while others can just have a cold brew with the old warrior in town can come across really poorly. And what's to say that the party even wants to help Player 2 or Player 5 locate the Ancient McGuffin that lets them enter their subclass?

Like, why does the Paladin need to make an oath to a fey? Yes I get the fey is old, but fey are also typically jerks. What if "the ancients" idea the paladin is going for is elementals? (see: fire theme) Or maybe its holy fire and the "ancients" are the spirits of a lost civilization? What do you do when your paladin shows up in front of this fey and you say "Okay you gotta make a pact with this guy to get your subclass." and the paladin goes "Nah the fey suck screw this guy."

----
My advice would be to talk these things over with your players, tell them you'd like to do something special for their subclass and explain, at least generally, what you had in mind. If people aren't buying in to it, don't do it. If people are, great! If there's some split, let the players who aren't interested already be "locked in" to their subclass. IE: they already trained or made an oath appropriately, they just need world "experience" to put their training to use IRL.

[Lvl45DM!]

Quoting for emphasis. There's a real danger of mismatch of expectations unless the players are notified up front that the DM believes in order to get their "special subclass" they have to do some DM-designed ritual.

---
You've already noted that someone like the Ranger can just get trained in a local town. Forcing some of the players to go off on epic quests while others can just have a cold brew with the old warrior in town can come across really poorly. And what's to say that the party even wants to help Player 2 or Player 5 locate the Ancient McGuffin that lets them enter their subclass?

Like, why does the Paladin need to make an oath to a fey? Yes I get the fey is old, but fey are also typically jerks. What if "the ancients" idea the paladin is going for is elementals? (see: fire theme) Or maybe its holy fire and the "ancients" are the spirits of a lost civilization? What do you do when your paladin shows up in front of this fey and you say "Okay you gotta make a pact with this guy to get your subclass." and the paladin goes "Nah the fey suck screw this guy."
----
My advice would be to talk these things over with your players, tell them you'd like to do something special for their subclass and explain, at least generally, what you had in mind. If people aren't buying in to it, don't do it. If people are, great! If there's some split, let the players who aren't interested already be "locked in" to their subclass. IE: they already trained or made an oath appropriately, they just need world "experience" to put their training to use IRL.

I do love your alternatives to the fey! Very cool, might work them in.

Ive talked to my players about it and they all seem on board. I told them they need to keep an eye out for these oppurtunities during the games we play and act on it. The monk who wants to be a ninja is actually really excited to turn his very mundane Spy into a mystical ninja. Getting him some character growth.

Im not making it very difficult, no need for extra quests, its more when they are looting the tower they just have to say "im looking for this stuff". That would end up taking wayyyy too long.

Im also integrating something for one extra subclass per player so they feel they have choice.


I had a player who was rogue and was going to multiclass to barbarian. I felt like his character needed not a reason to multiclass, but that something happened.

So during play in a cave system there was a quake and his rogue was separated from the party and had to really survive on his own.

I felt this help give his character the experience he needed to say "hey now I can rage", his experience allowed him to be able to tab into some primeval survival mode he wasn't aware he had in him.


This is exactly the FEEL for what I want. Im trying to validate the characters choices and journeys in game, not force them down a path.

I also had a chat with them about the crunch vs fluff. I was carrying my own baggage about it, like the Fey Oath of the Ancients, so I asked them how they felt their subclass fit into the world, and what they imagined in choosing it. So instead of a DM-designed ritual now its a player and DM collaboratively design ritual or action.

[djreynolds]

You need to get something out of the game also.

We all have real lives and jobs and spouses and kids and everything..... some players just want to smite vampires.

Everyone at the table is there for a reason, something to do, escapism, tactics, power gamers, what ever

Just kinda feel who at the table is open to this and who isn't, and for those who are not into this then don't mess with their PCs, and those who are go ahead and add in a simple twist.

Say Eric the bard wants to become a paladin, (because smiting is cool) so get an idea of the archetype he'd like to play and add something to the current adventure where he has defend one the tenets of the Ancient (and those who are not participating can still be there in game)

So Eric the bard might have to show mercy to the enemy, in the face of his party who perhaps want to kill prisoners, and if he succeeds... he can now level up next time as a paladin... and continue to throw in stuff that tests his adherence to Oath

[RatElemental]

I also had a chat with them about the crunch vs fluff. I was carrying my own baggage about it, like the Fey Oath of the Ancients, so I asked them how they felt their subclass fit into the world, and what they imagined in choosing it. So instead of a DM-designed ritual now its a player and DM collaboratively design ritual or action.

I just want to point out, the oath to the ancients very heavily strikes me as one that doesn't need to be made to any given entity, except maybe to the paladin themselves. It's all about swearing to enjoy life and help everyone do the same, I'd allow a paladin taking that oath to swear it just on their own honor, or to nature/the world itself.

[Samayu]

You've already noted that someone like the Ranger can just get trained in a local town. Forcing some of the players to go off on epic quests while others can just have a cold brew with the old warrior in town can come across really poorly.

This. And I'd also worry that someone won't notice the thing they're looking for, and therefore won't fulfill the bargain. What happens when they gain the level? They don't get any path features until they find the thing?

I see you said the players are already on board with this, but if it were me, I'd make the thing a narrative element, not a story quest.

The ranger they rescued can simply offer to teach the character. You can tell the artificer that since they found the store of raw metal, they can build their turret. The monk found they mystic shadow and has learned to take advantage of them.

I'd guess you're making it really obvious for them to find the thing, so it's hardly a story challenge anyway. So I suppose your method isn't too far off from what I'm saying.

[Lvl45DM!]

I just want to point out, the oath to the ancients very heavily strikes me as one that doesn't need to be made to any given entity, except maybe to the paladin themselves. It's all about swearing to enjoy life and help everyone do the same, I'd allow a paladin taking that oath to swear it just on their own honor, or to nature/the world itself.

NEED to be made to an entity?
No, no it doesn't.

Is it cooler if it is?
I think so. Its not a warlock pact, the entity isn't giving the power, its just the mystic equivalent of a knighting ceremony. It integrates him in the world. And if he starts violating the oath, I have an entity that will send messengers, warnings and finally punishment. If he upholds the oath well, I have a new NPC that can give quests, rewards, advice or help.




I'd guess you're making it really obvious for them to find the thing, so it's hardly a story challenge anyway. So I suppose your method isn't too far off from what I'm saying.

Yeah, its not meant to be a challenge, just meant to be neat. But yeah I hadn't really considered that they might fail. If they do yeah, I'd deny them the abilities until they achieve it, but thats super unlikely, and I'll make sure they get another chance.

I have realized something though. What if the Monk steals the potions formula, and the Fighter does stuff with the shadows? Hrm. That might be really interesting. It might be really dumb.

[Duff]

So instead of a DM-designed ritual now its a player and DM collaboratively design ritual or action.

Nice This ensures players are going to be happy they are getting a fair deal and a good experiance

[J-H]

Good on making it collaborative.

I start my games at level 3.

[bid]

Thoughts?
Sometimes in the near future, when not everone could come or someone is late, do a flashback session.

In the mean time, assume they all completed their training.

[Lvl45DM!]

Good on making it collaborative.

I start my games at level 3.

We had 2 players who joined our last 3.5 game, starting at lvl 12+, and one guy who joined at lvl 5. They've never gotten to play 1st level so that was necessary.