# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next > Speculation What if...there were universal archetypes?

## Kurt Kurageous

Instead of a class based archetype at 3rd level, you could choose a universal archetype?

I thought this when I revisited my (horribly unbalanced) homebrew 'Commander' archetype I made to address the negative progression inherent in Battlemaster. Strictly in a homebrew, what ideas do you have and what problems do you see?

Stop me if this has been ruminated on recently. It's coming very late in the 5e life cycle.

----------


## Amnestic

If you mean a subclass that could be taken by multiple classes, they attempted that with the Strixhaven UA. I didn't hate the idea of it but the execution was lacking for a few reasons* and it seems like the response was negative enough they backed off entirely.

*primarily for me is that classes get subclass abilities at different levels, and some get more than others, making it incredibly difficult to find the right balance point. If all classes got subclass abilities at the same levels and received the same number of them this would be easier, but you'd have to do major/minor class rebuilds to make that happen.

Assuming you don't want to do a set of class rebuild/shuffles it'd probably be easier to build a set of themed archetypes around a similar core mechanic (eg. psi-die, maneuvers) but are still slightly different between classes.

----------


## EggKookoo

Honestly I wish they did shared subclasses instead of their clunky multiclassing rules, but it was almost certainly too "not-D&D" for the early 5e dev days. And yeah, they didn't get it quite right when they revisited it recently.

----------


## Anymage

Assuming vanilla 5e?  It would be a nightmare to balance them among classes.  First because different classes want different things (see how often "warrior races" were given free armor proficiencies, which fighters already had but wizards were really keen on so PCs of that race were inevitably battlemages), second because different classes have different amounts of their class power tied up in subclasses (compare fighters being strong base class/weak subclass, with paladins who get a lot out of their subclasses).

Assuming that 5.5 makes a solid effort to balance subclass features across levels as well as standardizing subclass progression?  First I'm skeptical how well that balancing would work out in practice.  Second, universal subclasses by definition aren't tailored for any one class.  Ignoring the way that different classes want different things so there will be some obviously right or wrong fits (or worse, non-obvious traps), I'd wager that subclasses that works with your core class mechanics is going to be more useful than one that gives a separate suite of abilities that compete for your action.

----------


## Pixel_Kitsune

Honestly, it's case by case, but if you want a subclass from a different class, talk to me, if I can slot it in without too much abuse, let's go for it.

Examples that have worked at my table.

A Bard took Fey Wanderer.  Bard had to give up either the Ranger 11th level or Ranger 15th level ability.  They dropped the summoning boost and focused in on being a nightcrawler esq mobile combatant with super higher Charisma Skills.   Worked out fine.  

Draconic Bloodline Wizard.  Wanted the flavor and the background but still wanted to be a lore heavy, intelligence based character with spellbooks and the like.  Changed a few things up.  The Elemental Resistance became 1/LR for free and repeatable with a 1st level or higher slot.  Fear became 1/LR for free and repeatable with a 5th level or higher slot.  Everything basically worked out fine.

----------


## Mastikator

A lot of subclass features key into class features, so you'd instead need universal archetype features that are universally and independently useful, and also balanced, and also interesting/inspiring.

One problem I see is the "universally useful", "independently useful" and "balanced" and "interesting/inspiring" as a "pick one" or if you're a really skilled game designer "pick two" situation where you really want a "pick three" as a baseline, and I'm just not seeing that happening. Good luck though.

----------


## stoutstien

This is something I've been working on off and on for a few months. It's for an upcoming game where classes have shared subclasses features but not necessarily at a 1 for 1 exchange.

----------


## Oramac

With vanilla 5e, I think it would not work. At least, not without major revisions to the base rules. Enough so to make it impractical. 

With the OneD&D theme of homogenizing all subclasses across levels (3, 6, 10, 14 if memory serves), it _could_ work. I think you'd have to treat it more like spell balancing, where you essentially balance all subclass features (both universal and not) against each other. So you would need to balance [Universal 3rd Level Feature] against, say, Bear Totem, Assassinate, or Combat Inspiration. Which themselves aren't really balanced against each other, making the whole thing just that much more difficult.

Personally, though it would take a complete rewrite of the base game, I'd prefer to use a classless system. For lack of a better example, just remove all class/subclass features, turn them into feats, and say at XYZ level you get to pick a feat of that level or lower. Like I said, it's essentially impossible with the 5e or OneD&D rules, but I think it would be a lot of fun.

----------


## animorte

I still need to finish the spreadsheet with my entire layout for swapping out subclass options. I started a thread to talk about it (in my sig) too long ago to be relevant now.

----------


## Psyren

I thought this was a fine idea and was in favor of it for the Strixhaven UA. In fact, in 1DnD with every class having the same subclass feature acquisition points this will be even easier to pull off. (I suspect that lack of that is one reason why the Strixhaven implementation of this idea failed.)

----------


## NecessaryWeevil

I think the first step would be to answer the question, "Why are universal archetypes desirable?" What problem does it solve or what new possibility does it offer?

----------


## Intregus182

I'm all for this. I've wanted it since the 5e play test. 

If all classes get their subclasses at the same levels  in one dnd I hope this happens.

It opens up more game design IMO.

Now you can be a fighter vampire or a sorcerer vampire or a wizard vampire etc and they'll all feel different yet still be a vampire.

----------


## animorte

> If all classes get their subclasses at the same levels  in one dnd I hope this happens.
> 
> It opens up more game design IMO.


I agree and I'm bringing about a very similar concept in another thread just now:



> I think they're trying to standardize the level progression for ease of design (and hopefully balance).

----------


## Psyren

> I think the first step would be to answer the question, "Why are universal archetypes desirable?" What problem does it solve or what new possibility does it offer?


Essentially, they could provide a lot of the same benefits that prestige classes used to, without any of the drawbacks. Here are some examples:

*Spoiler*
Show

1) Prestige classes back in the day were a good way to represent organization-specific training and abilities. Current subclasses are baseclass-specific - druid circles, bardic colleges, paladin oaths etc. You wouldn't really expect to see a rogue in a druid circle or a wizard in a bardic college unless they were multiclass. But with multifunctional subclasses you could now have subclasses like "Harper Agent" or "Witch Slayer," based on groups like the Harpers or the Order of Seropaenes, who enlist members from a wide variety of vocations - and in doing so, gain access to techniques or powers that all members of that group have in common. In fact, had 5e been able to support multifunctional subclasses, this might have been a better way to represent the specialized training of a group like the Mages of High Sorcery than the feat chains they were forced to use instead.

2) Multifunctional subclasses optimize design time. For every universal or multifunctional subclass they make, they're actually making a subclass that 2 or more base classes can use. That increases the number of people that subclass will appeal to at no extra cost, and thus makes time spent on designing it more likely to increase the appeal of the book it's contained in to a greater number of people. There are folks out there who absolutely adore a single class or handful of classes for example, and if a new book has nothing for their favorite class(es), they won't bother buying it; this approach maximizes the number of people a given book might appeal to without them needing to design 12 different subclasses in every new release.

2) They enable some unique concepts that a subclass would struggle with. Apart from the "member of organization" style of prestige class, there was another type of character concept that prestige classes gave access to - prestige classes that represented you transforming in some way, e.g. to be more like a monster, like the Illithid Savant or the Child of Night. Similar to the "vampire X" others suggested above, this is a way to show that no matter what class you enter this subclass with, that transformation affects you in a similar way, or at least grants some abilities in common.


Unlike Prestige Classes, you wouldn't need to plan your build out at level 1 to make sure you "qualify" in time, or be forced to play something that feels nothing like what you want to play for the first 4-7 levels of your career. For example, if you wanted to be a Rogue or Bard who joins the Harpers to become a Harper Agent and get their special training, you are still a rogue or bard prior to picking up that subclass, and no weaker than any other pre-subclass rogue or bard. You can also arrive at that choice organically through play, just as you would any other subclass. You could even have the entire party take the same subclass despite being very different classes, and explore what that means through play. It would be a very interesting direction to take the game, and one that only 1DnD's standardization of subclass progressions would make possible.

----------


## animorte

> It would be a very interesting direction to take the game, and one that only 1DnD's standardization of subclass progressions would make possible.


Bring it on!  :Small Big Grin: 

I'm not going _fanboi_ over the company, but this concept has been a hope of mine ever since I was first introduced to D&D. It's amazing I never started branching out to other systems until a few months ago.

----------


## Burley

I will say that I miss the 3.5 prestige class system and, to an extent, the 4e paragon options (haven't cracked a 4e book in a decade, so my lingo may be wrong). The 5e subclass system irks me because your entire character is locked in place within the first three levels, but I don't think that giving more subclass options is going to un-irk me. It still locks characters in early and, in my opinion, would have more bland characters and blurred party roles, because your party will end up with a wizard, druid and rogue who are all "Commanders."


I feel like "universal archetypes" is exactly what Backgrounds offer: a set of proficiencies and an ability (usually to make villagers be nice to you) that is divorced from species and class choices. 
I'd be willing to entertain the idea of giving backgrounds more impactful features that you could take as alternates to your class abilities, or simply give you another ability at level 7 or whatever. 

That said, my dream would be to just create prestige classes which do have requirements, which gives a player something to build toward with an effort->result/growth mindset, rather than another way to lock a player in place by 3rd level. Let them give a flavorful (but not powerful) ability when taken and give the option to take the prestige abilities instead of the subclass abilities. You could still have different classes taking the same prestige class, but they're more likely to have varied talents/abilities.

----------


## Theodoxus

I'd be ok with universal archetypes, provided they were a single level. So, for instance, Beast Master would be available at level 3, and would give you the revised ranger style animal companion. Anyone would be able to get one, and it has the 3rd level abilities. (PB bonuses, uses BA to attack, etc.) But at 6th level, you could choose another archetype. Each 5E archetype could be split up into basic, expert, master and adept level abilities, higher level ones might require a lower level one to build off of, but I think that should be less than 50% of the higher ones. Hunter and Champion are great examples of archetypes that don't require requisites of previous levels.

I think this would address Burley's problem. It would allow for a lot more options, homebrew wouldn't require a 4 tier archetype - just come up with a standalone feature you want to add and then figure out the best level it would fit into, and most importantly, you're not locked into a singular build that might not provide everything you want, or has only a handful of abilities that match your build.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The 5e subclass system irks me because your entire character is locked in place within the first three levels,


 Unless your table uses feats.

----------


## Kurt Kurageous

> I think the first step would be to answer the question, "Why are universal archetypes desirable?" What problem does it solve or what new possibility does it offer?


My answer is there are archetypes which transcend class.  A leader/commander can be any class, for example.

The feat Inspiring Leader is an aspect of it. There are monster and NPC traits that have aspects of it (Hobgoblin/Knight "Leadership" action, Warlord "Command Ally" legendary action, etc.) But there is no PC option that really is a martial leader. 

When I was developing an archetype called "Commander," one of the first abilities was called "Close Order Drill" which allowed any creatures following you to move through each others space without paying 2x cost of terrain.

While this seemed all right for a fighter, what about a scholarly person? Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, one of the heroes of Gettysburg, was a schoolteacher. See also Saving Private Ryan's CPT Miller.

And so here I am.

----------


## Psyren

> Unless your table uses feats.


Indeed - and even some subclasses offer build choices. And some base classes have building blocks too, like Warlock Invocations or Artificer Infusions. And magic items offer build variety as well, albeit usually being out of the players' hands.

So "my character is locked in place after 3 levels" is not universally true, and I would argue not true at all at most tables.

----------


## Joe the Rat

> With vanilla 5e, I think it would not work. At least, not without major revisions to the base rules. Enough so to make it impractical. 
> 
> With the OneD&D theme of homogenizing all subclasses across levels (3, 6, 10, 14 if memory serves), it _could_ work. I think you'd have to treat it more like spell balancing, where you essentially balance all subclass features (both universal and not) against each other. So you would need to balance [Universal 3rd Level Feature] against, say, Bear Totem, Assassinate, or Combat Inspiration. Which themselves aren't really balanced against each other, making the whole thing just that much more difficult.
> 
> Personally, though it would take a complete rewrite of the base game, I'd prefer to use a classless system. For lack of a better example, just remove all class/subclass features, turn them into feats, and say at XYZ level you get to pick a feat of that level or lower. Like I said, it's essentially impossible with the 5e or OneD&D rules, but I think it would be a lot of fun.


Eclipse: The Codex Persona did this with 3/3.5, breaking every part of the character build into point values, which you could then combine to create the "class" (and separately, lineage) you want to pursue.  It would probably be simpler in some aspects for 5e, since you can use a single spell progression, purchased every 1/2/3 levels, rather than all the wacky options from 3.

----------


## Sorinth

I think a shared subclass could work for some themes but is probably not as good for others.

For example, Beastmaster where you get an animal companion to fight would probably no matter the base class but on the other hand even though Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are basically the same theme I'm not sure it would work out very well as a single subclass that Fighter or Rogues could take because it's more interesting to have unique abilities that better complement the base class. You also can't really have subclass abilities that modify/enhance a base class feature, so Battlemaster on a Barbarian would work but none of the Barbarian subclasses can really work on other classes since they all basically have abilities that enhance rage.

----------


## Theodoxus

> I think a shared subclass could work for some themes but is probably not as good for others.
> 
> ...But none of the Barbarian subclasses can really work on other classes since they all basically have abilities that enhance rage.


As a whole, probably not. But there are some aspects of some barbarian archetypes that would really good on other classes. And if you grant a 'mini-rage' to go along with it, a bit like the Martial Adept feat, then all the aspects could work. Basically, reduce the number of rages on Barbarian by 1 at level 3 and gain it back in a barbarian skewed archetype. So, no effective change for a barbarians' barbarian, but a tiny decrease in power for one that picked a different archetype (which presumably grants said barbie a different kind of power. And any non-barbie can now rage once a day (and possibly more, if there was a raging feat introduced for non-barbarians only).

----------

