Talk:5e Subclasses

Lack of ranger archetypes

I guess no one likes Ranger lol

the hatred is still there, but after some time playing the new system you get used to the ranger. but its still crap. :) -malevoiy

What's funny is that this comment was made because we had no ranger archetypes. Now we have more ranger archetypes than any other class. Marasmusine (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2016 (MDT)

Added a section thing for Artificer, because of we got that class from Unearthed Arcana earlier today. If that shouldn't be here (though I feel like it should), someone please remove it. For anyone unaware, here's the link to it. Artificer Unearthed Arcana.

Question

If we want to create a subclass for a homebrew subclass, could we add a new class section? I don't intend to (yet) but I was just wondering. -AngelsAndAarakocra

If it's a class on the wiki, you could just add it on to the page. --Geodude671 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You know, this does actually make me wonder; Should there be sections for archetypes for homebrew classes that aren't on the wiki, such as Matthew Mercer's Blood Hunter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.103.152.138 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Okay, good to know. -AngelsAndAarakocra (To Geodude671)

Renaming "archetypes" to "subclasses"

The linked Unearthed Arcana: Modifying Classes article from 2015 says "Each class contains at least one major decision point, referred to here as a class option". The word "archetype" is used for some subclasses, but not all. It is very confusing to refer to wizards' Arcane Traditions or Sorcerous Origins as "archetypes" when the game never does. Since there is no general term used in the Basic Rules or Player's Handbook, it's hard for new players to understand exactly what the homebrew options presented here are supposed to fit into

The new Xanathar's Guide solves this problem by introducing the term "subclass" and using it consistently. From that book:

Each class offers a character-defining choice at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level that unlocks a series of special features, not available to the class as a whole. That choice is called a subclass. Each class has a collective term that describes its subclasses; in the fighter, for instance, the subclasses are called martial archetypes, and in the paladin, they’re sacred oaths.

This site would be more useful and understandable if it were to adopt this same terminology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.228.52 (talk). Please sign your posts.

I agree with the anonymous poster above. Now that I actually have XGtE, it is pretty clear WotC has firmly adopted the title of "subclass" over "archetype" or other titles.

It might seem like a minor improvement that would require a lot of work, but I would be willing to do all the manual editing, moving, and renaming if I had admin approval to do so. After all, a lot of pages that would need to be altered, such as 5e Archetypes and a few different templates, are currently locked from non-admin edits. I am unsure of User:SgtLionBot's capabilities but I imagine it (or another bot) could relatively easily move the ~600 pages from "(5e Archetype)" and Category:Archetype to "(5e Subclass)" and Category:Subclass. That would probably be the bulk of the work right there. - Guy (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (MST)

The word 'Archetype' has thoroughly confused me since I saw it in 5e, especially as it conflicts largely with uses of the word in other editions. But I put that down to my own ignorance. SgtLionBot can certainly move every page with (5e Archetype) to (5e Subclass) and change the categories. I can also have it scan 5e Templates and Preloads, replacing every instance of Archetype with Subclass, and obviously scan for whatever anomalies with my human eyes. I'm not 100% sure as to the wiki infrastructure of 5e, so tell me if I'm missing anything there. As one can tell, I certainly like the plan. --SgtLion (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2017 (MST)

Aside from what you mentioned and everything on this page itself, I believe the only other relevant instances of "archetype" would be sporadic instances in certain classes or other pages. Considering each PH class uses a class-specific term (e.g., tradition, domain, or indeed archetype), these instances should be few—and if one is referring to a subclass specifically for the fighter class for example, it should remain as "archetype" anyway.

I'm unsure if something this widespread would require any more approval, but regardless I'm ready to search for any instances SgtLionBot doesn't catch. - Guy (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2017 (MST)

I agree, this will help clear up the confusion about archetype and subclass terminology. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2017 (MST)

Very well, it seems widely agreed that using 'Subclass' is a better term. I'll get the bot to make changes either later today, or tomorrow, and report back. --SgtLion (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2017 (MST)

My poor bot has been going for a literal 17 hours - Moving pages is reeeally hard, even for bots, all 'them the 503s. It's finishing off with talk pages, now, and should be done in a few hours. However, save for those few talk pages, the job is done. I'm quite happy with the results, but I'm looking around for areas where references need to be changed. Lemme know if something went wrong, or if there's a mass of pages I missed. --SgtLion (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2017 (MST)

I'm glad this worked out so swiftly. I haven't been able to find much of anything that needs fixing, other than a surplus of double redirects, which is a very negligible issue. There's still of course a lot of homebrew classes which use "archetype," but that can be chalked up to creative liberty anyway. There's also still templates like Template:5e Class Archetype Features, but it's questionable whether something that deep in the weeds should be changed anyway. - Guy (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2017 (MST)

Oh. The instances of "archetype" on 5e Homebrew and 5e Character Options should ideally be changed, too. - Guy (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2017 (MST)

This was a good change. I prefer the word archetype, because it is succinct and accurate... however, nobody in the hobby adopted our usage of the word, most likely because most of them are children with limited vocabularies, making "subclass" a more viable construction in the absence of a specific word. (And also because they hate us.) We should try to use the language of the broader community as a whole in general when it is clear. I'm going to glance at the help pages and see if I can put that as a recommendation somewhere, like in the editing guide or something. --Kydo (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2017 (MST)

I believe that we should (and do) use whatever terminology is supported by first-party publications. In this instance, we switched to "subtype" because it was established as the formal term for them, not because some "broader community" used it.--GamerAim (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2017 (MST)

Is it too late for me to weigh in and say I would prefer the term "class option"? Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2017 (MST)

It's been done, but if you really want to we can vote on how it should be. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2017 (MST)

As I'm unfamiliar with 5e, whatever is the best term is beyond my scope of understanding. I'm happy to avail my bot to change again, if we decide to do so. --SgtLion (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2017 (MST)

In the latest official material published by a first party, the term used is 'subclass.' Using anything else seems nonsensical to me. - Guy (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2017 (MST)

Meh, I liked them more when they were still called "Archetypes". Quincy (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2018 (MST)

request

So, I am not very good at making such things as this, so I simply leave this here for others in my situation and those more daring then I to take a stab it/them. The request I have is this, I am making a fighter that is like a royal guard/ right hand. I am thinking that they would simply guard their charge while they are not carry out their will, and as such would have different training then a normal knight. If someone wants to take up this challenge the I thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Survival (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Hey Lord Survival, I would take a look at the Cavalier from XGtE on page 30-31, since it seems to fit the role of protector quite well(you don't need to be mounted but you are trained in it). If that subclass doesn't work, could you describe what exactly you are looking for in this proposed subclass(ie what the subclass's strengths would be)?--Blobby383b (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2018 (MDT)

This is the only thing that comes to mind but like botw Link berfore the calamity, but with influces of after when is must fight as Zelda’s agent of action instead of her defender. I am kind of using the song “cost of the crowns” ’s herald as insperation.--Lord Survival (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

Namespace ID

Curious here, would there be any issue with including a subclasses base class in the ID? e.g. Potato (5e Vegetable Subclass)
I wouldn’t expect users to do it, or anyone to edit current ones to follow but if users wanted (aka maybe me) would it cause a disturbance in the force? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

That would make it very difficult for the dpls to remove the ids. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2018 (MDT)

I thought DPLs only considered categories. How does the ID come into play DPLs? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2018 (MDT)

Many of our current DPLs remove specific text at the end of the title. E.g., "Potato (5e Subclass)" becomes "Potato" when it gets pushed out of the DPL. By contrast, "Potato (5e Vegetable Subclass)" would come out as something like "Potato Vegetable Subclass)" since it contains the first bit of the DPL-called string, but not the rest.

Some pages get around this. Just glancing through 5e Subclasses, there's "Path of the Titan (Barbaric Path) (5e Subclass)" which pops out of the DPL as "Path of the Titan (Barbaric Path)." In my opinion, that title doesn't look elegant, but if anyone is insistent on including a class in the title that might be the best way to do it. - Guy 06:30, 30 August 2018 (MDT)

I'm tracking now. I've seen some wonky things in the lists and wondered but it makes sense. Thank you both. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2018 (MDT)

UA content

Why is mystic there actually?--Yanied (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2021 (MST)

The wiki typically supports the creation of any kind of new homebrew content in the vein of what WotC has created regardless of whether it is UA or not. I don't know when this trend started, but the wiki does current support mystic subclasses, prestige classes, racial feats, variant features, etc. On a similar but unrelated topic, I also believe that guilds should be added to 5e Backgrounds page. --Blobby383b (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2021 (MST)

Yeah guilds should be more visible.--Yanied (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2021 (MST)

Yes, it is fine to add guilds to backgrounds. Of course this discussion should be on that talk page, but I doubt that anyone will disagree in any case. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2022 (MST)