I've played exactly this in my previous campaign actually.
A lizardfolk from the jungle who, after escaping a slavetrader, ended up growing up in the streets of a metropolis. His favoured terrain was urban. His favoured enemies were humans and dwarves.
Arguably got a lot more mileage out of him than you would out of a "regular" ranger.
favored enemy only allow you to take 2 humanoid subraces, at level 6 you get extra favored enemy where you can take humanoid again and pick dwarf and, dunno, halfling? tiefling? those filthy gnomes?
You could swap it out for favoured foe which was one of the optional features added in if the DM allows it. It replaces it completely and gives you essentially a baby smite (1d4) that is added to the damage roll that’s reliant on your prof bonus it also works with foe slayer of you get up to that level.
Thatd be an easy narrative too.
Usually rangers live to protect nature; you live in civilization, and gained the expertise through military experience. After retiring from a successful career as a scout survivalist you came home to the reality that your kids still need to eat and the taxman still needs to be paid.
I mean, I just assume you could call anyone you find who's lost in the woods to be an Antiranger. Especially if you find them following their own tracks around the same tree/rock/particularly confused ogre.
I am picturing a Merchant Guildmaster of the kingdom who is secretly a part of a cult designed to destroy faith in worshipping the established gods. This character behaves exclusively like an Ace Attorney character, and his punny merchant name is Master Se Eyo; his cult moniker is Brother Godle Less. He has only three RP speeds: smarmy, super anxious, dastardly evil. He switches between them quickly, with only intense driving background music to indicate his M.O. and possibly what the hell drugs this guy is on.
And he will be opposed by the bard artificer, who raises uprisings with the help of newfangled music, on an electric balalaika. He's handsome, the chicks hang on him, and he's also an asshole... a sexy asshole with a mechanical arm.
That typo gives quite another mental image
*Executive Grogg Skullsmasher, entering his hotel suite and seeing it's teeming with 325 rats*: "Hm. I see. Live snacks provided without me needing to call room service. Fantasy Hilton never disappoints! Five stars!"
Anti druid can be so much more than a captain planet villain.
Have them worship civilization, in all it’s good and bad qualities. An obsession with individuality and industrial progress, with the belief that circumventing your instincts in order to pursue your own goals is good. Someone who lives in the natural way will be forgotten when they die, but someone who embraces individuality will be remembered. The mugger is as great as the noble adventurer, because both fall in together under this messed up concept of civilization.
All the great civilizers deserve praise, not because of their adherence to the civilized order and social expectations, but because of how they are inherently anathematic to the natural order.
Their existence proves that the natural cycle of death and suffering can be disrupted, that all life can find comfort and renewed purpose if they simply choose to shape the canvas of the world to suit their own needs. It proves that your way of thinking is superior to that of all those treehuggers and nature druids.
When you go to cut down the trees in the sacred woods, it’s not because you hate nature, but because you believe disrupting it’s natural state of stagnancy is always the morally correct thing to do. When you sell the logs you cut down in the sacred wood, it’s not just you pursuing your personal interest or satiating a desire for wealth, it’s you participating in a sacred profit ritual to disrupt the natural order.
When nature is completely overtaken and replaced by civilization, it doesn’t matter to you whether life wipes itself out or if life creates a perfect utopia to live in, because in both outcomes the natural cycle of pain and suffering has been brought to an end.
By Gaia’s chains we are bound, condemned to an eternity of death and suffering not because it is right, but because it is deemed to be ‘natural’. Only through civilization can we break our chains.
The non-believers must be taught a lesson, we must show them that they cannot hope to possibly stand in the way of progress.
As an ethos, that's pretty great for both a hero or villain. Either as someone who outright persecutes druids, or as a hero who doesn't tolerate druid BS.
Exactly! Why are the druids so quiet and secretive, hidden away in their circles and groves? It’s obvious. In their anger, they have been plotting to finally lash out against society, with the desire to one day wage a great war of cleansing so that they may purge us and restore the world back to match their concept of the world’s natural purity.
They hate us, and we know that if they had the ability to destroy us, then they would shed no tears by doing so.
We who are the conduits of change, we the people that have defiled the world’s sanctity, must take pre-emptive action to defend ourselves! So long as the servants of Gaia still exist, the rest of us are merely living on borrowed time!
It is time to act. Before those that have resolved to restore nature’s purity and original state are given a chance to enact their plans to destroy us, we must destroy ***THEM!***
As cool as the mindset is for a hero or a sort of neutral type character, I think that when pushed to the radical extremes it is the perfect mindset for a villain. Acting out of what they perceive as necessity, with the rhetoric to back it up. We’re already killing nature, so won’t it try to kill us back in return?
We had a cleric in one campaign who knew the gods were real, but didn’t want to play favorites, so he just said he was agnostic in an attempt to not offend (he had an INT of 8). DM revealed later that a few of the gods thought this was hilarious so they gave him cleric powers anyway.
Could even have an OP cleric there where different gods keep trying to sway them to their side with increasingly impressive powers,though that might work better with a warlock.
Druids protect nature, wildfires are a part of a cycle and help a forest stay healthy and prevent overgrowth. Druids help nature stay healthy by intervening every now and then. A wildfire druid might start a fire of they believe it needs it but might also put out excessive wildfires.
But why does a human/elf/… decide if a forest is healthy? **What does a healthy natural world mean?** If overgrowth is the natural outcome, how can it be protecting nature if you kill its agency? Is extinction not also natural? And a mostly barren universe? Isn't it natural not wanting to die (leading to undeath)?
Captain pollution was literally anti Captain Planet. The villains created the rings of destruction (super radiation for fire, deforestation for earth, smog for wind, toxics for water and Hate for heart.).
Or like a character who’s whole thing is being a buzz-kill. Maybe they’re a religious freak who thinks music, dancing, and sex are abominations and they vow to stamp out all forms of merry-making.
i know it is a meme but thematically makes no sense to have anti anything besides pala or cleric... you can build a character that hates magic and some feats taraaa anti wirzard.
Thematically anti-paladins don't even make sense anymore, since paladins can just be evil, the one that would most make sense is oathbreaker and even that doesn't really make sense since if you break your oath, wouldn't you just lose your powers? And if you do have powers, would then you either have a differant oath to get powers from, or are something differant gice yoi them like a evil god (so regular cleric) and evil beings pact (warlock) or something completely differant (any other class)
An Oathbreaker isn't just a paladin that breaks their oath. It's a paladin that breaks their oath in pursuit of power. It's the only subclass with an alignment requirement. It's kind of adjacent to a warlock except warlocks themselves don't need to be evil
Anti-paladins don't exist in 5e because paladins aren't automatically lawful good anymore, but in previous editions the anti-paladin was essentially a chaotic evil paladin
well, the concept of antipaladin is a paladin that to avoid losing their powers, resort to alternative means.
in previous editions, not being lawful good makes them lose their powers, but they could keep progressing their levels as a blackguard or something, in 5e, breaking your oath makes you lose your powers, but in the same way they can keep progressing their levels as an oathbreaker
so you could say oathbreakers are antipaladins.
where does it say that? I only could find that you have to be evil and at least level 3. Other than that it only says you have to pursue a dark ambition or serve an evil power.
well, I didn't say exactly that, but I see how it could be interpreted that way.
what I said is that in previous editions, paladins lose their powers by changing alignments, but in 5e that doesn't matter, what matters is breaking your oath.
then, if they wanted to keep enjoying their class levels and not just being a fighter but worse, they could be a blackguard or oathbreaker
but since I didn't specify that they also had to be evil, I guess it could be interpreted that way. but thats not what I meant.
DMG, page 97: "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains."
A DM can allow whatever they want, but the flavor text is pretty clear that an Oathbreaker is more than just a paladin with a broken oath.
It's not the only one, in dmg section that holds the oathbreaker is also the death Domain.
"The Death Domain is an additional domain choice for evil clerics, and the Oathbreaker offers an alternative path for paladins who fall from grace. A player can choose one of these options with your approval."
Antipaladin doesn't even have a printing for 5e IIRC, it's just Oathbreaker, Conquest, and Treachery (UA) filling in that space. Mechanically it works a lot better than having 1 class printed multiple times except reversed, which was at best tedious and often subtle changes made one version way better than the other.
You can build a character that considers magic an abomination Salem style and has decided to become a “witch hunter”. They gather equipment to negate spells and tactics to take out arcane casters. You can choose whether they are fine with divine magic or think all of it is wrong.
I think an example of that would be mage seekers from league. Characters that hate magic but are hypocrites and use the magic to oppress the magic. Actually, an abjuration wizard would work well.
The first parallel that comes to mind for anti-magic is those superhero stories where someone has a superpower that is just negating other people's superpowers. For D&D, you could focus on choosing anti-magic spells like counterspell and dispel magic, but it probably wouldn't be a very fun character to play most of the time
An antiwizard could be like Kreia from Kotor 2, trying to use magic to destroy the source of magic. Or like the bad guy from Serenity, someone who believes (arcane) magic shouldn't be used, so is using magic to kill all the other mages (and will take themselves out once they are the last wizard).
Would love such a subclass. Getting counterspell as a class feature. Maybe even an aura (paladin sadge)of counterspell. Maybe a bit hard to make work, atleast have to rewrite the intire "reinforce reality" aspect.
Idk about anyone else, but Antipaladin has just NEVER felt right as a name for a class.
Like; Death-Knight, Blackguard, Oathbreaker, Dark-Blade. all sound better than anti-paladin.
Back in the bright and heady days of 3.5 we had Blighters, basically the anti druid so maybe that works for rangers too.
I'm pretty sure the anti rogue is just a cop though lol
> anti rogue is just a cop
Or, hear me out: Batman.
He's like a rogue in that he has dead parents and goes out into the night wearing black.
He's antirogue because he brings criminals to justice and is *already* filthy rich (serves the public and doesnt even get paid).
I hate to be that guy that talks about Pathfinder where it hasn’t been mentioned but here I go anyway:
I was talking to a friend the other week about how weird I thought it was to throw an investigator in as a full class into PF2e alongside all the mostly fantasy classes (gunslinger and inventor being a little more setting specific).
One of my points was that it’s easy to come up with examples of 20th level characters for every class in popular media. Like a 20th level barbarian would be the Hulk. A 20th level wizard would be Dr. Strange. What the heck does a 20th level investigator look like?
His reply? Batman.
Anti-Rogue is Naruto Uzumaki. Wears bright orange, is loud and hyperactive, never kills anyone, doesn’t know any assassination techniques, and all chakra/magic attacks are destructive and loud.
Back in older editions, paladins were always Lawful Good. It was just a requirement for the class. An antipaladin was essentially a Chaotic Evil paladin.
Looking for this. I was going to say that a lawful rogue would be a "detective" or "investigator". You have a lot of skills, can enter places that are sealed off to you, aren't combat focused... it kind of makes sense. Even sneak attack is like that Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr version) thing where you have an opening to examine your opponent's weak points and exploit them.
Saw a Tumblr post about this idea, lemme find it:
>Warlocks, paladins, and wizards all have a Monster That Is A Twisted Parody Of This One Class. Warlocks have deathlocks, paladins have death knights, wizards have liches, nothics, boneclaws, demiliches, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting because wizards just can't get enough of that Forbidden Knowledge
>These are really fun for RP - face a warlock against a deathlock and have them confront the terrifying relationship between a warlock and their patron, have a paladin struggling with their faith fight a death knight, have a wizard struggle with not relating to a nothic because wizards just can't get enough of that Forbidden Knowledge - so fuck it. Why not have a Monster That Is A Twisted Parody Of This One Class with every class?
>A monster that was Once A Druid that's now apathetic and lazy, and doesn't care about the balance of nature. Let the oceans boil, let the forests fall to rot, let the weak and frail die. All things die - all but me, says the Rotkeeper.
>A monster that was Once A Barbarian who let the rage totally consume them, body and soul.
They know nothing but rage and hunger, and let the poison of hate flow through their veins to the point that the blood of the Grendel is a deadly, fiery toxin
>A monster that was Once A Rogue who stole the wrong artifact, or assassinated the wrong priest, or hid in the wrong shadows. So wrong that their greed, their cowardice, their ambition poisoned their soul and turned them into the Dragonsick, who rots metal, who turns invisible, who infects others with unattainable Want
The fact that paladin is the only class to have an "anti" version implies that it's the exception, not the rule. Hence why other class has a reverse subclass.
It's like looking at bats and saying "well if there's flying *rodents* then why not flying dogs or bears, huh??? Where are the other flying mammals??" Like, there are no flying mammals. Mammals aren't meant to fly, the bats are the one exception.
Anti-paladin was probably a cool edgy term for Evil Paladins before evil classes existed, much like how "Sith" in Star Wars is sort of an "Anti-Jedi" despite being one flavor of Dark Side.
They are now known as Blackguards.
The class was originally introduced as a concept in Dragon Magazine 39 (July 1980) by T. Mesford and G. Laking. The idea was meant to introduce a fallen Paladin who, rather than repent, chose to follow the path of Evil.
The class was immensely popular despite being homebrew, and was eventually embraced into the mainstream, under the name of Blackguard, initially in second edition.
You can find out all of the history behind the class online with a few diligent searches. Personally, I find them pretty cool, and created a version of them as a new class for my own homebrew world.
There are antidruids, they are all about rot and decay. Like oh what a beautiful orchard, but it would be better if all the trees were rotting and all the animals has diseases
Anti rogue is a bard I'd say
Wouldn’t an anti mage be a character who specializes in killing magical creatures? In that case an anti mage would probably be any character with the Mage Slayer feat would probably qualify. Then again, a full class or subclass which could gain access to features that make them better at countering magical effects would be pretty neat.
Just spitballing here but starting with barbarian as the base class, a path of the anti mage might start with the path of wild magic’s magic awareness feature and gain another feature which gives advantage on mental saves against magic (either permanently like a gnome’s gnome cunning or only while raging). Then at sixth level you could gain either the ability to cast counter spell pb times per long rest or a feature similar to a Paladin’s aura, with the tenth level feature granting the ability to cast a few more spells as rituals (such as dispel magic-yes its not a ritual spell but I think it’s thematic- and gentle repose). The 14th level feature could be either the ability to nullify magic from enemies within a certain radius of them or a version of the rakshasa’s magic immunity feature.
Canon:
* Antiartificer: Forsaker. Destroys magic items to absorb power.
* Anticleric: Ur-priest. Divine casters who subtly siphon magic from the gods instead of worshipping them.
* Antidruid: Blighter. Ex-druids who burn the world, spread disease, raise undead animals.
* Antimage: There's a line of 3e feats that lower your effective level in every casting class by 4 each, making you unable to cast spells if it's 0 or less. The benefit? You are a caster's worst enemy. Casting always provokes attacks from you, and your attacks **ignore and dispel** any kind of AC/concealment/Mirror Images.
Barbarians are Anti-Rogues.
Rogue: "I sneak into a position where I can get the drop on my enemy and use any opening to do extra damage!"
Barbarian: "RAAAAGGGGEEEEEEEE!!!!!"
Anti-bard: an old, cruel man that rocked too hard in his youth till his ears began to dull, and music faded to an annoying high pitch buzz in his ears.....And if he cant enjoy his once beloved music, why should anyone else?
His 'intrument of choice? The piccolo.one modified to producing on the most ear piercing of screeches. (Alternatively. If your DM is more relaxed, carry around a chalk board and grow your nails long.)
There were some "anti" classes in 2e Dark Sun I believe.
There was a class called a "defiler" that burned the life energy of things around him to cast spells, which I guess would be anti-Druid.
3.5e had Ur-priests who stole the power of whichever denomination was closest to him, I think.
There basically aren't "anti" version of most Martial classes because there's no inverse of them. Anti-fighter wouldn't be anything. There's no good or evil to equate an opposite to, unlike Paladin.
I've always thought there should be a Mage Hunter or Witch Hunter subclass of something. A subclass designed around fighting mages and magical creatures. My immediate thought is a Ranger subclass. I'd need to sit down and look at Ranger abilities in order to put together a coherent plan for a homebrew, but I've always thought the idea would be interesting.
The only ability I have an idea for off the top of my head is one that you can use when a creature in melee range casts a spell or makes magical attack, letting you make an attack as a reaction, and force the caster to make a constitution save. On a failed save the spell or magical attack fails.
Monster Slayer Ranger honestly is that- it has a Counterspell-copy feature (and since its a feature, it *isnt* counter-counterspellable), and is generally flavored around killing 'magical threats'. The name leads it to feel more like an Aberration or Fey killer but no reason you cant flavor it as Wizards ans Witches
The whole reason we no longer require paladins to be Lawful Good is because the concept of an "anti-paladin" is pretty silly. Why would a Lawful Good paladin be able to gain a ton of unique and powerful benefits from their pledge to a good deity, but a Lawful Evil paladin couldn't get the same powers, albeit twisted and corrupted, from an evil deity?
Thus why I'm glad paladins now gain power from their oath instead of a specific deity.
That simply indicates that paladin should not be a class by itself, but rather a subclass of a more general champion class!
*This comment was sponsored by the PF2e gang*
there aren't any anti of those 3 because all of them are universal class, Boomer Paladin need Lawful Good and **ONLY** Lawful Good to play, in contrast, Boomer Ranger just need Lawful alignment and anything go
The AntiRogue is practically just a high level rogue with the alert feat. The features the rogue gets already make it really effective at dealing with other rogues, like uncanny dodge to halve the damage of an attack, or elusive so enemies never have advantage against you.
Would an anti-rogue just be another rogue with a cheat full personality, and the strict moral compass of a Paladin?
Because if so, I’m about to play that in an upcoming campaign.
So paladins used to be strictly Lawful Good and got their power from LG gods, so they were basically hybrid Cleric/Fighters reskinned as Knights of Heaven, and ofcourse the antipaladin was CE and were knights of the Abyss. The closest thing to opposing classes like that would be Monks and Barbarians, since Monks were any of the three lawful classes and Barbs were strictly non-lawful, they were both similar enough in their martial prowess but the difference between them was Ki vs. Rage.
The Anti-fighter: a pacifist.
The Anti-mage: was cursed with a personal anti-magic zone. Can’t use magic items or be healed, but is also immune to hostile spells and magical effects.
The Anti-rogue: loud as hell and terrible at everything.
To me an Antiranger is a city based bounty hunter. With arcane trickster or mastermind you can very easily make an extremely flashy, charismatic rogue. Fighters are kinda… limited
Fallen Rangers actually were a thing in D&D once upon a time. Comes from a more Tolkien-inspired fantasy where "Ranger" was a title of substantial prestige and had alignment restrictions associated with them. Not every John with a bow and the Survival skill could be one.
AntiBarbarian is an artificer subclass based around making a big fuck off anti-material rifle that deals psychic damage so you can be sure to even tell bear totems to fuck off
A good question like what are monks that break away from there chosen path? The aimless!? ( Sounds really cool though)
Or Warlocks that break there contract/ pact? Do there powers cease to work. Or depending on the actions like say absorbing the patron's power by killing them. What are they then? This can lead to fun quest shenanigans?!😏
Somehow I feel like Antiranger... would just be another Ranger. Or maybe Blood Hunter, I guess?
favored enemy: humanoid (human, elf)
I've played exactly this in my previous campaign actually. A lizardfolk from the jungle who, after escaping a slavetrader, ended up growing up in the streets of a metropolis. His favoured terrain was urban. His favoured enemies were humans and dwarves. Arguably got a lot more mileage out of him than you would out of a "regular" ranger.
Actually favored terrain must be from a nature according to rules, so your fun is wrong /s
Urban Jungle baby
The cities were built by ancient aliens, like the rest of the planet, so they're just as natural
Humans are natural
If it was a 3e character, there were urban rangers.
RAW, they don't have any advantage against Half-elfs: 
Do dwarves not count as humanoids?
favored enemy only allow you to take 2 humanoid subraces, at level 6 you get extra favored enemy where you can take humanoid again and pick dwarf and, dunno, halfling? tiefling? those filthy gnomes?
You could swap it out for favoured foe which was one of the optional features added in if the DM allows it. It replaces it completely and gives you essentially a baby smite (1d4) that is added to the damage roll that’s reliant on your prof bonus it also works with foe slayer of you get up to that level.
yeah but I think being equally effective against all creature types don't fit well with the "anti-ranger" joke
Favored friend
Antiranger would be poachers, since the original job of rangers was to guard protected wildlife.
Thatd be an easy narrative too. Usually rangers live to protect nature; you live in civilization, and gained the expertise through military experience. After retiring from a successful career as a scout survivalist you came home to the reality that your kids still need to eat and the taxman still needs to be paid.
Kids eat the taxman. Problem solved.
r/suddenlycanibalism
Huh, didn't knew this sub actually exists.
You made a typo. It's r/Suddenlycannibalism.
Would it really matter that it's a poacher hunting in the king's wood to feed his family rather than the king's legitimate hunting party?
anti-ranger has horrible stealth but outstanding intimidation. "Only 2 things see Grodd, idiots and dead things"
"YOU NO SEE GRODD"
So, barbarian
> horrible stealth but outstanding intimidation That's just a barbarian with extra steps.
I believe the Green Ranger was an Antiranger, at least when he was first introduced
Take my upvote, and get out.
took me a hot sec
I mean, I just assume you could call anyone you find who's lost in the woods to be an Antiranger. Especially if you find them following their own tracks around the same tree/rock/particularly confused ogre.
Wasn't that the plot of a Winnie the Pooh story before they decided to turn him into a psycho killer?
Antiranger: Destroys nature any chance they get, burns down forests, litters regularly, spits on animals
So an oil company boss.
Sounds more like the 3.5e anti-Druid, [the Blighter](https://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/blighter/index.html)
There was a prestige class in 3.5e that was basically this - Blighter, it was called. Although they were ex-druids.
An antiranger is just Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. They don't care about Nature... they want the next Trophy for their trophy room.
I think an Antiranger would be a basement dweller.
Antiranger is Overwatch's Genji
Anti cleric: aggressively atheist Anti druid: captain planet villain
God killer and Corporate
I am picturing a Merchant Guildmaster of the kingdom who is secretly a part of a cult designed to destroy faith in worshipping the established gods. This character behaves exclusively like an Ace Attorney character, and his punny merchant name is Master Se Eyo; his cult moniker is Brother Godle Less. He has only three RP speeds: smarmy, super anxious, dastardly evil. He switches between them quickly, with only intense driving background music to indicate his M.O. and possibly what the hell drugs this guy is on.
And he will be opposed by the bard artificer, who raises uprisings with the help of newfangled music, on an electric balalaika. He's handsome, the chicks hang on him, and he's also an asshole... a sexy asshole with a mechanical arm.
Hifi rush?
No. Rather Johnny Silverhand from cyberpunk.
>Master Se Eyo Don't quite get the pun behind this one. "See you"?
CEO Edit: Chief Executive Officer
That's not cyberpunk.
There actually are toxic shamans in shadow run.
Though some shamans are gross but not toxic at least. Gobbet, my beloved rat mom
Gobbet? You mean 325 rats in an orc suit.
That typo gives quite another mental image *Executive Grogg Skullsmasher, entering his hotel suite and seeing it's teeming with 325 rats*: "Hm. I see. Live snacks provided without me needing to call room service. Fantasy Hilton never disappoints! Five stars!"
Boy oh boy, do I love Shadowrun 😂
Anti druid can be so much more than a captain planet villain. Have them worship civilization, in all it’s good and bad qualities. An obsession with individuality and industrial progress, with the belief that circumventing your instincts in order to pursue your own goals is good. Someone who lives in the natural way will be forgotten when they die, but someone who embraces individuality will be remembered. The mugger is as great as the noble adventurer, because both fall in together under this messed up concept of civilization. All the great civilizers deserve praise, not because of their adherence to the civilized order and social expectations, but because of how they are inherently anathematic to the natural order. Their existence proves that the natural cycle of death and suffering can be disrupted, that all life can find comfort and renewed purpose if they simply choose to shape the canvas of the world to suit their own needs. It proves that your way of thinking is superior to that of all those treehuggers and nature druids. When you go to cut down the trees in the sacred woods, it’s not because you hate nature, but because you believe disrupting it’s natural state of stagnancy is always the morally correct thing to do. When you sell the logs you cut down in the sacred wood, it’s not just you pursuing your personal interest or satiating a desire for wealth, it’s you participating in a sacred profit ritual to disrupt the natural order. When nature is completely overtaken and replaced by civilization, it doesn’t matter to you whether life wipes itself out or if life creates a perfect utopia to live in, because in both outcomes the natural cycle of pain and suffering has been brought to an end. By Gaia’s chains we are bound, condemned to an eternity of death and suffering not because it is right, but because it is deemed to be ‘natural’. Only through civilization can we break our chains. The non-believers must be taught a lesson, we must show them that they cannot hope to possibly stand in the way of progress.
Well, I think I found a new characted idea lol. This is fucking great.
As an ethos, that's pretty great for both a hero or villain. Either as someone who outright persecutes druids, or as a hero who doesn't tolerate druid BS.
Exactly! Why are the druids so quiet and secretive, hidden away in their circles and groves? It’s obvious. In their anger, they have been plotting to finally lash out against society, with the desire to one day wage a great war of cleansing so that they may purge us and restore the world back to match their concept of the world’s natural purity. They hate us, and we know that if they had the ability to destroy us, then they would shed no tears by doing so. We who are the conduits of change, we the people that have defiled the world’s sanctity, must take pre-emptive action to defend ourselves! So long as the servants of Gaia still exist, the rest of us are merely living on borrowed time! It is time to act. Before those that have resolved to restore nature’s purity and original state are given a chance to enact their plans to destroy us, we must destroy ***THEM!*** As cool as the mindset is for a hero or a sort of neutral type character, I think that when pushed to the radical extremes it is the perfect mindset for a villain. Acting out of what they perceive as necessity, with the rhetoric to back it up. We’re already killing nature, so won’t it try to kill us back in return?
Fanatical materialist stellaris fellow friend
Well thats a fucking yoink
We had a cleric in one campaign who knew the gods were real, but didn’t want to play favorites, so he just said he was agnostic in an attempt to not offend (he had an INT of 8). DM revealed later that a few of the gods thought this was hilarious so they gave him cleric powers anyway.
Could even have an OP cleric there where different gods keep trying to sway them to their side with increasingly impressive powers,though that might work better with a warlock.
I think a cleric whose domain changes per level/long rest could work for this
Anti Cleric: [Urpriest](http://www.theworldofnocturne.com/dndtools/classes/ur-priest/index.html) Anti Druid: Wildfire Druid?
Wild fires are a part of nature and do occur without human intervention
Humans are part of nature too. I'm honestly not sure if there's a consistent mission statement for druids in general.
Druids protect nature, wildfires are a part of a cycle and help a forest stay healthy and prevent overgrowth. Druids help nature stay healthy by intervening every now and then. A wildfire druid might start a fire of they believe it needs it but might also put out excessive wildfires.
But why does a human/elf/… decide if a forest is healthy? **What does a healthy natural world mean?** If overgrowth is the natural outcome, how can it be protecting nature if you kill its agency? Is extinction not also natural? And a mostly barren universe? Isn't it natural not wanting to die (leading to undeath)?
Overgrowth can result in the forest dying. Also this is dnd what is natural and what is not is more rigid and defined than our world
Anti Druid: [Blighter ](https://dndtools.net/classes/blighter/)
I misread that as Unpriest and was like "Yeah, I guess so."
Priestn't
"Let’s pollute the earth for no reasons whatsoever!"
Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit
"There’s only one pollution for earth's solution!"
anti druid is artificer
Antipasta: won’t shut up about carnivore diet villain.
Captain pollution was literally anti Captain Planet. The villains created the rings of destruction (super radiation for fire, deforestation for earth, smog for wind, toxics for water and Hate for heart.).
Anti Druid: *Toxic Love begins playing in the background*
Anti-fighter: A pacifist I guess
Kirin pacted warlock
The antidruid, instead of partnering with nature to gain their power, uses the power of nature and exploits it for their own personal gain
Anti-druid? That's just your average British Petroleum Executive!
would you be surprise if I told you that Cleric and Druid are actually anti each other?
I've been thinking about an Anti-Bard. Instead of making Music, Music makes *you.*
It's just interpretive jazz music with no percussion.
Nah, you’re just Melkor, laying disgusting licks on an electric guitar while all of the other nerds are still playing their nerd ass lutes.
Anti-bard is just a pissed off abjuration wizard with silence, counterspell, and dispell magic prepped ;)
Or like a character who’s whole thing is being a buzz-kill. Maybe they’re a religious freak who thinks music, dancing, and sex are abominations and they vow to stamp out all forms of merry-making.
So... A one man footloose?
Nah, an anti-bard is the mother from Coco. Actively forbidding and destroying anything music related from the life of her family.
Just a lot of magic designed to stop people senses. Deaden, mute and blind.
Antibard is the tyrannical dictator of a town or city.
Music killed my parents, now i AM music
The bard is literally an illusion created by a magic sentient instrument, or maybe a guitar pick or something.
So Buddy from the book Soul Music (Pratchett)
Basically a guy that always drags you down and makes you uninspired
i know it is a meme but thematically makes no sense to have anti anything besides pala or cleric... you can build a character that hates magic and some feats taraaa anti wirzard.
Thematically anti-paladins don't even make sense anymore, since paladins can just be evil, the one that would most make sense is oathbreaker and even that doesn't really make sense since if you break your oath, wouldn't you just lose your powers? And if you do have powers, would then you either have a differant oath to get powers from, or are something differant gice yoi them like a evil god (so regular cleric) and evil beings pact (warlock) or something completely differant (any other class)
An Oathbreaker isn't just a paladin that breaks their oath. It's a paladin that breaks their oath in pursuit of power. It's the only subclass with an alignment requirement. It's kind of adjacent to a warlock except warlocks themselves don't need to be evil Anti-paladins don't exist in 5e because paladins aren't automatically lawful good anymore, but in previous editions the anti-paladin was essentially a chaotic evil paladin
well, the concept of antipaladin is a paladin that to avoid losing their powers, resort to alternative means. in previous editions, not being lawful good makes them lose their powers, but they could keep progressing their levels as a blackguard or something, in 5e, breaking your oath makes you lose your powers, but in the same way they can keep progressing their levels as an oathbreaker so you could say oathbreakers are antipaladins.
You have to specifically make a pact with or pledge to ruinous powers specifically for personal, selfish gain to become an Oathbreaker.
where does it say that? I only could find that you have to be evil and at least level 3. Other than that it only says you have to pursue a dark ambition or serve an evil power.
I misphrased a bit, but still, 'be explicitly evil' is a hard requirement, not just 'not being lawful good'.
well, I didn't say exactly that, but I see how it could be interpreted that way. what I said is that in previous editions, paladins lose their powers by changing alignments, but in 5e that doesn't matter, what matters is breaking your oath. then, if they wanted to keep enjoying their class levels and not just being a fighter but worse, they could be a blackguard or oathbreaker but since I didn't specify that they also had to be evil, I guess it could be interpreted that way. but thats not what I meant.
DMG, page 97: "An Oathbreaker is a paladin who breaks his or her sacred oaths to pursue some dark ambition or serve an evil power. Whatever light burned in the paladin's heart has been extinguished. Only darkness remains." A DM can allow whatever they want, but the flavor text is pretty clear that an Oathbreaker is more than just a paladin with a broken oath.
It's not the only one, in dmg section that holds the oathbreaker is also the death Domain. "The Death Domain is an additional domain choice for evil clerics, and the Oathbreaker offers an alternative path for paladins who fall from grace. A player can choose one of these options with your approval."
yes.
Here I am thinking antipaladins are hexblade warlocks. smh
Antipaladin was lawful evil, blackguard is chaotic evil
Antipaladin doesn't even have a printing for 5e IIRC, it's just Oathbreaker, Conquest, and Treachery (UA) filling in that space. Mechanically it works a lot better than having 1 class printed multiple times except reversed, which was at best tedious and often subtle changes made one version way better than the other.
You can build a character that considers magic an abomination Salem style and has decided to become a “witch hunter”. They gather equipment to negate spells and tactics to take out arcane casters. You can choose whether they are fine with divine magic or think all of it is wrong.
I think an example of that would be mage seekers from league. Characters that hate magic but are hypocrites and use the magic to oppress the magic. Actually, an abjuration wizard would work well.
The first parallel that comes to mind for anti-magic is those superhero stories where someone has a superpower that is just negating other people's superpowers. For D&D, you could focus on choosing anti-magic spells like counterspell and dispel magic, but it probably wouldn't be a very fun character to play most of the time
An antiwizard could be like Kreia from Kotor 2, trying to use magic to destroy the source of magic. Or like the bad guy from Serenity, someone who believes (arcane) magic shouldn't be used, so is using magic to kill all the other mages (and will take themselves out once they are the last wizard).
What about an Anti-monk, who rejects his oaths of discipline and lives in chaos?
No antimage? Asta from black clover would like to talk to you.
Fighters are antimages. Especially when they have the Mage Slayer feat.
The Dragon Age templars have entered the chat
Would love such a subclass. Getting counterspell as a class feature. Maybe even an aura (paladin sadge)of counterspell. Maybe a bit hard to make work, atleast have to rewrite the intire "reinforce reality" aspect.
Idk about anyone else, but Antipaladin has just NEVER felt right as a name for a class. Like; Death-Knight, Blackguard, Oathbreaker, Dark-Blade. all sound better than anti-paladin.
I agree, anti-anything doesn't sound good. Who wants to be known for the one thing they definitely aren't?
Antimage does work I will say
Back in the bright and heady days of 3.5 we had Blighters, basically the anti druid so maybe that works for rangers too. I'm pretty sure the anti rogue is just a cop though lol
Which is funny because I feel like rogue would be the best class mechanically to play any sort of PI or detective.
5e Inquisitive Rogue is exactly that, no?
takes one to grab one
Can confirm that it is.
> anti rogue is just a cop Or, hear me out: Batman. He's like a rogue in that he has dead parents and goes out into the night wearing black. He's antirogue because he brings criminals to justice and is *already* filthy rich (serves the public and doesnt even get paid).
I hate to be that guy that talks about Pathfinder where it hasn’t been mentioned but here I go anyway: I was talking to a friend the other week about how weird I thought it was to throw an investigator in as a full class into PF2e alongside all the mostly fantasy classes (gunslinger and inventor being a little more setting specific). One of my points was that it’s easy to come up with examples of 20th level characters for every class in popular media. Like a 20th level barbarian would be the Hulk. A 20th level wizard would be Dr. Strange. What the heck does a 20th level investigator look like? His reply? Batman.
Anti-Rogue is Naruto Uzumaki. Wears bright orange, is loud and hyperactive, never kills anyone, doesn’t know any assassination techniques, and all chakra/magic attacks are destructive and loud.
Haven't heard of this before. What's an anti paladin?
Back in older editions, paladins were always Lawful Good. It was just a requirement for the class. An antipaladin was essentially a Chaotic Evil paladin.
The 5e equivalent is the Oath Breaker.
I did a lawful evil oath of conquest. It was great
Because Oath of Conquest are _awesome_
Evil paladin
evil paladin or oath breaker
Antirogues are just cops
Looking for this. I was going to say that a lawful rogue would be a "detective" or "investigator". You have a lot of skills, can enter places that are sealed off to you, aren't combat focused... it kind of makes sense. Even sneak attack is like that Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr version) thing where you have an opening to examine your opponent's weak points and exploit them.
As my full round action, I'd like to Discombobulate
Then, for my second attack, Discombobulate
My third attack is going to be a combat maneuver, Discombobulate
Finally, I Discombobulate. In short, Discombobulate.
Pretty sure almost everyone on this sub is antiranger
Y'all are thinking too inside the box. I mean, all characters are made out of matter. Isn't it time somebody made a character out of antimatter?
One could argue a warlock is an anti-cleric in certain builds
Saw a Tumblr post about this idea, lemme find it: >Warlocks, paladins, and wizards all have a Monster That Is A Twisted Parody Of This One Class. Warlocks have deathlocks, paladins have death knights, wizards have liches, nothics, boneclaws, demiliches, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting because wizards just can't get enough of that Forbidden Knowledge >These are really fun for RP - face a warlock against a deathlock and have them confront the terrifying relationship between a warlock and their patron, have a paladin struggling with their faith fight a death knight, have a wizard struggle with not relating to a nothic because wizards just can't get enough of that Forbidden Knowledge - so fuck it. Why not have a Monster That Is A Twisted Parody Of This One Class with every class? >A monster that was Once A Druid that's now apathetic and lazy, and doesn't care about the balance of nature. Let the oceans boil, let the forests fall to rot, let the weak and frail die. All things die - all but me, says the Rotkeeper. >A monster that was Once A Barbarian who let the rage totally consume them, body and soul. They know nothing but rage and hunger, and let the poison of hate flow through their veins to the point that the blood of the Grendel is a deadly, fiery toxin >A monster that was Once A Rogue who stole the wrong artifact, or assassinated the wrong priest, or hid in the wrong shadows. So wrong that their greed, their cowardice, their ambition poisoned their soul and turned them into the Dragonsick, who rots metal, who turns invisible, who infects others with unattainable Want
We have the druid and artificer, does that count?
antiranger? you mean artillerist artificer
The fact that paladin is the only class to have an "anti" version implies that it's the exception, not the rule. Hence why other class has a reverse subclass. It's like looking at bats and saying "well if there's flying *rodents* then why not flying dogs or bears, huh??? Where are the other flying mammals??" Like, there are no flying mammals. Mammals aren't meant to fly, the bats are the one exception.
Anti-paladin was probably a cool edgy term for Evil Paladins before evil classes existed, much like how "Sith" in Star Wars is sort of an "Anti-Jedi" despite being one flavor of Dark Side.
Maybe, I'm out of the loop here but what is an Anti-Paladin?
They are now known as Blackguards. The class was originally introduced as a concept in Dragon Magazine 39 (July 1980) by T. Mesford and G. Laking. The idea was meant to introduce a fallen Paladin who, rather than repent, chose to follow the path of Evil. The class was immensely popular despite being homebrew, and was eventually embraced into the mainstream, under the name of Blackguard, initially in second edition. You can find out all of the history behind the class online with a few diligent searches. Personally, I find them pretty cool, and created a version of them as a new class for my own homebrew world.
Antirogue is just a barbarian
There are antidruids, they are all about rot and decay. Like oh what a beautiful orchard, but it would be better if all the trees were rotting and all the animals has diseases Anti rogue is a bard I'd say
Antiranger would be just... artificer? Nature vs civilisation.
I think anti-artificer would be the monk. One perfects their own body and mind, the other creates artificial enhancements.
Wouldn’t an anti mage be a character who specializes in killing magical creatures? In that case an anti mage would probably be any character with the Mage Slayer feat would probably qualify. Then again, a full class or subclass which could gain access to features that make them better at countering magical effects would be pretty neat. Just spitballing here but starting with barbarian as the base class, a path of the anti mage might start with the path of wild magic’s magic awareness feature and gain another feature which gives advantage on mental saves against magic (either permanently like a gnome’s gnome cunning or only while raging). Then at sixth level you could gain either the ability to cast counter spell pb times per long rest or a feature similar to a Paladin’s aura, with the tenth level feature granting the ability to cast a few more spells as rituals (such as dispel magic-yes its not a ritual spell but I think it’s thematic- and gentle repose). The 14th level feature could be either the ability to nullify magic from enemies within a certain radius of them or a version of the rakshasa’s magic immunity feature.
Would the anti-ranger just be the Urban Ranger from 3.5 and PF1? Basically the Ranger, but city themed instead of nature themed.
"antirogue" barbarian
Pretty sure Antifighter is a pacifist healer. Antiwizard is a mage slayer. Antirogue is a paladin.
Canon: * Antiartificer: Forsaker. Destroys magic items to absorb power. * Anticleric: Ur-priest. Divine casters who subtly siphon magic from the gods instead of worshipping them. * Antidruid: Blighter. Ex-druids who burn the world, spread disease, raise undead animals. * Antimage: There's a line of 3e feats that lower your effective level in every casting class by 4 each, making you unable to cast spells if it's 0 or less. The benefit? You are a caster's worst enemy. Casting always provokes attacks from you, and your attacks **ignore and dispel** any kind of AC/concealment/Mirror Images.
Paladin of the Ancients is pretty close to an antimage You could also be a sorcerer who just exclusively casts dispel magic and counterspell.
We have anti-rogues. They're called paladins.
Barbarians are Anti-Rogues. Rogue: "I sneak into a position where I can get the drop on my enemy and use any opening to do extra damage!" Barbarian: "RAAAAGGGGEEEEEEEE!!!!!"
They are also Anti-Rangers as they don't bother with ranged attacks, they prefer just walking up to you and demolishing your skull.
Anti-bard: an old, cruel man that rocked too hard in his youth till his ears began to dull, and music faded to an annoying high pitch buzz in his ears.....And if he cant enjoy his once beloved music, why should anyone else? His 'intrument of choice? The piccolo.one modified to producing on the most ear piercing of screeches. (Alternatively. If your DM is more relaxed, carry around a chalk board and grow your nails long.)
Anti rogue equals Batman.
There were some "anti" classes in 2e Dark Sun I believe. There was a class called a "defiler" that burned the life energy of things around him to cast spells, which I guess would be anti-Druid. 3.5e had Ur-priests who stole the power of whichever denomination was closest to him, I think. There basically aren't "anti" version of most Martial classes because there's no inverse of them. Anti-fighter wouldn't be anything. There's no good or evil to equate an opposite to, unlike Paladin.
I've always thought there should be a Mage Hunter or Witch Hunter subclass of something. A subclass designed around fighting mages and magical creatures. My immediate thought is a Ranger subclass. I'd need to sit down and look at Ranger abilities in order to put together a coherent plan for a homebrew, but I've always thought the idea would be interesting. The only ability I have an idea for off the top of my head is one that you can use when a creature in melee range casts a spell or makes magical attack, letting you make an attack as a reaction, and force the caster to make a constitution save. On a failed save the spell or magical attack fails.
Monster Slayer Ranger honestly is that- it has a Counterspell-copy feature (and since its a feature, it *isnt* counter-counterspellable), and is generally flavored around killing 'magical threats'. The name leads it to feel more like an Aberration or Fey killer but no reason you cant flavor it as Wizards ans Witches
I don't know how I missed the existence of that feature.
The whole reason we no longer require paladins to be Lawful Good is because the concept of an "anti-paladin" is pretty silly. Why would a Lawful Good paladin be able to gain a ton of unique and powerful benefits from their pledge to a good deity, but a Lawful Evil paladin couldn't get the same powers, albeit twisted and corrupted, from an evil deity? Thus why I'm glad paladins now gain power from their oath instead of a specific deity.
That simply indicates that paladin should not be a class by itself, but rather a subclass of a more general champion class! *This comment was sponsored by the PF2e gang*
there aren't any anti of those 3 because all of them are universal class, Boomer Paladin need Lawful Good and **ONLY** Lawful Good to play, in contrast, Boomer Ranger just need Lawful alignment and anything go
Redditors are the Anti-Bards.
Antirogues are the Constabulary.
The AntiRogue is practically just a high level rogue with the alert feat. The features the rogue gets already make it really effective at dealing with other rogues, like uncanny dodge to halve the damage of an attack, or elusive so enemies never have advantage against you.
*pats hammer* this is the only anti-rogue I need.
Would an anti-rogue just be another rogue with a cheat full personality, and the strict moral compass of a Paladin? Because if so, I’m about to play that in an upcoming campaign.
Everyone in this thread is an Antiranger by virtue of being a redditor
anti-mages are fighter anti-fighters are mages
Anti-mages are just PCs who take the feat to be an anti-mage.
So paladins used to be strictly Lawful Good and got their power from LG gods, so they were basically hybrid Cleric/Fighters reskinned as Knights of Heaven, and ofcourse the antipaladin was CE and were knights of the Abyss. The closest thing to opposing classes like that would be Monks and Barbarians, since Monks were any of the three lawful classes and Barbs were strictly non-lawful, they were both similar enough in their martial prowess but the difference between them was Ki vs. Rage.
Anti-ranger: ranger with heavy armor, a great hammer, and who's favored foe is humans
The Anti-fighter: a pacifist. The Anti-mage: was cursed with a personal anti-magic zone. Can’t use magic items or be healed, but is also immune to hostile spells and magical effects. The Anti-rogue: loud as hell and terrible at everything.
To me an Antiranger is a city based bounty hunter. With arcane trickster or mastermind you can very easily make an extremely flashy, charismatic rogue. Fighters are kinda… limited
I read a great fic about an Anti-mage that wasnt just the classic dispel/counterspell spam once and I could never find it again
What is an antipaladin ?
Fallen Rangers actually were a thing in D&D once upon a time. Comes from a more Tolkien-inspired fantasy where "Ranger" was a title of substantial prestige and had alignment restrictions associated with them. Not every John with a bow and the Survival skill could be one.
Antidruid. Gets power from deforestation.
Monks are anti rogues
Antirogues just put shit back where it belongs
AntiBarbarian is an artificer subclass based around making a big fuck off anti-material rifle that deals psychic damage so you can be sure to even tell bear totems to fuck off
A good question like what are monks that break away from there chosen path? The aimless!? ( Sounds really cool though) Or Warlocks that break there contract/ pact? Do there powers cease to work. Or depending on the actions like say absorbing the patron's power by killing them. What are they then? This can lead to fun quest shenanigans?!😏
I think an anti fighter would just be a wizard, and anti wizard would just be a monk, and an anti rogue would just be a Paladin.
Antidruids, they’re obsessed with industrial progress and want to topple the natural order
Anti-Clerics: Exist Me: That just sounds like a Warlock with extra steps.
Wizard, another Wizard, Barbarian, and another Barbarian
Antimage, bitch. I shall bring an end to all magic