Archetypes and Multi-classing

[MerricB]

There is a theory, espoused by some I have corresponded with, that 3E and 3.5E have destroyed the archetypes in D&D.

The roles of classes have become blurred, they state. There's nothing stopping a character from gaining the abilities of a Cleric, Wizard, Fighter and Rogue, and being a one-man powerhouse, not dependent upon other players at all.

Rubbish! I say.

AD&D promoted the idea of Strict Archetypes to a large extent - once you chose your class you were stuck in a particular progression and development of abilities. There are advantages there for a DM in judging your personal power, and in being an easy way of a new player from catching on to the role they have in the game.

D&D 3E frees up this interpretation, but it does not eliminate it. Archetypal play is alive and well (although sometimes it is exhibited more through Prestige Classes than by staying in a single class for many levels). A beginning player can easily say "I am a Fighter" or "I am a Rogue" and stay in that role. However, the experienced player can break free of the "I am Conan" role to make a more individual interpretation of his role.

Furthermore, the idea of the multi-class superman is a complete fallacy. Anyone who has played D&D 3E realises the huge flaws in multi-class spellcasters, which even the use of prestige classes like Mystic Theurge and the Eldritch Knight do not allow the C/F/W/R combination to be effective.

I mentioned before that archetypes are being created through the use of Prestige Classes. This is a very interesting development - they are not the old style of rigid paths that are chosen for you, but come from a desire to see the game from as many viewpoints as is possible or desirable for the individual player or group.

However, those are merely my views on the subject. How do they accord with your ideas of how important archetypal roles are for the game and the role of multi-classing in all of this?

Cheers!

 

[Mercule]

I can't disagree with anything said. In fact, I'd agree with the vast majority.

Not sure what you're looking for, though.

 

[MerricB]

I can't disagree with anything said. In fact, I'd agree with the vast majority.

Not sure what you're looking for, though.

A better understanding of RPGs and 3E in particular.

I have various theories about the theory and practice of role-playing games, and every so often I like getting feedback as to whether they're shared by people, or if I've gone into a fantasy universe of my own.

e.g. The number of people who use a battlegrid regardless of which D&D edition they use staggers me - my own experiences have primarily been without such devices, so any claims I might have made based on my own anecdotal evidence would be falsely based!

The use of Archetypes in role-playing is one of those key design areas that distinguishes D&D from other fantasy RPGs; I just wonder how others feel about the issue.

Cheers!

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

A better understanding of RPGs and 3E in particular.

I have various theories about the theory and practice of role-playing games, and every so often I like getting feedback as to whether they're shared by people, or if I've gone into a fantasy universe of my own.

e.g. The number of people who use a battlegrid regardless of which D&D edition they use staggers me - my own experiences have primarily been without such devices, so any claims I might have made based on my own anecdotal evidence would be falsely based!

The use of Archetypes in role-playing is one of those key design areas that distinguishes D&D from other fantasy RPGs; I just wonder how others feel about the issue.

Cheers!

I definitely agree with the things you've said. I think multiclassing too much can really hurt a player. One of the reasons I enjoy DnD is because of its archetypal style of play.

I've also seen that multiclassing can really hurt a player. In one of our games, a friend of mine is a Cleric 10/Hunter of the Dead 1. The DM is allowing those caster levels to stack, but the player gains no new cleric spells per day, only effective caster level 11. He took this class for flavor reasons, and good ones at that, but obviously this was not an optimal choice, and would've hurt him even more if we'd had a stricter DM. I personally don't find Fighter1/Rogue2/Wizard1/Sorcerer1/Cleric1 to be a very optimal build, and my inner min/maxer is writhing in anguish at such a sight. My creative side is asking a ton of questions, and in the end I'd probably find a way to make this character lots of fun.

Don't know if that's what you're looking for, but yeah

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The question is, "which archtypes?"

The earlier editions heavily stressed archtypes that were, at the time, common in the popular fiction (LotR, Elric, Conan, Thieves' World, etc.). Oriental Adventures was the first look at different archtypes in D&D, although it leaned towards archtypes typically seen in many 70's kung-fu films. Later, Kits in 2E were introduced to encourage defining archtypes specific to the campaign, whether those archtypes were revamped (from literature, movies and myth) or entirely new creations defining an atypical setting.

Now, comes the modern model. The no-barriers approach to 3E's mechanical design does three things: Presents the classic archtypes with the Base Classes, permits individualized concepts to be pursued in multiclassing, and allows more campaign-specific roles to be provided via Prestige Classes. To go deeper into the subject, think of Base Classes as the "common" Archtypes; When traveling through Grayhawk, a random encounter with a 20th Level NPC should most likely be a 20th Level Fighter instead of F10/[Prestige Class]10. Why? Because Fighters are a common archtype in the default setting. Going further, we find Multiclassing to provide break-the-mold or man-for-all-seasons characters (both of which, if you think about it, are Archtypes of themselves). Prestige Classes follow up with specific roles, specialized skills, or unique flavor elements (and, ideally, the powers/abilities to fulfill their purpose).

Now, we look at Oriental Adventures (the newer one, not the 1E one). In it is explained which classes from the PH are normally found there and which ones are not, as well as provides a few new Base Classes. This short little section basically explains what the common Archtypes of an oriental campaign are (Paladins are not a common Archtype, while Samurai are). It even explains which Archtypes are proper for Rokugan and which are proper for a more "historic" orient (essentially a base guideline for altering the book from Rokugan to Kara-Tur). And we see the same thing in H:RoE (to a lesser extent) and Nyambe (to a major extent), with Base Classes setting the common Archtypes within the setting.

So, no, I don't think 3E's a game without Archtypes, but rather a game that doesn't push Archtypes while promoting them at most levels. Adhering to them or ignoring them becomes more of a group decision.

 

[maddman75]

I think that archetypes are alive and well in 3e. Sure, you can make a cleric/wizard/fighter/rogue, and completely suck at all of them. 3e will not protect you from making an inefficient character. If you want to play Bobo the brain-damaged half-orc paladin with a wis of 4 and a cha of 5, go for it. You'll be the crappiest paladin in history, but the system won't stop you. While a character may be a Fighter4/Rogue3/OOBI5, they'll still call themselves an "archer".

IME, this tendency extends into even classless systems. Most RPGs are meant for the PCs to act as a team, and everyone wants to be a useful part of the team. In addition there are generally several roles that need to be filled.

I played a lot of Merc and Twilight 2000, a skill based classless system. When we'd put our team together, one player would be the sniper, another would be the scout/spotter/forward observer. Another would be the heavy weapons guy. Another would be plain 'ol infantry. Another might be a pilot or expert driver (or commonly both). Which always made me wonder - why not put these archetypes into classes and save everyone some time at chargen?

3e gets you the best of both worlds. You get nearly all the flexibility of a classless system while still retaining archetypes and niche protection. This saves work - I've yet to meet a role playing game that didn't reward specialization over being a jack of all trades.

 

[johnsemlak]

I appreciate 3e's greater flexibility but I dislike how the multiclassing works. It's awkward, especially for spellcasters. And I think it does damage the role of archetypes.

In future editions I'd like to see multiclassing either done away with or more limited, and put a greater empahsis on prestige classes and/or alternate base classes. I'd also like to see prestige classes that virtually require multiclassing (a BIG reason players multiclass) eliminated. Perhaps make flexible requirements for a PrC?

 

[maddman75]

I would hate to see the limitations of AD&D return. It can stifle role-play. It isn't always about munchkinism. What about a character who has a religious conversion and decides to take levels of cleric? In game mind you, not planned from chargen. Or after spending time with the barbarians and becoming something of a hero to them taking levels in barbarian. Both of those happened in my last campaign.

 

[MerricB]

I appreciate 3e's greater flexibility but I dislike how the multiclassing works. It's awkward, especially for spellcasters.

It was worse during the 2E days. The 1E method only worked because characters retired at 9th-12th level. It doesn't extend past that at all.

In future editions I'd like to see multiclassing either done away with or more limited, and put a greater empahsis on prestige classes and/or alternate base classes. I'd also like to see prestige classes that virtually require multiclassing (a BIG reason players multiclass) eliminated. Perhaps make flexible requirements for a PrC?

Prestige Classes are multiclassing. Most of them reward suboptimal multi-class choices. I think you've a problem there.

Cheers!