Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[Rothe]

Raven: "Except they aren't."

Whatever dude. Just please don't cry.

So you just end it with the implied assertion that the reason Storm Raven isn't able to agree with you is that he is not listening, or at least not hard enough? Followed by a insinuation that his emotions have led him astray without dealing with the merits of the topic itself?

 

[Rothe]

...

Keep in mind, Tex--or however I should say your username--it's not like a good many of us are d20 heathens who are Johnny Come Lately's to the game who don't know anything about older editions. We started playing in the days of 1e and the RC--or before--and yet choose to play 3.5 today for a variety of reasons. I know enough that a "Whatever" response isn't good enough to convince me that your point suddenly has some validity.

QFT even though I don't play 3.x and really have no desire to.

 

[Hussar]

For some, very strange reason, TX is grafting on reasons for the existence of AD&D constructs that simply aren't true. The ONLY reason the four classes were chosen is because of the wargame roots of D&D. There's no great artistic reasoning behind any of this. Just plain nuts and bolts wargaming.

Good grief, the idea of gaming as story didn't see the light of day until YEARS after D&D was released.

I have a sneaking suspicion that TX has had very poor experiences with 3e and is trying very hard to vindicate them. The idea that you can create a single character that can "do it all" is silly. Ask any powergamer and he'll tell you that the way to building a powerhouse character is single class with maybe a prestige class. Fighter/Mage/Thief? Welcome to crapsville as your character is weaker than a one legged kobold.

The reasons for the limitations on classes had nothing to do with archetypes or setting and everything to do with each class not stepping on the other's toes. Mages don't wear armor because that's the fighter's schtick. Clerics use blunt weapons so they don't overshadow fighters. Thieves just got screwed every way from Sunday. But, the idea that these constructs were based in any sort of genre emulation is laughable.

 

[tx7321]

Q: " So you just end it with the implied assertion that the reason Storm Raven isn't able to agree with you is that he is not listening, or at least not hard enough? Followed by a insinuation that his emotions have led him astray without dealing with the merits of the topic itself? "


Look this is just my opinion guys. The comments I make aren't meant to be taken so seriously, nor are they nec. correct. Thats why I posed the question in the first place. Anyhow, this for some reason is getting a bit combative, so I'll just leave this thread while I'm behind. My sincere apologies for rubbing anyone the wrong way. Carry on troops.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

He asked for popular representations of wizards wearing armor prior to 1970. You cannot get much more popular than The Once and Future King.

Tolkein was a fair bit more popular iirc.

Don't get me wrong: I certainly accept that there were occasional representations of wizards wearing armour in fantasy literature. I think the point is that the stereotypical wizard didn't.

Most of them aren't out fighting in wars either. But, for example, the transplanted Khargad at Roke is shown wearing armor. The lord of the Isle of O is clearly a practitioner (although not a Roke-mage) and wears armor.

In fairness, this "at war" qualification is a complete red herring. The essence of the question is whether wizards were generally, or primarily, depicted as wearing armour. They weren't. Even Tx accepted that there might be exceptions.

For another reference: the wizards in the Melnibone books (including Elric, who is clearly a wizardly individual) wear armor, carry swords, and so on.

Yeah... Elric's a complex one.

I could make a reasonable case to say that Elric is, in 1e terms, a cleric. His powers derive from his relationship with Arioch or from ludicrously powerful magic items, and they relate primarily to the summoning and control of minions. If Elric wants to kill someone, he uses Stormbringer or some conjured thing, not a fireball.

But I won't try; he's clearly not the literary antecedent of any 1e class. Elric is a parody/negative image of Conan and his literary function was to mock a stereotype; then he got conflated with the Eternal Champion and his function shifted again, to a kind of universal protagonist. There aren't any real limits on Elric.

 

[Storm Raven]

Tolkein was a fair bit more popular iirc.

Don't get me wrong: I certainly accept that there were occasional representations of wizards wearing armour in fantasy literature. I think the point is that the stereotypical wizard didn't.

That's why I said you can't get much more popular, not any more popular. And I'd say it is arguable whether Once and Future King or Lord of the Rings was more popular. I would be unsurprised if T.H. White's book was more widely read at the time.

In fairness, this "at war" qualification is a complete red herring. The essence of the question is whether wizards were generally, or primarily, depicted as wearing armour. They weren't. Even Tx accepted that there might be exceptions.

I think that it is a critical element to the question - what do fantasy wizards wear when they are fighting. Not even the "knights" is fantasy works wear armor when they are lounging around the house. Most characters don't wear much armor at all through most fantasy books. Look at the Fellowship: when they set out from Rivendell, between the nine of them, they have three pieces of protective equipment: Boromir's shield, Gimli's ring mail, and Frodo's hidden mithril coat. That's it. They don't acquire more armor until Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas gear up for the fight in Helm's Deep, well into The Two Towers. Should we surmise from this that elves don't wear armor?

No, what is happening here is that many authors realize that people don't tromp around in armor all day, and don't wear it unless they are ready to fight someone. So, when looking at what wizards wear when fighting, look for times when they are prepared for fighting. When prepared for fighting, many wizards in pre-1970s fantasy literature strapped on armor.

Yeah... Elric's a complex one.

I could make a reasonable case to say that Elric is, in 1e terms, a cleric. His powers derive from his relationship with Arioch or from ludicrously powerful magic items, and they relate primarily to the summoning and control of minions. If Elric wants to kill someone, he uses Stormbringer or some conjured thing, not a fireball.

I'd say his power derives from more than that. He comes from a nation with an extended tradition of magic use. Prior to obtaining Stormbringer, he relies upon a collection of magical potions and so on to keep himself upright. His relationship with Arioch and Stormbringer merely frees him from his reliance on his potions.

 

[Storm Raven]

For some, very strange reason, TX is grafting on reasons for the existence of AD&D constructs that simply aren't true. The ONLY reason the four classes were chosen is because of the wargame roots of D&D. There's no great artistic reasoning behind any of this. Just plain nuts and bolts wargaming.

The original D&D rules were even more limited. Thieves didn't get added until a supplement to the original rules was produced. The original three classes were Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Cleric.

Also, notice this: the first three stats, in the traditional (pre-2e) order were Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom. The fourth stat was Dexterity. It seems to me that they were listed, more or less, in the order that the classes were added to the rules.

 

[Desdichado]

Look this is just my opinion guys. The comments I make aren't meant to be taken so seriously, nor are they nec. correct. Thats why I posed the question in the first place. Anyhow, this for some reason is getting a bit combative, so I'll just leave this thread while I'm behind. My sincere apologies for rubbing anyone the wrong way. Carry on troops.

Clearly it's just your own opinion. Clearly, since the few of the rest of it share it.

But I'm confused too--is the fact that its your opinion some kind of "Get Out of Jail Free" card? The natural consequences of making such ...<ahem>... extraordinary claims as you've been making is that folks show up and say "Whachoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" When instead of answering, you blow those questions off and say things like "Whatever. Just be sure not to cry." don't expect to be taken very seriously moving forward.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

The original D&D rules were even more limited. Thieves didn't get added until a supplement to the original rules was produced. The original three classes were Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Cleric.

Also, notice this: the first three stats, in the traditional (pre-2e) order were Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom. The fourth stat was Dexterity. It seems to me that they were listed, more or less, in the order that the classes were added to the rules.

I'm sorry to keep contradicting you, Storm Raven, it's nothing personal.

From the era you're talking about (OD&D/Supplement 1), the correct order for the stats was Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution, Dexterity, Charisma. That order continued until Holmes, and then with 1e, Dexterity and Constitution switched places.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

That's why I said you can't get much more popular, not any more popular. And I'd say it is arguable whether Once and Future King or Lord of the Rings was more popular. I would be unsurprised if T.H. White's book was more widely read at the time.

Facts and statistics are unlikely to come to light, so I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.

No, what is happening here is that many authors realize that people don't tromp around in armor all day, and don't wear it unless they are ready to fight someone. So, when looking at what wizards wear when fighting, look for times when they are prepared for fighting. When prepared for fighting, many wizards in pre-1970s fantasy literature strapped on armor.

Well, I think the stereotypical wizard doesn't wear armour because he doesn't do much fighting. The wizards in question are generally portrayed as a bit long in the tooth for duking it out in hand-to-hand with a battleaxe.

I'd say his power derives from more than that. He comes from a nation with an extended tradition of magic use. Prior to obtaining Stormbringer, he relies upon a collection of magical potions and so on to keep himself upright. His relationship with Arioch and Stormbringer merely frees him from his reliance on his potions.

Again, we have to consider that we're talking about Elric pre-1970. "Elric of Melnibone" hadn't been written (I know it's the first book sequentially, but it was one of the later ones chronologically). To that audience, Elric just possessed Stormbringer; the question of where he got it hadn't been answered.

I think it's clear that Elric's powers derive from the Ring of Kings, from Stormbringer, and from Arioch, rather than from memorising spells. The Elric-as-cleric argument's defensible, although as I've said, I think the reality is that Elric doesn't really translate into 1e terms.