Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[tx7321]

Psion: "when I take a look around in my imagination, I DO very much see fighters in armor with big swords, spellcasters with staves, and lurking thieves."

Well, thats good for you. But the last group I played 3E with (about 2 years ago) had a wizard in light armor with a huge great sword; a ranger that had spells a fighter who's dex was high enough he didn't bother wearing much armor (though he could afford it) and liked the danty swords, a cleric that carried a nasty axe, I can't remember the rest. We never got into any of the really wacky stuff, but even still, our MU looked like a fighter, our fighter looked like an MU, etc. It was like watching TLOR with Gandalf dressed like Aragorn running around in armor with a light crossbow and big 2hander strapped to his back. It just didn't work. :\ And if its someone elses PC there's not much you can do about it.

The problem I think is that everyone wants to have that cool mysterous look (at least at my table) and thats just what you get, and the guys that go for the old stereo typed look...forget about it.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Archetypes are and always will be useful.

Classes are extremely useful for new players, high mortality games (although 3.x doesn't handle this well), and game balance.

Classes, at least the D&D classes, are not archetypes. All are gameplay constructs, some play to stereotypes, but only paladin lends itself an archetype because only paladin has sufficiently specific thematic and personality restrictions.

Ironically, levels are usually directly contrary to archetypes. The stereotypical wizard (old man with pointy hat, spells and enigmatic dialogue) fits an archetype (wise mentor), but the typical D&D wizard doesn't because he starts as a 1st-level apprentice who isn't ready to mentor anyone older than ten. Unless the wizard survives while the rest of the PCs die off, and the campaign lasts a fair amount of (in-game) time, he'll never fit the archetype his class seems best suited to.

 

[Psion]

Ironically, levels are usually directly contrary to archetypes. The stereotypical wizard (old man with pointy hat, spells and enigmatic dialogue) fits an archetype (wise mentor), but the typical D&D wizard doesn't because he starts as a 1st-level apprentice who isn't ready to mentor anyone older than ten. Unless the wizard survives while the rest of the PCs die off, and the campaign lasts a fair amount of (in-game) time, he'll never fit the archetype his class seems best suited to.

But this comparison make the "literary fantasy stereotypes" the only valid archetypes.

They are not.

In D&D, the young/student wizard is a perfectly valid archetype. For that matter, it's a pretty persistent character type in fantasy literature (and movies), too. Dragonslayer? Harry Potter? Krull? (Ergo the magnificent is about PC-caliber. He ain't no Merlin!)

 

[shilsen]

Well, thats good for you. But the last group I played 3E with (about 2 years ago) had a wizard in light armor with a huge great sword; a ranger that had spells a fighter who's dex was high enough he didn't bother wearing much armor (though he could afford it) and liked the danty swords, a cleric that carried a nasty axe, I can't remember the rest. We never got into any of the really wacky stuff, but even still, our MU looked like a fighter, our fighter looked like an MU, etc. It was like watching TLOR with Gandalf dressed like Aragorn running around in armor with a light crossbow and big 2hander strapped to his back. It just didn't work. :\ And if its someone elses PC there's not much you can do about it.

I'm curious - what do you mean by "it just didn't work"?

 

[tx7321]

Shil: "I'm curious - what do you mean by "it just didn't work"?" Whoops! That should read "wouldn't" work.


I think there are infinite variations on the basic classical liturary archetypes (also cross cultural), and they all boil down to: child, mother, father, teacher. (child-avoids and defies, mother-heals and nurtures, father-fights and defends, teacher-advises and reflects).

I don't think age is an issue in AD&D. Pretty much everyone over the age of 15 in Midievil times was treated as an adult. By 18 they were probably pretty hardened (and looked and acted the part..beard and all). A first level MU would still be more serious, educated and mature then your typical PC.

 

[Greg K]

I think archetypes are useful. However, I also like the customization that 3e although I dislike aspects of WOTC's execution. My dislikes are as follows
1. The classes are not as flexible as they could be. IMO, WOTC designers unnecessarily assign too many specific character abilities. Why assign the ability to channel spells through a sword to a duskblade? Why not create a more generic arcane warrior base class and give bonus feats that they could choose from with the ability to channel spells through a weapon being one of the feats to choose from. Why assign the Knight Test of Mettle? Isn't Test of Mettle the goad feat? Why not allow the choice of a bonus feat there and have Goad among the choices?

2. I think that multiclassing is too easy. Want a new class for your character? Simply level up. However, this makes no sense when you consider that the classes are the product of extensive training whether it be formal or informal. If the fighter, unlike the warrior NPC class, is a product of extensive training in various arms and weapons rather than just some training, wizards and monks are the product of years of apprenticeship. If characters spent months or years to get to level one, why shouldn't there be more to taking a new class than simply leveling? Why not require prerequisites similar to taking a PrC, but less stringent? Want to multiclass into a sorcerer or wizard? Take a feat that grants 3-0 level spells (or be able to cast arcane spells) and have either one or two ranks in one or two specific skills (e.g. Knowledge (Arcane) and Spellcraft to multiclass into wizard).

 

[diaglo]

I think archetypes are a major reason for the enduring appeal of D&D.

They encourage team play. No one character can deal with every challenge that faces a group.

They help share the spotlight. They make characters into specialists and punish for generalizing, giving each player who chooses to specialize a clear schtick they are best at.

They help define play. Properly designed archetypes will help define the types of adventures the characters will participate in.

They provide easy to understand character types. This serves as a useful benchmark for the GM and other players who may not understand your character as well as you.

They provide believability and consistency by encouraging characters to pick up a variety of abilities that would logically be had by a character of that vocation.

They help with balance. By forcing character abilities to be dispensed in packages of related abilities instead of allowing players to cherry pick abilities they happen to think will be to their immediate benefit, they discourage the ridiculous builds that come from over-specialization.

Classes/archetypes are often downplayed in D&D bashing circles as a "sacred cow". But I think they are a strong positive feature of the game and are dispensed with at its peril.

i mostly agree with Psion. D&D is all about team play when it is firing on all gears.

 

[Psion]

I think archetypes are useful. However, I also like the customization that 3e although I dislike aspects of WOTC's execution. My dislikes are as follows
1. The classes are not as flexible as they could be. IMO, WOTC designers unnecessarily assign too many specific character abilities. Why assign the ability to channel spells through a sword to a duskblade? Why not create a more generic arcane warrior base class and give bonus feats that they could choose from with the ability to channel spells through a weapon being one of the feats to choose from. Why assign the Knight Test of Mettle? Isn't Test of Mettle the goad feat? Why not allow the choice of a bonus feat there and have Goad among the choices?

Yup. CW Samurai is the hideous offender here. Add a fear feat chain to a too weapon feat chain and there you go!

 

[shilsen]

Shil: "I'm curious - what do you mean by "it just didn't work"?" Whoops! That should read "wouldn't" work.

Aha! That makes it a little clearer, but I'm still not getting why you think it wouldn't work. The one thing that such a party as you described wouldn't be able to do, it seems to me, is play very archetypal roles. Other than that, I figure everything a very archetypal party could do, this one could do, IC and OOC. So I'm wondering what you have in mind.

 

[charlesatan]

Well, thats good for you. But the last group I played 3E with (about 2 years ago) had a wizard in light armor with a huge great sword; a ranger that had spells a fighter who's dex was high enough he didn't bother wearing much armor (though he could afford it) and liked the danty swords, a cleric that carried a nasty axe, I can't remember the rest. We never got into any of the really wacky stuff, but even still, our MU looked like a fighter, our fighter looked like an MU, etc. It was like watching TLOR with Gandalf dressed like Aragorn running around in armor with a light crossbow and big 2hander strapped to his back. It just didn't work. :\ And if its someone elses PC there's not much you can do about it.

I don't think that isn't a game system problem more than a gaming group problem. Each one had different expectations (or it could be you were the exception in that group) hence the deviation. You could find more like-minded players and end up with "your vision" of the game while still playing 3E. Perhaps the positive thing about 3E is that it can fit the image of many gaming groups. However, because of that, GM/Player expectations might not necessarily always be on the same page.