Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[charlesatan]

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?

On the class vs point buy system, I think what you're looking for is more of the latter. You might want to check out Mongoose Publishing's True20 system which is just that: all "class" abilities are based on feats and you get to pick a feat every level.

In a way, classes with special abilities are there to simplify things. So that you don't end up with too much of a generic character and depending on feats to determine your class rather than your actual levels. Not saying one is better than the other, but too much cherrypicking can be intimidating to newer players (or on one's learning curve). If there were less "character abilities", "class level" would matter less, and you could probably end up with the same character concept despite taking different levels.

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).

I think it's about ease of use. It's a game after all. If I want realism, your arguments are valid. And as a GM, you could house rule it to be so. But since ease of play is one of the focus of game designers, not putting restrictions in multiclassing and then ad-hoc placing them latter on as a houserule is a better option than restricting them in the first place then removing them ad-hoc later on.

 

[tx7321]

I think the "straight jacket" approach of AD&D to archetypes isn't everyone's cup of tea, but for those who like playing in that kind of setting it just can't be beat. It takes the preasure off "whats this world setting like, what are the backstories to these unusual folk...who are these 5 guys sitting with me all dressed the same" to "where's the action". In that way (the quick understanding and monotony of types) AD&D is very much more "Cowboy and Indians" then 3E, where the world setting and mix of archetype mixes and catagories change regularly (dep. on who's playing, the DM etc), in a kind of "drift". The plot building and drift may be satisfying to some...but it bored the hell out of me.

 

[interwyrm]

Don't loose site /QUOTE]

Just because the second poster corrected rouge.

Lose = opposite of win, or to be unable to find something
Loose = opposite of tight.

and... sight.

Thank you.

(No offense meant)

 

[Seeten]

Some people dont like options. For those people, I think going all the way back to OD&D is best. That way you dont get the messy stuff like F/MU/T and C/MU/R and Unearthed Arcana with ninjas and samurai.

Go OD&D and give the players no choice.

In fact, why not just play 3e and give your players pre-gens, and tell em the personalities of their characters, also, so its more along the "John Wayne Cowboys and Indians" line?

Definitely not a old ed v 3e issue, this is a pure control issue. You don't have enough control over them to say no to the light armor fighter(a general poor substitute), armored mage(generally bad idea) etc. So look to a game system without choices. Why not just Man-Up and say no?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Loose = opposite of tight.

It's also a verb: as in "loose the hounds..." and such. That makes its misuse humorous, sometimes. Losing one's shirt and loosing one's shirt have quite different meanings, for example -- and God forbid anyone looses their pants around here...

 

[diaglo]

Go OD&D and give the players all the choice they can handle.

fify

 

[Hussar]

I think that might tell us more about your personal development as a GM than what the actual systems allow, though, Merric.

I agree that D20 fantasy shares with Rolemaster the feature that there are archetypes but it's possible to move outside them. Nevertheless, I feel that my point stands: both RM and D20 fantasy require a much greater investment of time on character creation.

I realise a lot of people enjoy spending a great deal of time on their characters, and some of them actively enjoy accruing greater stacking modifiers, and there's nothing wrong with that. Those people will very properly prefer D20.

Greater investment than 1e? Probably. Greater than many other games out there? Not even close. GURPS, Vampire, Traveller? I remember sitting down for THREE HOURS to make a character in Traveller. You can whack out a PC in 3e in fifteen minutes easily. Granted, if you want to spread out into the optional books, it can take longer, but, that's comparing apples to oranges.

Good grief, the 3e PHB gives you your skills, equipment and suggests feats for your character. How could it possibly be any easier to create a character?

Cranking out characters in DnD is not complicated, nor time consuming. Roll the dice (or use point buy), pick a class and away you go. If it takes significant time to create a character in 3e, it's due to lack of familiarity with the rules, not that the rules are that difficult.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Go OD&D and give the players all the choice they can handle...fify

I raised an eyebrow at the "limited options" with OD&D thing, too. IMO, OD&D is probably the version of D&D with the most freedom, fewest "rules constraints," and wide open vistas of choice for the DM and players. I guess it's an attitude thing: how you approach it.

 

[Psion]

bify

fify

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Good grief, the 3e PHB gives you your skills, equipment and suggests feats for your character. How could it possibly be any easier to create a character?

Did you ever play OD&D? BECMI D&D where the races were classes? Or Basic Roleplaying, or Dragon Warriors? There are plenty of ways it could be easier.

Personally, I played and enjoyed all those games and dozens more. I also played Rolemaster 2 with loads of the options; I remember spending six hours optimising my cleric before I could begin play.

3e strikes a particular point along the simplicity/complexity axis. If you add optional rules, it strikes a different point depending on which options are in play. But to suggest that any particular permutation of 3e is optimal is to project your own preferences onto other people.