Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[RFisher]

In an heroic but flawed & doomed to failure attempt to bridge the gap between SR & tx7321...

The original three classes were based on mythic/legendary/historic/fantasy-literature archetypes, but they were modified to fit the needs of the game (first Chainmail, then D&D).

Many of the later classes however did tend to be based more on individual characters than broad archetypes.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

I don't think it is cut and dried either way. LotR may have been more widely read in 1970, but it seems to me entirely possible that The Once and Future King was. It doesn't matter much one way or the other - both were popular, and both presented interpretations of wizards drasitcally at odds with the D&D presentation of the magic-user. (Which, for example, led to articles in Dragon asserting that, in D&D terms, Gandalf was a 3rd level cleric and so on).

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.

It depends. Sometimes wizards are presented as old, others (like Earthsea) present them with ages varying across the board, or as something more than human (like T.H. White or Tolkien), or sometimes they are healthy men who happen to be skilled with magic (like Gwydion, Math, and Mannawyddan in the Mabinogion), or older men who are still hale and hearty (like Vainamoinen in the Kalevala).

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.

All true, the 1e DDG write-up of Elric had to jump through hoops to even approximate him. But, still, he is a representation of a magically powered character from befroe 1970 - when analyzing the choices available to create a "stereotypical wizard" one would have to consider him in the calculation.

 

[RFisher]

But, still, he is a representation of a magically powered character from befroe 1970 - when analyzing the choices available to create a "stereotypical wizard" one would have to consider him in the calculation.

I don't know about that. Especially when you consider that the whole Elric saga was Moorcock intentionally going against fantasy stereotypes.

 

[Hussar]

Speaking of trying to stat up fantasy characters, Conan was statted up in the modules as a fighter/thief.

Really, while I do believe that the classes were certainly inspired by various literary characters, I don't believe that the choices made had anything to do with any sort of genre emulation. Wizards can't wear armor because it would make them more powerful than they already are, not because "Guy in Robes" was the classical version of wizard.

Heck, look at the cleric. That's a character whose existence has nothing to do with literary conventions ('cos there's no precedence) and everything to do with creating a playable game. We need someone to heal the PC's because sitting around for a week or a month waiting for hp to come back is boring. Thus, we get a cleric.

The thief is pretty much the same. We need a guy who can find traps and be sneaky sneaky. Sure, he's kinda like the Gray Mouser (without the spells 'cos that would step on the Magic User's toes) and he's kinda like a lot of other sneaky types, but, really, he's the trap guy.

 

[Bregh]

The thief is pretty much the same. We need a guy who can find traps and be sneaky sneaky. Sure, he's kinda like the Gray Mouser (without the spells 'cos that would step on the Magic User's toes) and he's kinda like a lot of other sneaky types, but, really, he's the trap guy.

Interestingly enough, the Thief, as he appeared in Supplement I, had no skill relating to finding traps. He could remove any traps he did come across (though only small ones, such as poison needles), but a skill relating to finding traps was not part of the Thief as originally presented.

Dwarves (of any class) were the master trapfinders in the original game (as were Clerics with the find traps spell), and persisted as such even after the Thief's introduction. It wasn't until AD&D and the second edition of Basic D&D (Moldvay-edit) that this changes, and even then, the focus on the Thief seems to me, to prioritise sneaking and scouting as role-fulfillment within the party. Despite the enhancement of aThief's ability to deal with traps, dwarves and clerics remain better at finding them for quite some time into the Thief's career.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I think the most amusing thing (to me) is that tx7321 is hung up on the ability to create "mixed" characters in 3e, and how that dilutes the "roles" each party member should play. But 1e was much, much worse in this regard. In 1e, multiclass characters rocked, giving up almost nothing for a lot of other powers.

A multiclass fighter/magic-user, fighter/thief, or fighter/cleric (or cleric/magic-user, or whatever two classes you wanted to jam together) lost about one (!) level in effectiveness in each class, and gained all the abilities of the other class. So, Bob the single class 8th level fighter, and Jim the single class 8th level magic-user would be traveling with Jimbob, the multiclass 7th/7th level fighter/magic-user.

How about that for dilution of roles?

On the other hand, if you multiclass in 3e, you are often going to be far worse at stuff than you would have been in 1e. Jimbob is now a 4th/4th level multiclass fighter/wizard (if he splits evenly), or a much worse fighter than wizard or vice versa. You cannot create a "do it all" character who is as effective as a focused character.

In other words, 3e does a better job at rewarding players who fill specific roles than 1e did.

I played quite a lot of 1e multiclass characters. Mostly because we had groups of 2-3 players and a dm, so we had to fill multiple roles. My ranger/druid (UA) was pathetic compared to the fighter or mage in the party. The hit point loss alone sucked arse. split the hit points each level and round down. so a die10 (5) and a die 4 (2) =3 hit points. Multiclassing in 1e made more versatile characters, not more powerful. Much like 3e. 1e multiclasses are not too powerful, I'd say 3e multiclasses are too weak. I'm talking standard multiclassing, of course, not prestige classes. And not the Barbarian 2/rogue3//ranger2/fighter4 munchkin either.

 

[Emirikol]

Archetypes have gone the same way as professional wrestling:

There are no more archetypes

There are only tough guys who all look and act the ame.

 

[tx7321]

Emirikol....GREAT avitar.

 

[Storm Raven]

I played quite a lot of 1e multiclass characters. Mostly because we had groups of 2-3 players and a dm, so we had to fill multiple roles. My ranger/druid (UA) was pathetic compared to the fighter or mage in the party. The hit point loss alone sucked arse. split the hit points each level and round down. so a die10 (5) and a die 4 (2) =3 hit points. Multiclassing in 1e made more versatile characters, not more powerful. Much like 3e. 1e multiclasses are not too powerful, I'd say 3e multiclasses are too weak. I'm talking standard multiclassing, of course, not prestige classes. And not the Barbarian 2/rogue3//ranger2/fighter4 munchkin either.

Umm, rangers had d8 hit dice. So did druids. Your hit dice at each level would have been d8+d8/2 except the first, which would have been d8+d8+d8/2, since ranger's had two hit dice at first level, for an average 1st/1st level ranger/druid with 7.25 hit points, more than the f1st level fighter's average of 5.5 hit points. A ranger/druid in 1e D&D had, on average more hit points than a single class fighter until the fighter reached 2nd level, and when the ranger/druid kept ahead of a single classed druid or cleric at all times. So I think that your contention here is simply off-base.

1e multiclassing created more powerful characters. Look at an extreme combination - a fighter/magic-user gains (5.5 + 2.5)/2 = 4 hit points per level, just under the 4.5 average of a straight cleric. So, take your magic-user, add all the abilities of a fighter, and as a bonus, give him an extra 1.5 hit points per hit die on average. All for the cost of a single level or lag behind the single class characters. Why play a straight magic-user?

I also don't really see the barbarian 2/rogue 3/ranger 2/fighter 4 multiclass as a munchkin, or even a problem. Sure, he's got some special abilities, but compared to another 11th level character, he's not that great.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Umm, rangers had d8 hit dice. So did druids. Your hit dice at each level would have been d8+d8/2 except the first, which would have been d8+d8+d8/2, since ranger's had two hit dice at first level, for an average 1st/1st level ranger/druid with 7.25 hit points, more than the f1st level fighter's average of 5.5 hit points. A ranger/druid in 1e D&D had, on average more hit points than a single class fighter until the fighter reached 2nd level, and when the ranger/druid kept ahead of a single classed druid or cleric at all times. So I think that your contention here is simply off-base.

Yeah, I know, I was using the hd from a standard fighter/mu, my fault for not explaining that.

1e multiclassing created more powerful characters. Look at an extreme combination - a fighter/magic-user gains (5.5 + 2.5)/2 = 4 hit points per level, just under the 4.5 average of a straight cleric. So, take your magic-user, add all the abilities of a fighter, and as a bonus, give him an extra 1.5 hit points per hit die on average. All for the cost of a single level or lag behind the single class characters. Why play a straight magic-user?

A standard MU with 150,000 exp is name level (9th). A f/m is 7/7. Yeah, he has a few more hit points and can swing a sword (badly), but he's missing out on 5th level spells. And the multiclass character has already reached his max level as fighter and will as mu (assuming the stereotypical elven f/m) in four more levels unless he has mad stats, even then, he'll reach them soon enough.

I also don't really see the barbarian 2/rogue 3/ranger 2/fighter 4 multiclass as a munchkin, or even a problem. Sure, he's got some special abilities, but compared to another 11th level character, he's not that great.

Hmmm. Evasion, rage, fast movement, weapon specialization, improved uncanny dodge, the ability to use wands of cure spells and tons of skill points compared to the straight fighter who has a one more feat, virtually the same hp and crap for skill points. Yeah, that's fair.

Edit: Sorry about the crappy formatting.