Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tx7321" data-source="post: 3220397" data-attributes="member: 43146">Raven, first off, archetypes in AD&D do correspond to general archetypes outside of AD&D.  From Wik: "From Wikipedia, An archetype is a generic, idealized model of a person, object or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned or emulated. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality or behavior. This article is about personality archetypes, as described in literature analysis and the study of the psyche."For instance, the magic user is clearly representing the teacher type in my 5 way break down.  And, there are plenty of other archetype systems AD&D classes could be applied to; the point is, each type is identifiable and quickly playable by anyone off the street by our cultural understanding of each (garnished from childrens books, stories, movies etc).  For instance,  I could take my aunt, who has never played (or possibly heard of) AD&D before, and in 30 minutes have her playing a magic user as well as any of us.  WHy, because she subconsciously knowws what a magician is, what it does, and thinks, and what kinds of things it would never do (like wear armor, or attack with a large sword).   How, does she know this without reading the PH you ask?  Simple, she knows the archetypes because she learned them at a very early age through socialization in our culture. Now perhaps her image isn't perfectly fitted to 1Es notion of a magic user, but very close (as Gygax didn't tread far from the archetype norm...and protects that norm with rules like no swords etc.).  Same would apply to any of the other classes.  And don't forget, she can relate to these archetypes because at one time or another she has been in that role.   In 3E this is not so. She would be lost when she looked around and saw her fellow adventurering wizards dressed in armor carrying light crossbows, and possibly swords.  She'd be equally surprised by spell using fighter types (who do so at lower levels in 3E).  Thats what I'm talking about. 3E has stripped away our cultural referrences (we learned as very young children).  This doesn't effect how the character sees himself so much as how he sees his fellow players. So even if you play a straight up wizard in a pointy hat and no armor or swords, you still have to deal with all the other dungeon punk looking wizard/druid/paladin/monks in your group. Raven...do you see what I'm getting at yet?As for multi-classing, thats only for non-humans, and AD&D is a human centric game. Also these are other races, and the demihuman races fit other archetypes all together (for instance: an elf fighter likely represents part child-eternally young, shirking responsibility..and part father-protector, provider attacker). I mean we all new what an elf was (to some degree) before we played any role playing game.  Playing a demihuman is also a bit alien, as if your playing a monster.  So giving it 3 classes just makes it stranger adding to its strangeness.</blockquote>

Verification