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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 6203379" data-attributes="member: 23716">I'm not sure I agree with the definition of 'Archetype' being used here.  The usage here seems to have more in common with 4e's roles than what I think of as archetype, I think archetype is so much more than this.  To me, archetype is a certain fantasy Je ne sais quoi that a class is trying to tap into and capture, usually through a mechanical representation, but is so much more than those mechanics.  For Instance, in recent years (and I would argue much longer than that), there has been strong push back on cleric as healer definition.  Sure a cleric can be a healer, and certain gamest and mechanical necessities my shove the class in that direction, but I think the archetype is much greater than that.  It is more white mage, holy man, vampire/demon hunter, spiritualist, servant-of-greater-powers, healer, knight-Templar.  If the game is only able to get healer out of that, it may show a weakness of the game, the designers, or narrow thinking on the part of the players.  Or even worse, a game that starts with the premise that healer is all you need from that is, IMHO, already on shaky footing.  Yes, D&D has been around long enough to influence and help direct what the popular fantasy archetypes are, but I still feel going back to this common well while stile honoring tradition is the way to go.  This is not to say that archetypes are inviolate or don't change over time or even overlap.  The paladin as the pure knight-in-shining-armor, Sir Galahad, paragon of honor clearly has some overlap with part of the cleric's holy man, knight-Templar shtick.  I just wonder if there is a danger of being to self-referential here, especially with clouding archetypes with a mechanical role.</blockquote>

Verification