Fewer deeper archetypes or the kitchen sink

[steeldragons]

Right. Is a "Barbarian" class Conan or Beowulf...or Riverwind? I would argue it is all three. Just as easily as I could argue Riverwind is a Ranger (his class in the DL modules) or Beowulf is a Fighter, instead.

Is Gandalf (arguably a "Merlin" character for Middle-earth) or Merlin, himself, a wizard or a druid?...or given Merlin's mythological parentage, is Merlin a tiefling ("a man of no mortal father")?! Or Gandlaf an Aasimar (if not a full outsider/angel guy?) It could very easily be both...all.

Is Harry Potter a "wizard" or a "sorcerer" (in 3/4e terms) or a "warlock/shaman"...naturally gifted/capable but completely devoid of power if he doesn't have his wand [totem/implement] with him? Is the answer all? Some? None of the above? He's a wizard in the world of Harry Potter. In 1e D&D, he'da been dead a loooong time ago.

Defining by archetype for a class...which I am ALL for, btw!...is highly subjective. It's based on age, gender, system played, genre appreciated, and a slew of other things/cultural considerations, I would venture to say.

Your reference to Gauntlet, is a prime example. I LOVED that game! Remember it fondly. And it had, for me, several archetypes of the D&D (not just "fantasy") genre. The Warrior, the "Elf", the "Valikerie" [complete with chainmail bikini, of course].

For some, Buffy might optimize "Vampire hunter/slayer"...others it's Van Helsing...or even Giles.

Is a Vampire Nosferatu? Dracula? Strahd? Angel or Edward Cullen?

Is a werewolf a mindless ravenous killing machine dependent on the phases of the moon or a shapeshifter who has total control of their mind and state? [not at ALL advocating Vampires or werewolves as a "class"! Gods no no nonononono!]

The trick is not, I think, what's an archetype [now] or what has been...but WHERE you draw that line. It is a tricky proposition that is sure to leave some of any age, genre, system played, wanting more or disappointed.

That said...it MUST be done. The line has to happen somewhere. Hundreds of various classes is simply unaccecptable and unrealistic to expect players to have a grasp of or expect a DM to allow.

Start with the "strongest"/most mythological and literary known ones...add in the "weaker"/less known ones...then, no doubt, add in the ones that are marginalized/certain genre specific/"prestige classes."

Avengers is currently, or soon will be, opening in the US. It's already grossed...I dunno how many millions overseas. Will we suddenly see an influx of "Hawkeye" rangers and "Captain America" paladins or hammer throwing super-strong "Thor" barbarians?

"5e needs shield throwing rules! I need a FEAT to bound my shield offa stuff!! I took the Shield Basher theme[/maneuver/whatever] I should be able to do like he does in the movie!"

"Yeah! Why can't I shot twenty arrows in a round whilst falling off of a building?!"

Does popularity = "archetype"?

My answer is "no."

But in this world of immediate gratification and, seeming, lack of creativity, imagination and lack of/inability for immersion in a game world, I am sure many many folks would answer an enthusiastic and highly affronted, "YES!"

As Boarstorm says, D&D is "big enough" to handle a wide range of archetypes...Yes. It is. But that capacity is not infinite! Nor does it mean that D&D should allow for anything you can possibly conceive. If that were the case, then there would be no other RPGs that accommodate those choices/other genres.

D&D is not Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Harry Potter, Final Fantasy, Call of Cthulu, Marvel Superheroes or any slue of sci-fi games/settings.

And in this humble ENworlder's opinion, it has no mandate to have to try to be.

Below is a link to a posting I did...oooo...long time ago...about various race archetypes. It is, in parts, revealing of my own homebrewed campaign setting of Orea and others of certain older system tropes (like halflings not being able to be paladins). But all in all, I think it is a good batch of solid DUNGEONS & DRAGONS archetypes (for Elves and dwarves, specifically. I have others for other races. Never did one for humans...maybe later in this thread.)

[EDIT: Fixed the link. Dunno how THAT hoppuned!/EDIT]

[EDIT2: OK. I dunno what's going on or why this links to a response to this page...but just copipasta the url below if you'd care to see them. There's a link to some images in there, as well./EDIT2]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/295185-racial-archetypes-elf-dwarf.html

--SD

 

[am181d]

No, clerics have a basis in real world legends.

Like above I don't want a 1 to 1 match, just a basis. I personally feel it makes a much stronger feeling class since we can tap into all of the stories and legends.

There are a lot of people who would disagree with your statement that "clerics have a basis in real world legends." Certainly you won't find any armored, mace-wielding heroes with the power to heal at a touch in myth or legend.

 

[Scribble]

There are a lot of people who would disagree with your statement that "clerics have a basis in real world legends." Certainly you won't find any armored, mace-wielding heroes with the power to heal at a touch in myth or legend.

As I said I'm not looking for a 1 to 1 translation. But if you take those basic concepts, you start seeing people like Mosses, the Grail Knights, Greek and Egyptian style clergy, Norse Tribal Leaders, etc... And they all add up to the archetype of what a Cleric springs from. Is it D&D'd up a bit? Hell yeah! But it doesn't spring whole cloth from some D&D powers spliced together.

 

[Mallus]

Will we suddenly see an influx of "Hawkeye" rangers and "Captain America" paladins or hammer throwing super-strong "Thor" barbarians?

I hope so. That's how it worked when I first started playing AD&D as a teenager. I have fond memories of that time...

I seem to recall Thor-esque hammer throwing was quite popular, and, in fact, is already kinda in the game, in the form of the hammer +3, dwarven thrower (AD&D DMG, pg. 168).

D&D is not Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Harry Potter, Final Fantasy, Call of Cthulu, Marvel Superheroes or any slue of sci-fi games/settings.

D&D isn't the works listed in Ye Olde Appendix: N, either (for example, it's not explicitly Planetary Romance or post-apocalyptic SF -- both of which are cited in "N"), but draws from all of them, and more. The next D&D should be informed by as many sources, some of them recent, even.

And in this humble ENworlder's opinion, it has no mandate to have to try to be.

D&D does a long-running traditions of being broad, kitchen-sink fantasy (with dollops of other genres mixed in). I see no compelling reason why that should change. D&D class archetypes should reflect D&D wide ranging influences, not just a narrow subset of them.

 

[steeldragons]

I hope so. That's how it worked when I first started playing AD&D as a teenager. I have fond memories of that time...

I seem to recall Thor-esque hammer throwing was quite popular, and, in fact, is already kinda in the game, in the form of the hammer +3, dwarven thrower (AD&D DMG, pg. 168).

True dat. I have no doubt it was inspired by the Thor comics. Hey, it's just a damn cool magic item! But that doesn't mean the game has to have rules for all of these things, that strike our fancy, the moment they become popular culture. If I'm not mistaken, the Thor comics came out...in the sixties?...a good bet it had some impact on the game in 1974.

I too have very fond memories of "borrowing" class, race and spells/powers/magic item ideas from stuff I saw (comics, cartoons, movies, dramas, anything really) when I was a teenager.

Evil-Lyn's scepter (turned staff -waaaay cooler!- in the 2002 version), from MotU, has been the "Sceptre of Xxax" for many many years in my game world!

(Not that we had this in my game) But how many people had Xena's throwy circular bladed thing that came back to you...without slicing off all of your fingers?

Some of them worked..some of them were sorely overpowered...or didn't work, for D&D, as "cool" as they were in the original work. C'est la guerre.

What does this have to do with anything? Aside from being cliched observations about "this world"?

If you read the post, then you know that it was a continuation of the following thought...as opposed to the parsed down individual quote you posted.

Does popularity = "archetype"?

My answer is "no."

But in this world of immediate gratification and, seeming, lack of creativity, imagination and lack of/inability for immersion in a game world, I am sure many many folks would answer an enthusiastic and highly affronted, "YES!"

THAT'S what it "has to do with anything" as opposed to the odd, out of context, statement you took it as.

D&D isn't the works listed in Ye Olde Appendix: N, either

I don't believe, anywhere in my post, I claimed it was.

(for example, it's not explicitly Planetary Romance or post-apocalyptic SF -- both of which are cited in "N"), but draws from all of them, and more. The next D&D should be informed by as many sources, some of them recent, even.

I have no qualm with it being "informed" by such. But that does not an "archetype" make.

D&D does a long-running traditions of being broad, kitchen-sink fantasy (with dollops of other genres mixed in). I see no compelling reason why that should change. D&D class archetypes should reflect D&D wide ranging influences, not just a narrow subset of them.

Again, I do not believe it should, either. I don't think I said this. But "allowing for everything fantasy" of the passed 40 years is a completely unrealistic expectation.

I would totally expect to see, in 5e, a substitute or optional magic system that simulates the world of Harry Potter. I would expect to see a series of themes or feats that mimic Final Fantasy's feats of martial prowess. Or WoW's area spells. Pirates of the Caribbean trotting and sword-fighting along spars. Or [unfortunately, imho] "shiny happy" Twilight vampires and sapient werewolves holding hands.

But those are not mythological or literary archetypes for D&D. They are popular! Yes. They are "fantasy"...arguably [in the sense that Twilight is "modern fantasy" and Pirates of the Caribbean is "historic fantasy"], Yes.

But they are not D&D archetypes. No doubt D&D had some persuasion over them, as much as any other mythology/folk tales/previous literature or cultural history. But, they are/can be adopted. They can be done!

In my fantasy world of 5e D&D, I would expect and hope to see a good 12-15 archetypal classes available from day one...maybe a few variants in an appendix (though with what we know about Themes, it seems variants might be all, or mostly, taken care of).

Now, if that is not enough for you or your gaming group, I fully expect that what IS presented has enough bits n' pieces for you to cobble together whatever you want. There's nothing wrong with that!

But a PHB trying to offer class archetypes in a limited page count...what?....20 enough? 40? 100 classes to cover everything that's happened in the Fantasy genre for the passed 40 years of books, tv and movies?!

No, that is not necessary, let alone "possible". Those are not necessary for D&D to be D&D!

I also expect, that through Themes, Backgrounds and modular options, you should be able to have any and everything you feel is a valid archetype...just as I expect it will do the same for me.

S'all good in duh D&D hood, my friend.
--SD

 

[underfoot007ct]

As I said I'm not looking for a 1 to 1 translation. But if you take those basic concepts, you start seeing people like Mosses, the Grail Knights, Greek and Egyptian style clergy, Norse Tribal Leaders, etc... And they all add up to the archetype of what a Cleric springs from. Is it D&D'd up a bit? Hell yeah! But it doesn't spring whole cloth from some D&D powers spliced together.

But why should "Char archetype" come from the "real world", since we a re playing a "Fantasy" game? That idea makes no sense to myself.

 

[Scribble]

But why should "Char archetype" come from the "real world", since we a re playing a "Fantasy" game? That idea makes no sense to myself.

Because we are in the real world. I don't need archetypes that can't do fantasy stuff. I just want them to be based on stories and myths in our world. It gives them a more solid "archetype" footing, then something just completely generated by putting together game elements.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Because we are in the real world. I don't need archetypes that can't do fantasy stuff. I just want them to be based on stories and myths in our world. It gives them a more solid "archetype" footing, then something just completely generated by putting together game elements.

So in the real world If write a story or myth then it ok ?

I understand this is what you want, but I don't. I'm sure many other people as well. D&D Next is the 'say yes' & 'options are good' edition.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

Do you find it a bit disappointing when you get into a game of D&D (yay!) but realize that you are now part of a Lilo and Stitch/Sailormoon-crossover game?

A bit disappointing? I would find that monumentally disappointing and would seek another group ASAP!

 

[Scribble]

So in the real world If write a story or myth then it ok ?

I understand this is what you want, but I don't. I'm sure many other people as well. D&D Next is the 'say yes' & 'options are good' edition.

I want them to be based on our collective unconscious basically. I want archetypes to be actual archetypes.