Next Level of Character Class Archetypes

[Roman]

By now, the standard character class archetypes in most fantasy games seem to be based on the triple division of archetypes:

Warrior
Skill-User
Spellcaster

Sure, this is not set in stone and you can have additions to the system, such as the Priest in D&D, or you could remove something, for example the skill-user, but by and large, these seem to be the main fantasy archetypes (though you also can have cross-archetype classes).

Now, what I am asking is about the next level of archetypes. If we were to subdivide each of the standard three archetypes into an equally comprehensive sub-system (hence my name of the thread 'next level' of archetypes), what archetypes would we get?

I would say:


Warrior:

Unarmed Warrior
Melee Warrior
Ranged Warrior


Skill-User:

Social Skill-User
Adroit Skill-User
Crafting Skill-User


Spellcaster

Arcane Spellcaster
Divine Spellcaster
Psionic Spellcaster



Out of those, I think my spellcaster sub-archetypes are the most dubious, chiefly because they depend on the way magic is structured within a specific campaign world.

Anyway, I welcome your comments and ideas on what would you suggest for sub-archetypes.

 

[Technomancer]

I assume the Adroit Skill User would be a thief-type. Where would you put a Ranger/woodsman type? Would he be a skill user or warrior?

 

[Roman]

I assume the Adroit Skill User would be a thief-type.

Pretty much. I was trying to think of a one-word term that would encompass the ability to do stealth, acrobatics and various slights of hand and adroit was the best I could come up with in one word.

Where would you put a Ranger/woodsman type? Would he be a skill user or warrior?

Ranger crosses archetypes between skill-user and a warrior and he does so in the non-expanded archetype system too. Where he would fit more depends on the interpretation of the ranger class. I would say the D&D ranger is still closer to the warrior archetype.
There are other archetype-crossing/archetype-combining classes, for a D&D example, there is also the Paladin, though he more firmly in the warrior camp than ranger.

 

[Cam Banks]

This is starting to resemble the basic structure of Rolemaster, which is more than a little ironic.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[szilard]

Spellcaster

Arcane Spellcaster
Divine Spellcaster
Psionic Spellcaster


Out of those, I think my spellcaster sub-archetypes are the most dubious, chiefly because they depend on the way magic is structured within a specific campaign world.

I agree.

What about:

Combat Spellcaster
Healing Spellcaster
Utility Spellcaster


-Stuart

 

[Presto2112]

I agree.

What about:

Combat Spellcaster
Healing Spellcaster
Utility Spellcaster


-Stuart

Where would the spellthief fit into these archetypes?

 

[Roman]

I agree.

What about:

Combat Spellcaster
Healing Spellcaster
Utility Spellcaster


-Stuart

Hmm... could be. I think this approach certainly has merit, but in many ways it still pre-defines the magic of the campaing world, as a magic system instead based on, for example, thematic schools, does not really fit. I am beginning to think that magic is simply too integral to the definition of specific worlds to permit a universal subdivision of the spellcaster archetype.

 

[blargney the second]

Where would the spellthief fit into these archetypes?

Right about here:

*grin*
-blarg

 

[JohnSnow]

Interesting topic. I look at it slightly differently:

Warrior:
Frontline Combatant
Defensive Combatant
Ranged Combatant
Skirmisher (Mobile Combatant)

Skill User:
Socializer
Obstacle Specialist
Information Gatherer
Utility

Spellcaster:
Attacker
Defender
Deceiver
Healer
Information Gatherer
Utility

All of the classes in D&D cross over a little bit. However, most of the better ones have some focus. The fighter basically covers only the combatant roles, and can do 2 of them well.

The wizard can change his focus every day, but basically excel either when they choose to do one thing well, or when they pick their abilities based on their expected challenges. A well-prepared wizard shines, while a poorly prepared one is a drain on his group.

Most of the classes that try to do more than a few things well fail. Three seems to be the outside limit at any one time, as attempting to do more than that detracts from your effectiveness in any one area.

Rangers can make good skirmishers or archers, but trying to be frontline combatants will detract from their skill role as information gatherers. Their spells could potentially be effective if they were focused, but unfortunately, they're not. Paladins, by contrast, benefit from spells and granted abilities that enhance their focus as primarily defensive and secondarily frontline combatants.

I could go on, but I'll spare you the rest.

 

[Roman]

Interesting topic. I look at it slightly differently:

Warrior:
Frontline Combatant
Defensive Combatant
Ranged Combatant
Skirmisher (Mobile Combatant)

Skill User:
Socializer
Obstacle Specialist
Information Gatherer
Utility

Spellcaster:
Attacker
Defender
Deceiver
Healer
Information Gatherer
Utility

These categories are interesting. Yes, there certainly are many ways to look at sub-archetypes (and indeed at main archetypes themselves). For example, warriors could also be looked at thusly:

Mounted Warrior
Footman Warrior
Ranged Warrior


In fact, it could be interesting to tabulate/cross reference some archetypes. For example:

(Note: I never know how to create tables on bulleting boards, so forgive my clumsy attempts.)


______________Unarmed_______Melee_______Ranged
_______
Mounted..........----------..........Knight*.........Raider*
_______
Footman..........Brawler*.............Fighter*........Shooter*

*Names can obviously differ. For example: Brawler could be Martial Artist, etc.