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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5739418" data-attributes="member: 48965">Because archetypes exist outside of 4e (previous editions, literature, media,etc.) or are you now claiming 4e created the archetypes it draws on for it's classes as well?  And my argument is that in 4e they are very much linked since a combat role is hardcoded into the classes which in turn represent archetypes.  The "concepts" you present aren't fantasy archetypes as I understand them, if anything I would consider these closer to the builds in 4e. Archetypes are suppose to be more overarching concepts that exist universally across many cultures, IMO "mad scientists" and "lone wolf" don't fall into this category...   In 4e if you want to be a dabbler in mystic arts that makes pacts with planar beings... your combat role will be striker. How do you not see this connection? It's attaching, what should be, an unrelated game construct to archetype and people in this thread are saying the game would be better served if they were kept seperate.   Your warlock can, but doesn't have to. The fact of the matter is that the warlock archetype throughout literature has encompased the unlearned and unintiated as well as those who are learned in occult knowledge. The thing is the wizard archetype isn't generally known for being bound to a pact... Merlin, Gandalf, Milamber, Harry Potter,etc. aren't beholden to some extra planar being for knowledge or power. So no, I would argue that the warlock doesn't fit many/most/almost all of the well known wizards in literature and media by dint that he is beholden to (as opposed to commanding) a powerful entity for his power.  See my answer above and reverse it. The wizard in 4e doesn't have a pact and isn't bound to a being for his knowledge or power. He has books and tomes and his own intelligence. He can't be the unlearned or uninitiated whose made a deal with the devil since contrary to what you posted below... all wizards have arcana trained... unless we're back to houseruling.    Wait a minute... I'm misreading the rules? Really?? First, Arcana is a skill not a feat, secondly... PHB 1 (pg. 156) Arcana is automatically trained for wizards... HotFL (pg. 193) again Arcana is automatically trained for mages... is there some eratta I'm missing or are you just totally misreading the rules here and it's leading to a false premise?  Uhm... what?  Wizard skills...Arcana(trained), Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, History, Insight, Nature, Religion Warlock Skills...Arcana, Bluff, History, Insight, Intimidate, Religion, Streetwise, Thievery So they have 3 skills that overlap. It is much easier to make a learned scholarly type (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History,Nature, Religion) with the wizard and much easier to make an unlearned, unintiated type (Bluff, Insight, Intimidate, Streetwise, Thievery) with the warlock skill list.   So you don't see the fact that Warlocks actually have the time to learn to use armor, and a wider range of weapons as a difference ( in game terms that's at least two feats for a wizard right there). Really? I think you are purposefully downplaying the differences... especially when you add them all up.  And I just showed they can't, at least not without houseruling, or expending unnecessary resources.... the classes have non-combat features (the very things that tie the classes to the archetypes they are based on) that allow for very different play outside of combat.  Now if you're defining the wizard archetype as "any caster of magic that isnt a priest" then I think you've went so wide and so broad as to make the archetype meaningless (even though I've shown above that mechanically there is a difference in the archetypes these classes represent).  It's like saying user of divine power... well that's the paladin, avenger, invoker and cleric and they're all the same because they all use divine energy. Or all primal power wielders... and so on.   In 4e they are very much connected. The archetype I choose to play dictates the combat role I will be taking (which most are arguinng it shouldn't). I've shown above how the warlock and wizard archetypes are different, and there's no questioning the fact that the one I pick will determine my combat role... what's left to prove?   Are you being purposefully obtuse, and I'm seriously asking this because if so I'll quit wasting my time responding to you. Archetypes weren't created in D&D 4e... however in 4e they have tied combat role to archetypes... it's really pretty simple.  I never argued it wasn't a combat role... I have, and still do, argue that combat role is linked to the archetypes used in the game. You realize both of these things can be true and is exactly what many people are saying they don't like. There's some kind of disconnect here and I'm not really sure how to explain it so that you get it.</blockquote>

Verification