What Archetypes Deserve Classes in a Fantasy Game?
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
In my opinion, there are not enough classes in D&D. Unless D&D were to go a more generic route ala d20 Modern the archetypes are too narrow and limiting and there's not enough of them. I'd rather have no classes than classes that don't quite get me where I want. Either that, or more flexible classes that could allow for very different builds. Both Midnight and Arcana Unearthed do this, by allowing the character to pick from a big list of class abilities.
That said, I think there's some real wisdom in here so far, though. First of all, what archetypes you use is entirely dependent on what default setting assumptions you want to emphasize. Reading through AU you can really see that -- Monte Cook didn't just pick up random archetypes, he picked archetypes that were appropriate for his setting, and crafted them in a way that gave them setting specific details.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't consider the cleric to be a fantasy archetype in the least. It's a D&D-ism pure and simple. At it's most basic levels, fighter, rogue and wizard are the only true basal archetypes. But again, unless those archetypes are represented by classes that are extremely flexible, or served by multiple classes that explore different facets of the archetype, I would hardly recommend shrinking to three classes.
That said, I think there's some real wisdom in here so far, though. First of all, what archetypes you use is entirely dependent on what default setting assumptions you want to emphasize. Reading through AU you can really see that -- Monte Cook didn't just pick up random archetypes, he picked archetypes that were appropriate for his setting, and crafted them in a way that gave them setting specific details.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't consider the cleric to be a fantasy archetype in the least. It's a D&D-ism pure and simple. At it's most basic levels, fighter, rogue and wizard are the only true basal archetypes. But again, unless those archetypes are represented by classes that are extremely flexible, or served by multiple classes that explore different facets of the archetype, I would hardly recommend shrinking to three classes.
Last edited:
AFGNCAAP
First Post
I have to agree--the core classes present doesn't really cover all the bases. However, I'd prefer a shrinking & generalization of the core classes rather than an expansion & specialization of them--Palladium Fantasy, and to a more horrific extent (IMHO) Rifts, have oodles & oodles of Occupational Character Classes (OCCs), which (IMHO) are horrible when it comes to balance--despite the roleplaying impusle to play a Vagabond instead of a Glitter Boy, Apok, or Cosmo-Knight, the poor old Vagabond will die off soon due to the heavies that the GM sends to deal with his Mega-Damage dealing & taking party members.
Ideally, I'd like to go with the generic "core three" that I mentioned in my previous post--the Feat-intensive, Skill-intensive, & Magic/Power-intensive. Character creation will be slower, though--introduce a lot of choice elements & it inevitably takes up time. However, it'd sure be customizeable, esp. for use in various settings. Want a low- to rare-magic setting, ala Lankhmar? Easily done! Want a high-magic, everybody-except-one-or two-classes-has-some-sort-of-spellcasting-or innate-magical-ability style campaign? Voila!
I see the cleric with a description for the class provided in the 1st ed. AD&D PH (IIRC)--based off of the religious orders of knighthood from Medieval times, sort of like the Templars or Hospitalers. Whereas the cleric is a mix of fighter & priest, the paladin is a specialized variety that's even more fighter & less priest.
With that said, I think that a generic magic/power-intensive class could cover wizards & priests (and psions, to boot). Besides, what if you want a campaign with no arcane magic at all (and thus, no wizards)? Or, ala the Ultima games from 4 on up, you want arcane magic only (thus, no priests & divine magic)? Easily handled by the magic-intensive class--they have 1 general spell list that covers pretty much everything.
However, to expand upon the 3 core class idea, I do think that ready-made templates should be available--if you want to quickly make upa particular theme/class idea, then here it is, with all the options pre-chosen for you. Want to be a Fighter? Then here's a pre-made option using the Feat-intensive class. Want to be a Sorcerer (in the 3.5 D&D sense)? There's a template for the Magic-intensive class, with a limited spell list, increased spells/day, decreased spellcasting requirements, and limited spells known selections.
But, I think that the execution of this will look like 3.5E D&D meets d20 Modern meets d20 CoC meets Skills & Powers (from 2nd ed. AD&D optional rules). In other words, a math-messy, convoluted nightmare. There will be some players who take up the ready-made templates for ease of use, but there will always be those few players who want to build their own PC, trying to figure out the best way to abuse &/or beat the system in order to create the "uber-PC."
(Sigh.) I know I don't want a plethora of core classes to handle every single permutation (e.g., "the rogue & the pirate classes are pretty much the same, except that the pirate can also use a scimitar, has Swim as a class skill, and doesn't get Uncanny Dodge until 2 levels higher than the rogue."), but I'm wary of what a free-form, build-it-yourself system might bring (e.g., "If I take all 12 of these class & spellcasting limitations, then I can cast all of my Evocation spells with a +15 to to their DCs!") Essentially, I don't want either a Palladium or GURPS. Just a simpler, more flexible version of D&D.
Hmm . . . to tell you the truth, I think that what may work is a reduced set of core classes (either the basic 4 or the 1-per-stat variety mentioned below), but a good number of prestige classes. However, these prestige classes should have relatively low-loevel entry requirments (i.e., make it possible for a 2nd or 3rd level character to adopt the PrC).
Thus, perhaps the paladin PrC would only require a PC to have 1 level of fighter & 1 level of priest (effectively meeting the requirements at 2nd level, & gaining the PrC at 3rd level). Or, the druid PrC may have really low requirements so that a 1st level priest, with the right skill, AL, domain, &/or feat selection, can meet the requirements at 1st level & gain access by 2nd level.
Sorry for the long post--it's one of those thinking-as-I'm-writing posts. Hopefully my point came across (if I even put it in there
).
Desdichado
Hero
So, essentially, AFGNCAAP, you're saying you want d20 Modern re-jigged to fantasy, with a lot of prestige classes also re-jigged into Advanced classes? I could certainly see that...
Really, I think my ideal solution would be to have fewer classes, but very flexible classes that can easily explore different facets of the archetypes without having to be an all new class.
That'd be my perfect solution, I suppose. But as someone earlier said, there's gaming archetypes and there's fantasy archetypes and they don't necessarily coincide. If I were to go through the exercise suggested at the top, and create a "generic" set of classes for an alt.PHB, I'd probably do the following:
1) Fighter is a good, flexible class, but it lacks the ability to create a swashbuckler, unfortunately. Something similar to the Unfettered class from AU needs to slide in there somehow to cover all the bases. That gives us (so far) 2 classes.
2) Rogue is a great, skill-using class, but not necessarily the ideal one, being somewhat customized as a dungeoneering assassin. Perhaps something more along the lines of the WoT Wanderer or the Star Wars Scoundrel would fit the archetype of a skill user a little better for a truly more generic system. That'd give us a total of 3 classes. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the rogue, so I could potentially use it still.
3) There's no reason why divine and arcane magic need to be split the way they are except for D&D archeology that have traditionally made it that way. At a bare minimum, we need at least one magic-using dedicated class. That gives us four classes so far.
4) I like the concept of a woodsman as an archetype, but the ranger isn't really very archetypical. Something like the Midnight Wildlander that can be built in a variety of different ways is probably the way to go. Of course, you could simply make this an offshoot of the one of the other basic classes by giving them the Track feat and making Survival a class skill, so this isn't a truly necessary archetype. In fact, I think the one's we've already got are the only "must haves" -- but there's at least one other problem as I see it. Too few choices isn't very fun! There's also not the opportunity to create flavor by doing essentially a similar function but in a very different way (cleric vs druid, for example.)
In my ideal world, there'd be between 6-10 classes, and all of them would be very flexible; able to be built into a wide variety of archetypes without significant modification (i.e., if all I have to do is swap a few class skills around, that hardly needs a new class.)
Really, I think my ideal solution would be to have fewer classes, but very flexible classes that can easily explore different facets of the archetypes without having to be an all new class.
That'd be my perfect solution, I suppose. But as someone earlier said, there's gaming archetypes and there's fantasy archetypes and they don't necessarily coincide. If I were to go through the exercise suggested at the top, and create a "generic" set of classes for an alt.PHB, I'd probably do the following:
1) Fighter is a good, flexible class, but it lacks the ability to create a swashbuckler, unfortunately. Something similar to the Unfettered class from AU needs to slide in there somehow to cover all the bases. That gives us (so far) 2 classes.
2) Rogue is a great, skill-using class, but not necessarily the ideal one, being somewhat customized as a dungeoneering assassin. Perhaps something more along the lines of the WoT Wanderer or the Star Wars Scoundrel would fit the archetype of a skill user a little better for a truly more generic system. That'd give us a total of 3 classes. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the rogue, so I could potentially use it still.
3) There's no reason why divine and arcane magic need to be split the way they are except for D&D archeology that have traditionally made it that way. At a bare minimum, we need at least one magic-using dedicated class. That gives us four classes so far.
4) I like the concept of a woodsman as an archetype, but the ranger isn't really very archetypical. Something like the Midnight Wildlander that can be built in a variety of different ways is probably the way to go. Of course, you could simply make this an offshoot of the one of the other basic classes by giving them the Track feat and making Survival a class skill, so this isn't a truly necessary archetype. In fact, I think the one's we've already got are the only "must haves" -- but there's at least one other problem as I see it. Too few choices isn't very fun! There's also not the opportunity to create flavor by doing essentially a similar function but in a very different way (cleric vs druid, for example.)
In my ideal world, there'd be between 6-10 classes, and all of them would be very flexible; able to be built into a wide variety of archetypes without significant modification (i.e., if all I have to do is swap a few class skills around, that hardly needs a new class.)
Merlion
First Post
The idea of a systam with 3 or 4 "base" classes and a bunch of prestige/advanced classes is a nifty one..and about the only way I could see anything like that working. But I see 2 small problems with it.
The first one is a taste thing of mine. For me, for some classes, it would seem a trifle unrealistic. I want to be a woodsmen/hunter but first I have to become a warrior? I want to be a bard but first I have to be a rogue (or whatever)? That just seems a little unrealistic to me. In the real world, people go for the jobs they want. Now for some I could see it. Being an Acolyte and then a Priest or and Aprenetice, then a Mage (then perhaps a Conjurer or whatever).
The other is this: If you've got a system of say 4 base classes and loads of prestige/advanced classes like Ranger Bard Wizard Cleric Druid Paladin etc that can be achieved in the first few levels...arent you sort of defeating the purpose? You end up with the same classes, you just have to take 3 levels in a base class or classes first.
I'm just really curious as to what atracts people to those sort of systems though. Why people seem to prefer having a few base classes and shaping them into the archtypes, rather than having more classes for more archtypes. I also wonder why so many seem to think a number of archtypes are totaly invalid...like Bard Ranger Druid and Monk. Of course the monk thing is partialy cause the insisted on easternizing it for some reason.
As for the Cleric I agree with Joshua that the DND cleric is NOT a fantasy archtype...it IS a DNDism. But there is an archtype of the Priest, and definitly of the healing-focused mage type. But the DnD cleric with its tons of spells and goodly deal of combat ability is like some weird mesh of the Priest and the Holy Knight/Crusader archtypes.
The first one is a taste thing of mine. For me, for some classes, it would seem a trifle unrealistic. I want to be a woodsmen/hunter but first I have to become a warrior? I want to be a bard but first I have to be a rogue (or whatever)? That just seems a little unrealistic to me. In the real world, people go for the jobs they want. Now for some I could see it. Being an Acolyte and then a Priest or and Aprenetice, then a Mage (then perhaps a Conjurer or whatever).
The other is this: If you've got a system of say 4 base classes and loads of prestige/advanced classes like Ranger Bard Wizard Cleric Druid Paladin etc that can be achieved in the first few levels...arent you sort of defeating the purpose? You end up with the same classes, you just have to take 3 levels in a base class or classes first.
I'm just really curious as to what atracts people to those sort of systems though. Why people seem to prefer having a few base classes and shaping them into the archtypes, rather than having more classes for more archtypes. I also wonder why so many seem to think a number of archtypes are totaly invalid...like Bard Ranger Druid and Monk. Of course the monk thing is partialy cause the insisted on easternizing it for some reason.
As for the Cleric I agree with Joshua that the DND cleric is NOT a fantasy archtype...it IS a DNDism. But there is an archtype of the Priest, and definitly of the healing-focused mage type. But the DnD cleric with its tons of spells and goodly deal of combat ability is like some weird mesh of the Priest and the Holy Knight/Crusader archtypes.
Desdichado
Hero
But if your base classes are flexible enough, then you're not becoming a warrior to become a ranger -- that's just an metagame artifact of the character. You could still develop your concept the same way you always wanted by being a warrior with a lot of outdoor skills that later specializes via a ranger-like advanced class.
Off topic; you oughtta look at your sig file; the html tags aren't working, they're showing, which is all wrong. You should be able to get the same functionality out of vB code tags, though.
Off topic; you oughtta look at your sig file; the html tags aren't working, they're showing, which is all wrong. You should be able to get the same functionality out of vB code tags, though.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
You should be able to get the same thing from this code. Replace in every instance the use of the { and } with [ and ] though.Merlion said:
{center}{img}http://angelofdarkness.com/quiz/d20.jpg{/img}
{url=http://angelofdarkness.com/quiz/index.html}Which RPG system are you?{/url}
by {url=http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=darkangel65}Mr. Vimes{/url}{/center}
I don't know if you're supposed to have the image be a clickable link, though. If so, the code would look a little bit different. Here's the result; you chould be able to hit the reply button and then cut and paste the code directly into your signature file.
Similar Threads
