What characters best exemplify what archetypes to you?

[Anymage]

Something struck me about one of the latest casters vs. martials discussions, that many people's definitions seem to be axiomatic; the wizard is the wizard and should be defined by the D&D wizard, the fighter is the fighter and should be similarly defined as such, etc. (And "wizards" should be a general caster stand in while "fighter" should be the general martial stand in.) Which got me thinking that a lot of the logic is intrinsically circular.

So instead I'm going to ask. What characters from fiction do you think should be archetypes that should be strived after, whether those are reflected by current classes or not. I'd be curious what characters you think would ideally form a good party for various power/level ranges, and how you'd like to see those expressed better.

[KorvinStarmast]

What characters from fiction do you think should be archetypes that should be strived after, whether those are reflected by current classes or not. I'd be curious what characters you think would ideally form a good party for various power/level ranges, and how you'd like to see those expressed better.

Rogue ~ Gray Mouser but I challenge the frame of your question.

Player characters are their own unique fictional personage. Even if Conan or Fafhrd or Gandalf or Aragorn or Elric or Batman inspires the various archetypes and tropes in the game, each character is their own unique hero (or antihero) (unless they die along the way) who, if they live to high level becomes the topic of their own unique story and legends because they accomplished unlikely, daring, and legendary deeds. (Kornpohn the Konkweror (and his friends {insert names here}) defeated the red dragon Tabaskax, and has mounted its head over the door to his keep ... and so on).

In other words, making your PC into Geralt of Rivia is, to my mind, utterly missing the point of D&D.

The character you make is unique and uniquely yours, and also uniquely alive in the campaign world that they exist in, such as dear old Derelix (my first ever druid) and the incorrigible Hayseed "Bud" Lindensap (the highest level thief I ever played in AD&D 1e).

[Dienekes]

So, this is a weird thing. Because there is "what character fits what I think of an archetype" and "what character do I think fits a D&D class that shares a name with it?" Those are really two different things.

For the most clear example in my head, Rangers and Barbarians.

When I think of a Ranger, I think of Aragorn and Faramir, Jon Snow (yes I know he was a steward), Will Treaty, Tarzan, Robin Hood, Beastmaster, the Dogman, and surprisingly Jayne Cobb from Firefly (at least in the first half of the season when he was the party tracker, sniper, and had a keen perception of everyone around him... it's almost impressive how fast he turned into just a brute).

But none of them play like a D&D Ranger. Hell most don't know any magic, and it's debatable whether Aragorn ever casts a spell or if he just knew more about healing because of his time with the Elves. They're far far away from Hunter's Mark and Zephyr Strike. The only character I really think of as a D&D Ranger is Drizzt really. And I've never even read a Dragonlance book. Maybe Geralt also fits, with his list of minor spells and empowered physiology.

For Barbarian, I want to say Conan, Red Sonja, Fafhrd, Rudd Threetrees, and Tormund Giantsbane. But again, a D&D Barbarian is defined by their Rage and, well Conan gets angry sometimes but that's about it. Really the character I consider most accurately portrayed as a D&D Barbarian is Logan Ninefingers who's battle persona is a monster and to a much lesser extent, Rek. From myth we can add Cu Chulainn.

Paladin's are Galahad, that's pretty much the sum of them.

Rogue is pretty much Locke Lamora for me. Grey Mouser, also Robin Hood.

When I think wizards, I really do tend to think of stuff a lot less powerful than the D&D stuff. Merlin, Gandalf, and the like really just run around inspiring people and cast maybe a handful of really potent spells over the course of the story. But then I like weird low magic settings in my fiction. Stuff where magic happens, but it involves sacrificing people to power it up or weird hour long rituals that involve pieces of flesh from a fallen god, or whatever other nonsense. Which again, is pretty far away from a D&D caster.

[Anymage]

Rogue ~ Gray Mouser but I challenge the frame of your question ... each character is their own unique hero (or antihero) (unless they die along the way) who, if they live to high level becomes the topic of their own unique story and legends because they accomplished unlikely, daring, and legendary deeds.

The question isn't what sort of grand deeds your characters end up pulling off. That's dependent on the campaign world both broadly (adventures in Eberron will be different from adventures in Dragonlance), and specifically (your characters will go on their own unique adventures.)

The question is what character feats from fiction, from fantasy to comics to whatever, make you think that's the sort of thing a certain sort of character should do. Trying to think where the rules do help enable certain archetype fantasies, vs. where they fall short.

[Psyren]

Something struck me about one of the latest casters vs. martials discussions, that many people's definitions seem to be axiomatic; the wizard is the wizard and should be defined by the D&D wizard, the fighter is the fighter and should be similarly defined as such, etc. (And "wizards" should be a general caster stand in while "fighter" should be the general martial stand in.) Which got me thinking that a lot of the logic is intrinsically circular.

So instead I'm going to ask. What characters from fiction do you think should be archetypes that should be strived after, whether those are reflected by current classes or not. I'd be curious what characters you think would ideally form a good party for various power/level ranges, and how you'd like to see those expressed better.

I'd argue the wizard is based on Prospero from Shakespeare; a curmudgeonly magic user who explicitly learned his art through studying books, and who predates D&D by... well, centuries.

Prospero's magic is also pretty broad, even by D&D's lofty standards. His feats (either shown during the play or expressed verbally by himself) include the following:

- Scrying on or otherwise divining his brother's boat at sea
- Controlling/changing the weather
- Blocking out the sun / creating darkness
- Turning invisible
- Crafting/enchanting magic items (his robes/mantle)
- Throwing a illusory masquerade ball
- Causing earthquakes
- Throwing lightning
- Animating the dead
- Charming and dominating humans and monsters
- Dispelling / breaking existing enchantments/curses
- Summoning and binding spirits to his service

He's got all 7 schools of magic in there.

[Chronos]

It's tough to find accurate representations of a D&D wizard in fiction, because spellcasting classes are so tightly tied to the game's mechanics. I'd agree that Prospero is pretty close, though. Harry Dresden, from Jim Butcher's books, also works (though we know more about his mechanics, and they're definitely different). Dr. Strange, maybe?

For rogues, I'd say that the big three, that the class is consciously based on, are Fritz Lieber's Grey Mouser, Vance's Cugel the Clever, and Tolkien's Bilbo Baggins. Perhaps surprisingly, I'd also include Sherlock Holmes: He probably wasn't an inspiration for the class, but he fits remarkably well.

Fighters, there are lots of different examples, because the D&D fighter class by itself is pretty generic, and highly customizable. Lancelot, Hercules, Achilles, Thorin and most of his company, Boromir, Inigo Montoya, Chewbacca, most of the cast of Schlock Mercenary... Most of the folks who are defined by using weapons, really.

Rangers, I don't actually think of Aragorn, even though he's called one. My first thought is Natty Bumppo, from James Fenimore Cooper's books. Princess Mononoke is another good fit. I know there are a few more I could think of, but they're not coming to mind right now...

Paladins, the prototype is definitely Galahad, as already mentioned. She-Ra, from the old cartoons, is another, though she might be cheating, since she was very clearly based on the D&D paladin. Likewise for Bahzel Bahnakson, from David Weber's Oath of Swords and sequels. Some of the Greek heroes also leaned pretty heavily on the "champion of a god" angle, and I'd also include Don Quixote (at least, in the world that he thought he inhabited).

[tokek]

The Wizard class is Vancian. Just read something like the Lyonesse trilogy by Jack Vance.

And yes the most powerful magicians in that are ludicrously powerful.

Spontaneous casting from a list of prepared spells was a step away from strict Vancian magic but the roots of it are still there.

[KorvinStarmast]

Trying to think where the rules do help enable certain archetype fantasies, vs. where they fall short.

That isn't worth my effort, TBH, since that too is campaign dependent. (But I think you'll get plenty of responses that satisfy you, so enjoy! )

[Ulsan Krow]

An archetypal fighter is Gimli. Gimli is pure fighter, 0 multiclass. Pure Champion too being straight aggression without too much tactical variation or trickery, especially since Gimli has multiple fighting styles with a single axe, dual wielding axes, and throwing axes.

Hawkeye is a pure Arcane Archer, with a single reflavor of magic to trick arrows.

If anyone watched that Netflix Korean series Sweet Home, Jung Jae Heon is a perfect example of a pure Samurai in a modern day setting. Swordsman with a katana, very composed demeanour, and he literally uses the Strength Before Death feat when he gets mortally wounded. His arm gets lopped off and he's breathing his last breath, he literally tackles the monster and starts wailing on him action surge style, very cinematic.



For Rogues, Dread Pirate Roberts is the Swashbuckler, Sherlock Holmes is obviously the Inquisitive, Littlefinger is a Mastermind, and there are a hell lot of fictional Assassins and Thieves.



For Wizards, its a bit difficult because most magic in most fiction is not Vancian and most 'Wizards' tend to be Sorcerers anyway with inherent magic, like Harry Potter has elements of both Wizards and Sorcerers but is definitionally a Sorcerer with magical bloodlines.

One funny case of a pure Wizard I know is from Team Fortress 2, Merasmus is 100% Wizard. https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Merasmus

Can cast Teleport, Greater Teleport, Plane Shift, Clone, Project Image, Fireball, Summon Aberration, Meteor Swarm, Gate, Reerse Gravity and many more. He has his magic contained in his spellbooks he casts them from.

So he learns magic, knows dozens of different spells, seems to have limits on how many times he can cast spells, particularly the more powerful ones. Very DnD wizard like.





A cleric... clerics are even harder to find and the distinction between Paladins and Clerics in fiction is very blurry unlike the cut and clear DnD differentiation. {Scrubbed}

[KorvinStarmast]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Yeah, particularly if you take a look at cleric spells in the original game. {Scrubbed} also involved a bit in politics, which as a cleric goes up in level seems to be inevitable. (Or maybe that's just in the games that I have played).

[Trask]

As a self-professed martial enjoyer, I find that that others of my kind are split broadly along two lines when it comes to archetypes and character inspiration. Those who want their characters to resemble fantasy heroes of old, and those who want their characters to be more inspired by Marvel and anime. The former values features that increase martial power without changing their sword swinging, mighty thews aesthetic (although I think sometimes spellcasting is ok with this crowd, even the AD&D paladin and ranger got spells at high levels) and the latter is more flexible about what their "martial" characters can do; cast spells, summon ghosts, leap buildings, turn super saiyan, etc. (Of course this isn't split neatly, there's plenty of degrees and cross pollination but I'm speaking generally)

I know that for myself, I tend towards the former camp a bit, but I'm not a zealot. I'm ok with barbarians using their totem magic to talk to animals and fly around a bit, I love the eldritch knight and paladin (my favorite class). But I have to admit that I wish WotC would let up on the extremely magic heavy subclasses for traditionally martial characters. Barbarians mutating into animals and spewing wild magic alongside fighters leaving behind "echoes" (whatever the heck THAT means) and wielding magic runes is fine...but it just isn't how I personally see and more importantly feel the identity for these classes in my heart.

It might be a generational divide, but the same contention arose with the Tome of Battle in 3rd edition.

[Chronos]

Quoth tokek:

The Wizard class is Vancian. Just read something like the Lyonesse trilogy by Jack Vance.

Eh, not really? Among the wizards who were using the "memorize a spell and then cast it once and forget it" mechanic, you had some bragging about how they were the most powerful ever, because they could hold a whole FIVE spells in their memory at once. That's far weaker than a D&D wizard. And then there were also other wizards who were ludicrously powerful god-kings, as powerful as a high-level D&D wizard with an extremely permissive DM (i.e., far more powerful than the vast majority of D&D wizards), but those wizards basically just ignored the "memorize a spell and then cast it once and forget it" mechanic, instead using things like "magic items that cast Wish at will without limits". There's no "Vancian magic" above the equivalent of about third level, and there are no wizards at all in the broad space between 3rd level and 20th.

[Trask]

Eh, not really? Among the wizards who were using the "memorize a spell and then cast it once and forget it" mechanic, you had some bragging about how they were the most powerful ever, because they could hold a whole FIVE spells in their memory at once. That's far weaker than a D&D wizard. And then there were also other wizards who were ludicrously powerful god-kings, as powerful as a high-level D&D wizard with an extremely permissive DM (i.e., far more powerful than the vast majority of D&D wizards), but those wizards basically just ignored the "memorize a spell and then cast it once and forget it" mechanic, instead using things like "magic items that cast Wish at will without limits". There's no "Vancian magic" above the equivalent of about third level, and there are no wizards at all in the broad space between 3rd level and 20th.

Not to speak for Tokek but I don't think the wizard class is Vancian in the sense that it perfectly simulates Jack Vance's characters, but if you read something like Lyonesse the similarities between the flavor and popular perception of wizards and the spellcasters of his books are striking. Powerful, aloof, sometimes callous adventuring types who wield cosmic power and engage in struggles for power above the mundane world, jealous of their books and scrolls and working towards inscrutable ends. Some evil, some good, but all distinctly apart from regular society, the wizards of Lyonesse are much like a secret society. Very much NOT your Gandalf type, and definitely feels like reading the exploits of a D&D wizard.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's no "Vancian magic" above the equivalent of about third level, and there are no wizards at all in the broad space between 3rd level and 20th.

Not really. The spells in Vance's fiction tended to be very powerful, but also very few could be carried at a time. Level 1 and 2 spells in D&D aren't all that powerful (though a few can be, such as hold person). Turjan of Mir provides but one example, in terms of the spells that he carried-it was 4 for that story, and he encountered some others who could cast more powerful spells than he.

"Vancian" magic as adapted to D&D included the use of magic items as a supplement to the spells. (See treasure tables, OD&D, for details).
It's a prime motivation to adventure:
(1) get more spells by finding them and (2) find those magical items that do things and (3) get enough gold/xp to advance (4) other reasons not listed in the interest of brevity

FWIW, "Vancian" magic in the original game included a treatment of how to make magic items. You could research a new spell if you spent a lot of time and money. To make thing I recall that you had to be a wizard (11th)

Spoiler: scrolls

Show

(Now my AD&D and D&D and Dragon Mag memory seems to be fusing, I recall that at some point you didn't have to be level 11 to write a scroll, but at the moment can't find it ...we interpreted p 32 of monsters and treasures to mean that you could begin making your own scrolls at level 6, but that may not have been a universal interpretation)

[Sigreid]

Not really. The spells in Vance's fiction tended to be very powerful, but also very few could be carried at a time. Level 1 and 2 spells in D&D aren't all that powerful (though a few can be, such as hold person). Turjan of Mir provides but one example, in terms of the spells that he carried-it was 4 for that story, and he encountered some others who could cast more powerful spells than he.

"Vancian" magic as adapted to D&D included the use of magic items as a supplement to the spells. (See treasure tables, OD&D, for details).
It's a prime motivation to adventure:
(1) get more spells by finding them and (2) find those magical items that do things and (3) get enough gold/xp to advance (4) other reasons not listed in the interest of brevity

FWIW, "Vancian" magic in the original game included a treatment of how to make magic items. (But you had to make a few levels to earn that ability: IIRC Scrolls at 7, I'll need to go and check, and Wizard (11th) for a lot of other stuff).

Early D&D also cost you significant amounts of xp to make a magic item at a time when wizards already levelled the slowest. One of the limiting factors to balance it was how long it took to rebuild your power when you spend it. Another was how much longer it took you to gain new levels of power than the thief or fighter. Your 5th level wizard was likely still adventuring with his 7th level fighter and 9th level thief friends that he started out with.

[Christew]

I'd argue the wizard is based on Prospero from Shakespeare; a curmudgeonly magic user who explicitly learned his art through studying books, and who predates D&D by... well, centuries.

Wizard is a bit of a sticky wicket. While being a strong archetype, it isn't really depicted in fiction very often (except perhaps in piecemeal fashion). Prospero is definitely a solid reference. More modernly, I was thinking of:
- Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell (definitely some fey pact stuff here but does a decent job at book study as a source of magic)
- Willow Ufgood (highlight on arcane focus and verbal components)
- Merlin of Amber (decent depiction of prepared "spells")

[KorvinStarmast]

Early D&D also cost you significant amounts of xp

To make items?
Not XP, GP. XP costs were later. (I have Men and Magic open at the moment, the cost is in GP not XP).

to make a magic item at a time when wizards already levelled the slowest.

Are you thinking back to AD&D or BX? I think it might have started in AD&D, but I'd need to dig into that stuff. I know it was a thing in 3.x.

Another was how much longer it took you to gain new levels of power than the thief or fighter. Your 5th level wizard was likely still adventuring with his 7th level fighter and 9th level thief friends that he started out with.

Yeah, thieves and clerics both leveled faster.

[Corian]

Monks are obviously inspired by Bruce Lee and earlier Kung Fu stories, but my archetype monks are the Bloodguards (more generally Haruchai) from Donaldson's Covenant series.

[Ulsan Krow]

Monk is nice

Archetypal monk is just Eastern wuxia **** in general, not really specifically Bruce Lee in my mind



Four Elements the most no brainer archetype of all time

Drunken Fist based on Jackie Chan's Wong Fei Hung from Drunken Master

Shadow is based on ninjas in general

Long Death, I have no idea what the hell it was originally inspired by, the flavor and mechanics feel pretty vampiric so probably any vampire that is mildly more supernatural than usual that can extract vitality bite style, and hand out death magic like so. Are Eastern vampires like this?

Sun Soul not really obvious to me whether or not it is indeed meant to be a Dragonball proxy.

[RSP]

Having watched the new She-Ra, I thought she’d be fantastically portrayed as a re-fluffed Barbarian: instead of anger-driven, she does her transformation into She-Ra as her Rage mechanic.

That might be off mark of what the OP wanted, though.

[Chronos]

I never played in 1st edition, but in 2nd edition, wizards would actually gain XP from creating magic items. The catch was that making items could require metaphysically-difficult ingredients like "a pint of despair", or "a flower's laugh", or the like (as well as things that were more mundanely difficult or expensive, like a dragon's heart or a pound of saffron).

[KorvinStarmast]

I never played in 1st edition, but in 2nd edition, wizards would actually gain XP from creating magic items. The catch was that making items could require metaphysically-difficult ingredients like "a pint of despair", or "a flower's laugh", or the like (as well as things that were more mundanely difficult or expensive, like a dragon's heart or a pound of saffron).

Or saffron pounded by a beating dragon's heart.
I honestly think that it was a 3e thing; you got XP from magic items when you acquired they through adventuring in AD&D 1e. Checking PHB and DMG from 1e to see if I am not recalling correctly.

OK: AD&D 1e DMG: at level 7 you can start creating scrolls and/or potions.

Spoiler: ore details

Show

Clerics and Druids needed to be level 11, Magic Users 12 (Why?) Illusionists 11 to make other magic items.
Need to be an assassin of level 9 or higher to manufacture poison.
Illusionists don't use the Enchant an Item spell, they use Major Creation.
Wizards use Enchant an Item.
The permanency spell was involved in a lot of item creation.
You have to rest after making one.

Example XP award of an item:
Potion of Fire resistance offers an XP award of 250 XP. (So it cost 250 GP + time and materials) to make.
Alchemy Jug awards 3000 XP, so it cost 3000 GP (+ time and materials) to make.

Yeah, the rules on this are/were kind of complicated.
Enchant an Item was a pretty complicated spell, but it did not cost XP to enchant an item.

The permanency spell, however, cost the spell caster a point of constitution.

[tokek]

Not really. The spells in Vance's fiction tended to be very powerful, but also very few could be carried at a time. Level 1 and 2 spells in D&D aren't all that powerful (though a few can be, such as hold person). Turjan of Mir provides but one example, in terms of the spells that he carried-it was 4 for that story, and he encountered some others who could cast more powerful spells than he.

I did not say that it was effectively a D&D set of novels, its certainly not that. But the scholarly style of magic, the emphasis on being intelligent enough to learn the mental exercises required and so forth do fit. Also the sheer number and variety of what look like polymorph related spells in use.

They even have a form of magic that is on-demand and called "cantraps" in-character inside at least one of the books. It has a clear verbal and somatic component, although one of the somatic components is a certain tilt of the chin rather than requiring hand movements like in D&D.

[KorvinStarmast]

I did not say that it was effectively a D&D set of novels, its certainly not that. But the scholarly style of magic, the emphasis on being intelligent enough to learn the mental exercises required and so forth do fit. Also the sheer number and variety of what look like polymorph related spells in use.

They even have a form of magic that is on-demand and called "cantraps" in-character inside at least one of the books. It has a clear verbal and somatic component, although one of the somatic components is a certain tilt of the chin rather than requiring hand movements like in D&D.

Yes to all of the above.

[Chronos]

Noticed another example for a wizard, while reading the Sunday comics yesterday: The Wizard of Id.

[sithlordnergal]

May I suggest Jedi and Sith as powerful Wizards/Sorcerers. Yes, they do have a Sorcerous origin, but they're a bit more Wizardly in how they learn their power. I.E. through intense study, practice, and researching. Heck, the Sith typically hid most of their knowledge in Holocrons for other Sith to find and learn from, similar to a spell book. And Star Wars is a surprisingly high power setting. On the Light side you have things like healing, energy manipulation, mind control, telekinesis, and illusions. Dark side users can generate entire storms of lightning, devour the life force of entire worlds, transfer their soul/essence to new bodies or bind it to specific items, and more.

Being able to conjure an illusion of a fleet, or create a storm of Force Lightning strong enough to EMP entire frigates while doing no harm to your allies would certainly be on par with high level magic.

[Sigreid]

Arutha from the Rift War Saga is, to me the apotome of the natural born prince. Intelligent, charismatic, and willing to do literally whatever is necessary to fulfill his duty as prince of his people. Regardless of what it costs him.

[Chronos]

Using Feist's books for this is kind of cheating, since they started as an RPG campaign to begin with.

[Trask]

May I suggest Jedi and Sith as powerful Wizards/Sorcerers. Yes, they do have a Sorcerous origin, but they're a bit more Wizardly in how they learn their power. I.E. through intense study, practice, and researching. Heck, the Sith typically hid most of their knowledge in Holocrons for other Sith to find and learn from, similar to a spell book. And Star Wars is a surprisingly high power setting. On the Light side you have things like healing, energy manipulation, mind control, telekinesis, and illusions. Dark side users can generate entire storms of lightning, devour the life force of entire worlds, transfer their soul/essence to new bodies or bind it to specific items, and more.

Being able to conjure an illusion of a fleet, or create a storm of Force Lightning strong enough to EMP entire frigates while doing no harm to your allies would certainly be on par with high level magic.

I feel that the Jedi more inclined to Wisdom (and perhaps Charisma) and the Sith more to Intelligence/Charisma. Jedi focus almost entirely on self discipline and religious-like contemplation of the Force feels very "Cleric-y" to me.

[sithlordnergal]

I feel that the Jedi more inclined to Wisdom (and perhaps Charisma) and the Sith more to Intelligence/Charisma. Jedi focus almost entirely on self discipline and religious-like contemplation of the Force feels very "Cleric-y" to me.

They do have a more Cleric-y relationship to the Force. And their Force powers actually mirror more Cleric spells than Wizard spells, what with their use of buffs/debuffs over direct damage, and preference for divination techniques. Almost makes me want to make a Kensi Monk/Cleric and use that as a Jedi.