Can we define the archetypes?

[zornwil]

Well, can we?

Let's just start with the "simple" one...brick.

What are the salient characteristics of the brick? What are the salient deficiencies? What are some characters we can all agree are bricks, even if high-level ones, since the more popular characters tend to be more experienced, mature, and diverse?

For all purposes, I would say we should use the 350 point character base in discussing the relationship of points and relative strengths.

Certainly high STR for a brick, the archetypical probably in the 40+ (?) range. My theory is that deficiencies are merely those things not on the priority list to spend. So what are other things an archetypical brick would spend points on? Okay, so toughness - some 40+ points in Damage Reduction, Armor, or the like. Or points traded off into the core brick powers - Density Increase is one.

I'm starting vague purposefully here. But if we can arrive at some sort of board standards for these archetypes, I think we could do a service to all for longer-term analysis. So what do you think?

[jackalope]

Not to kill the thread before it has a chance to bloom, but don't pages 69-80 of the Champions genre book already do an excellent job of defining the archetypes?

[Blue]

I don't believe in archetypism. It's not fair to assume that just because you're big and muscular you're bulletproof, and because you're small with a big head that you're a mentalist. Can't we all just get along!

Stomp out archetyping in our time!

[zornwil]

Not to kill the thread before it has a chance to bloom, but don't pages 69-80 of the Champions genre book already do an excellent job of defining the archetypes?
Uh.........

okay, be that way.

I'll go back and check, I haven't read it since it came out, but I do recall, even if barely, what you're talking about. I won't post anything untoward in terms of copyright, but I'll review to see if we can at least ask posters to confine themselves to those definitions.

Thanks, jackalope, great catch!

[Vorsch]

If i gm i ask a player what type of character they wish to play, as my players are inexperienced champion builders i design there characters. If my player is not allowed to say words like brick speester blaster cos they have to much baggage, then what?

Whole character sheets?

Brick was defined by champions to mean some one with superstrength and high defences, its a game definition..... and as such cant be argued with.

[Enforcer84]

Smack smack smack smack! Bad Lizard!

[Jeff T.]

I don't believe in archetypism. It's not fair to assume that just because you're big and muscular you're bulletproof, and because you're small with a big head that you're a mentalist. Can't we all just get along!

Stomp out archetyping in our time!I agree, but its a good starting point when you're trying to come up with a character concept or your GM is asking you "What type of character do you want to play?"

Also, when you're a member of a team, most players want to have control of a certain niche all to themselves. Archetypes help with that also.

[Jeff T.]

Uh.........

okay, be that way.

I'll go back and check, I haven't read it since it came out, but I do recall, even if barely, what you're talking about. I won't post anything untoward in terms of copyright, but I'll review to see if we can at least ask posters to confine themselves to those definitions.

Thanks, jackalope, great catch!
The pages in question do a pretty thorough job IMO. Each archetype pretty much gets a whole page to itself, listing main attributes and the typical skills/perks/talents/powers/disadvantages.

[zornwil]

I agree, but its a good starting point when you're trying to come up with a character concept or your GM is asking you "What type of character do you want to play?"

Also, when you're a member of a team, most players want to have control of a certain niche all to themselves. Archetypes help with that also.
To your point, archetypes are also often used to analyze relative combat efficiencies of powers and characteristics. And I am the FIRST to acknowledge the limitation of this in real play situations, but it is useful as a guideline nonetheless and to highlight at least potential shortcomings in the game design. What makes this analysis harder is when we sit around disagreeing on what an archetype even is, so...

...thx for the other comment, Starlord, re the Champions definitions. I think we should be using those, at least in this forum, for the analysis.

If you refuse to use archetypes as an analysis tool, then this is all irrelevant to you, so you need not chime in - but if you do wish to use them (which many are doing in practice), then I ask, can we agree on using the Champions definitions? I would think that would be the necessary starting point and not me using Hulk for a brick and Daredevil for a martial artist (for example) or other such personalized and vague examples.

[Zeropoint]

I think that archetypes are a very usefull tool for quickly conveying a rough idea of what a character can do. Granted, most characters will not fall exactly into an archetype, but it can be helpful to be able to say, "He's a really bricky brick" or "she's a flying speedster". Does that tell you everything you need to know about the character? No, of course not. Does it give you a rough idea of what their role in the group might be? Yes, and that's what archetypes are for.

[Blue]

I use archetypes all the time. Just making a minor joke.

I think they're useful in diagnosing team deficiencies. For decades it was "We have a fighter, a cleric, and two rogues, but no magic-user". The Superheroic equivalent... "We've got a brick, two blasters, a martial artist, and a gadgeteer, but no mentalist!"

Outside that, I do enjoy blurring the lines from time to time.

[Vorsch]

And exactly what descritions do you give your players?

Brick,blaster , mentalistist, power drainer, with flight and force field: Thats standard

[Vorsch]

Just weaker than the True

Brick

Blaster

Mentalist

power guy

[bubba smith]

i wonder has there been a time when a player unfamiliar with hero games jargon thought a"brick" was a not to bright character,as in th expression "thick as a brick"?

[Ian Mackinder]

i wonder has there been a time when a player unfamiliar with hero games jargon thought a"brick" was a not to bright character,as in th expression "thick as a brick"?

I am sure it has happened plenty of times and, of course, such Characters do not necessarily have to be "bricks' in the HERO system sense as well. Natural selection would play a part here - a 'slow' individual with loads of physical defence probably tends to have much better long-term survival odds than a not-too-bright speedster or blaster, for instance. Think about it.

[DocSamson]

IMHO there are only really 5 archetypes. I would define them by their role in the group (this is what makes the game different from the comics, character's in the game are filling a role, hence "roleplaying"), as follows (again in my humble opinion). The problem with matching up comic characters to these roles is that they often fit more than one (or sometimes many) role(s), which is harder to define in a team based game.

Brick - Defensive melee, protects the group by wading into combat and taking attacks. Often called Tanks in other games.

Martial Artist - Offensive melee, deals damage in melee. Also called Damage Dealers (I know, not very inspired) in some other games.

Energy Projector - Offensive Ranged, deals damage at range. Also called Nukers in some games.

Mentalist - Defensive Ranged, protects the group with buffs (like Force Walls or Healing) or debuffs (like Mind Control and Entangle). Also called Mezzers in some other games.

Gadgeteers - Skill based characters. Aid the group with skills in or out of combat. Sometimes called Brains or Skill Monkeys.

Metamorph, Powered Armor, Weaponmaster, Mystic, Speedster - These ATs often just describe the special effects of the character's powers. For example, Colossus may turn into metal, but on the X-men, he's the Brick. Hawkeye is the master of a weapon, but on the Avengers he is their Energy Projector. Speedster can also be applied to many ATs. For example, the Rhino runs fast but I'm pretty sure he's a Brick. Silver Surfer flies fast, but I would call him primarily an Energy Projector.

Patriot - I'm not sure how this is even called an AT. It's really more of a background element. Captain America, I would say, is a Martial Artist while Captain Britain is a Brick, for example.

[Vulcan]

Metamorph, Powered Armor, Weaponmaster, Mystic, Speedster - These ATs often just describe the special effects of the characters powers. For example, Colossus may turn into metal, but on a team he's the Brick. Hawkeye is the master of a weapon, but on the Avengers he is their Energy Projector. Speedster can also be applied to many ATs. For example, the Rhino runs fast but I'm pretty sure he's a Brick. Silver Surfer flies fast, but I would call him an Energy Projector.

I kinda agree with you on a lot of these, but there are a couple distinct roles these archetypes play that their more generalized bretheren do not.

First, the Speedster is a specific archetype all it's own. Your two examples (Rhino and Silver Surfer) are not actually speeders, they are respectively a brick and an energy projector with lots of movement.

A true speedster derives his primary offensive and defensive capabilites from the special effect of being fast - not just movement, but usually reaction as well.

Metamorph: Usually his powers fall into another category as well (Brick is the most common), but the effects are based on altering his form. This character may be very good at spying/infiltration based on his shapechanging. Not always (a werewolf is a metamorph type, after all), but sometimes.

Power Armor: Yeah, usually this one combines either brick or EP with gadgeteer.

Weaponmaster; Again, usually MA or EP combined with gadgeteer.

Mystic: While usually a combo EP/mentalist, the Mystic provides a whole different world of skills a standard EP or mentalist wouldn't. This makes it just as distinct as a gadgeteer, who is after all, likely a brick, MA, or EP with a lot of science/technical skills.

[Shoutybloke]

IMHO there are only really 5 archetypes. I would define them by their role in the group (this is what makes the game different from the comics, character's in the game are filling a role, hence "roleplaying"), as follows (again in my humble opinion). The problem with matching up comic characters to these roles is that they often fit more than one (or sometimes many) role(s), which is harder to define in a team based game.

Brick - Defensive melee, protects the group by wading into combat and taking attacks. Often called Tanks in other games.

Martial Artist - Offensive melee, deals damage in melee. Also called Damage Dealers (I know, not very inspired) in some other games.

Energy Projector - Offensive Ranged, deals damage at range. Also called Nukers in some games.

Mentalist - Defensive Ranged, protects the group with buffs (like Force Walls or Healing) or debuffs (like Mind Control and Entangle). Also called Mezzers in some other games.

Gadgeteers - Skill based characters. Aid the group with skills in or out of combat. Sometimes call Brains or Skill Monkeys.

Metamorph, Powered Armor, Weaponmaster, Mystic, Speedster - These ATs often just describe the special effects of the character's powers. For example, Colossus may turn into metal, but on the X-men, he's the Brick. Hawkeye is the master of a weapon, but on the Avengers he is their Energy Projector. Speedster can also be applied to many ATs. For example, the Rhino runs fast but I'm pretty sure he's a Brick. Silver Surfer flies fast, but I would call him primarily an Energy Projector.

Patriot - I'm not sure how this is even called an AT. It's really more of a background element. Captain America, I would say, is a Martial Artist while Captain Britain is a Brick, for example.

This may be true if we define champions as a purely tactical exercise, the way D&D 4 has been developed.
Champions is not a purely tactical exercise however. It's a medium for telling stories. There's more to being a hero than fighting villains. Some of the archetypes are defined more by tactical roles than others, but there's more to being a brick than "defensive melee". A brick embodies strength and toughness. Grond for instance is a brick, but he almost never defends anyone, or works in a team. You can have a brick who uses his strength in an inteligent manner, for instance taking out the stuctual walls of a villains lair to bury him under piles of rubble.

A martial artist does more than "offensive Melee". A martial artist does martial arts. He has the discipline to train as a fighter, constantly. He may have a teacher, or students of his own, all of whom provide plot hooks. He may fight defensively. An 8d6 martial throw may do nothing to a high def brick, but if the brick has a low SPD , he can't afford to lose all those half phases getting up.

There's more to Energy projectors than doing damage at range. Energy projectors manipulate energy. Think about what that means for a moment. The universe is made of two things- matter and energy. An energy projector with the Power skill and the right mindset can create all kinds of intereting effects, from blowing out lightbulbs and controlling computers to making an opponent float off into space by shutting off gravity


Mentalists: loads of mentalists with no range limitation on thier powers. mentalism is an incredibly versitile power set. Largly, mentalists are the information warriors of the super set. Mentalists can learn all your secrets, and plans, and generaly mess up your day without even having to enter combat.

Gadgeteers are also versitile. Yes, many of them are highly skilled, but not all of them. many gadgeteers use vastly powerful devices to be combat effective. The gadgeteer has the right tool for the job.

[CrosshairCollie]

At one point, for no real reason, I made a branching 'archetype tree', starting with the character, branching into things like Brick, Martial Artist, Energy Projector, then sub-branching (into Flying Brick, Groundpounder for bricks, Speedsters, Clubbers (normal damage MArtists) and Slashers (kill damage MArtists)), and so forth. I actually defined a mentalist as a subset of Energy Projector because, well, they do stuff at range.

[DocSamson]

First, the Speedster is a specific archetype all it's own. Your two examples (Rhino and Silver Surfer) are not actually speeders, they are respectively a brick and an energy projector with lots of movement.
While I don't disagree with this statement, it has been heavily debated in our group so I have a question. As far as the role the "pure speedster" (i.e. Flash, Quicksilver) performs in the group, what makes them different from a Martial Artist? IMHO, typically both are high offense (i.e. damage dealers), high DCV (fast or agile), and high OCV (martial artists and speedsters tend to be the natural foil for high DCV opponents).

A martial artist does more than "offensive Melee". A martial artist does martial arts. He has the discipline to train as a fighter, constantly. He may have a teacher, or students of his own, all of whom provide plot hooks. He may fight defensively. An 8d6 martial throw may do nothing to a high def brick, but if the brick has a low SPD , he can't afford to lose all those half phases getting up.
I agree with everything here and it provides wonderful roleplaying material, but I wouldn't say it defines the MAs role in a group.

[Vulcan]

Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.

I suppose my definition is in the FX of the powers. Martial Artist use skill/weapons, Bricks use STR/toughness, Speedsers use velocity; all to much the same result: Melee damage.

There is often a significant overlap in DEX/SPD/skill levels between speedsters and 'low DEF/High DCV' martial artists, but not all MA are built that way.

Case in point: Wolverine. Not hugely strong but REALLY tough. Offensive capability is a combination of skill and built-in weapons. I classify him as a 'high-DEF' martial artist.

I made a MA with '15 Iron Rings Kung-Fu', with 20/20 Armor on an activation roll and 'must be aware of attack (wears big iron rings on his forarms to block and hit with).

Anther MA I built had 15/15 Armor costs END "Chi-Gung".

A true speedster, on the other hand, has things like Desolid ('I vibrate out-of-phase with reality', or 'I'm not actually where I appear to be'), Damage reduction (I automatically roll with the impact), +5 DCV (I'm always dodging), that sorta thing. Attacks are based on Move-by/through, even if they're not bought that way (E-blast 'I run over there, hit him, and run back', Autofire HA 'I can hit him a LOT').

[Shoutybloke]

I agree with everything here and it provides wonderful roleplaying material, but I wouldn't say it defines the MAs role in a group.


Okay, lets examine a team of martial artists then

Sumotori, for instance, is a hawiian sumo wrestler. his combat tactic is to walk up to the biggest, toughest opponent, and start sumo wrestling with him. He uses the block and roll with punch manuvers to prevent damage, and throws the opponet whenever he tries to hit someone else. I.E his role is "defensive melee"

Mad jack McMadd, hardest man in and defender of glasgow, uses a classic bob and weave routine to set up his opponents for destruction through headbutting and right hooks. His role is "offensive melee"

Crosshairs is a Maori who, through a series of events that are not actually as interesting as they should be, ended up studying An-Chi in China for ten years. He can turn throw any object with deadly accuracy. His role is Offensive ranged

Master Han met crosshairs in china, and the two became good friends, though neither has been able to learn the others techniques. Han uses esoteric manuvers such as The seven strikes of serenety (an entangle) and the weakening blow of Han ( a strength drain) to control debuff enemies.

No one knows where poppy comes from. A serene young woman, she is highly skilled in nearly every skill asscoicated with ninjitsu.

They fight crime.

The point is, this is champions, not D&D. Whatever character you decide to build, your role in the group is what you decide it to be. You are not limited to a narrowe range of tactical choices baseds on what "class" sounded cool when the GM piched the game to you. The archetypes are not a set of straightjackets, but rather hooks onto which you can use to organise ideas about your character.
D&D 4 took a bunch of ideas from MMO's and it works well- for D&D. It's not the one true way of roleplaying.

[Vulcan]

Excellent point there. Different archeypes can often handle different roles in the party. Although calling Crosshair a martial artist is splitting hairs - he sounds like an energy projector with 'extreme skill' as an FX. But that's just me.

The point of the archetype, then, is more for general capabilities and flavor than closely-defined party roles.

So:

Bricks tend to be very strong and tough, melee-oriented characters.

Energy Projectors tend to do damage at range.

Gadgeteers do a variety of things using technology. Techological skills are common.

Power Armor is a subset of gadgeteers. Where gadgeteers tend to have a variety of gadgets one to a power, power-armor characters tend to build all their powers into a single gadget - the suit of power armor.

Martial Artists tend to be skill-based, melee-oriented characters.

Mentalists primarily use the various mental powers rather than 'standard' effects.

Metamorphs either use Shapechange or Multiform as the basis of their powers, and are commonly (but not always, or even primarily) Bricks or Martial Artists in addition to Metamorphs.

Mystics tend to be mentalists/energy projectors, with powers based on magical and mystical effects. Magical skills are common.

Patriots are unique in that they are defined not by their power concepts, but their personality concepts. They are living examples of an ideal, often expressed or based around a nationality. They can use any other archetype in addition to the Patriot.

Speedsters tend to be melee-based characters based on the FX of extreme speed and velocity.

Weaponmasters are either Martial Artists (melee) or Energy Projectors (ranged) whose powers are based on the mastery of one or more weapons. Some overlap with Gadgeteers (at least where weapons are concerned) is possible.


Comments? Criticisms?

[Vulcan]

D&D 4 took a bunch of ideas from MMO's and it works well- for D&D. It's not the one true way of roleplaying.

I would argue that it works well for D&D. I think 4E D&D is atrocious. But that's me.

But I agree with the rest of your points. Archetypes are the beginning of a character (at best), not the whole.

[DocSamson]

The point is, this is champions, not D&D. Whatever character you decide to build, your role in the group is what you decide it to be. You are not limited to a narrowe range of tactical choices baseds on what "class" sounded cool when the GM piched the game to you. The archetypes are not a set of straightjackets, but rather hooks onto which you can use to organise ideas about your character.
You have made a good point, the above Martial Artists are certainly capable filling multiple grooup roles. However, as a GM and a player, I would be wary of a character who could fill too many of these roles at the same time as it may decrease the fun for the other players. For example, I would say your Sumo Wrestler can certainly fill the role of the Brick in the group, but if his damage output was the same as your Boxer and your Marksman, I would have issue with the character in the game.

But I agree with the rest of your points. Archetypes are the beginning of a character (at best), not the whole.
Definately. IMHO the ATs should be tools to help define group roles, not restrict them.

[Shoutybloke]

Where I come from, bricks tend to have big dice, but lower speed. Usually a "classic brick" tops out at 18d6 (pushed 60 str haymaker) and spd 5, where as a "classic martial artist" will be doing 12d6 offensive strikes (20 str, 4 dcs) but with better cvs and SPD 6-7. The matial artist dominates against multiple, low cv opponents, where manuvers like sweep come into their own, whereas the brick is more usefull against high def targets, where the big dice are needed to punch through the protection.

[DocSamson]

Where I come from, bricks tend to have big dice, but lower speed. Usually a "classic brick" tops out at 18d6 (pushed 60 str haymaker) and spd 5, where as a "classic martial artist" will be doing 12d6 offensive strikes (20 str, 4 dcs) but with better cvs and SPD 6-7. The matial artist dominates against multiple, low cv opponents, where manuvers like sweep come into their own, whereas the brick is more usefull against high def targets, where the big dice are needed to punch through the protection.
Well put, we do the same. Our Bricks tend to be high dice but lower in damage over the course of a turn (due to lower CVs and SPD) than a Martial Artist or Energy Projector.

[Egyptoid]

the archetypes from D20 Spies
usually make more sense then the comic book ones:

Faceman, Techie, Killer, Scout, Wizard, Medic, Box-Man
Fixer, Pointman, Gunslinger, Wheelman, Snooper YMMV

There's a subtle difference, more towards functions performed
rather than powers possessed.

[Shoutybloke]

While I don't disagree with this statement, it has been heavily debated in our group so I have a question. As far as the role the "pure speedster" (i.e. Flash, Quicksilver) performs in the group, what makes them different from a Martial Artist? IMHO, typically both are high offense (i.e. damage dealers), high DCV (fast or agile), and high OCV (martial artists and speedsters tend to be the natural foil for high DCV opponents).


In a word, Mobility:
A supeheroic speedster is rareley more than a half move away from where he needs to be in a tactical situation. Even if he is, he can still use the Full move manuvers more effectively than other archetypes, generaly speaking. Never underestimate the power of being able to cross the battlemat in a half move.

[DocSamson]

In a word, Mobility:
A supeheroic speedster is rareley more than a half move away from where he needs to be in a tactical situation. Even if he is, he can still use the Full move manuvers more effectively than other archetypes, generaly speaking. Never underestimate the power of being able to cross the battlemat in a half move.
I will use your versatility post above as a inspiration. I have seen Martial Arts movies (Fealess Fighters anyone?) where Masters could make leaps that would make even a Speedster nervous (and at half the point cost!). I have also seen Martial Artists that can walk up walls (Five Deadly Venoms) and even walk through them (Kung Fu). I'm not sure mobility is really a seperating factor between the ATs.

[edit] For that matter I'm not sure mobility really seperates any of the ATs. Though many of my examples below would actually fit into multiple ATs, I think many would agree they primarily fit into one.

Superman - as Strength and Invulnerability (the man of steel) are his defining attributes, I would say he is mostly a Brick. He (and Captain Marvel and Martian Manhunter) have been portrayed as being as fast as the Flash (a pure speedster) at various times.

The Hulk - Again I think most would agree he is a Brick, however, his 5 mile leap is one of the bigger movement powers in Marvel. Nightcrawler - A Martial Artist that can teleport 2-3 miles instantly. Silver Surfer - An Energy Projector with Flight nearing the speed of light. I think all 3 of these characters are more mobile than Quicksilver (a pure speedster), not to mention they each could attack a Flying opponent while in some situtaions Quicksilver could not.

I think Super Speed is a super cool special effect for Running, High CVs, Autofire Attacks, ect., but I don't think it's a whole AT (and IMHO it fits nicely as a subset of the Martial Artist AT along with (non-MA) super agility characters like Spider-Man, Beast, and Nightcrawler.)

[Shoutybloke]

If you want a highly mobile martial artist, it's possible. The combat movement power from dark champions is excellent for this (extra movement, only for half moves- basicly a full move instead of a half one). When you start putting 60 active points into a movement power for your martial artist, or 60 pts into martial arts style stuff for your speedster, you're getting into mixed archetype territory
What we havn't mentioned in this thread is that it's possible to build characters who are tactical all rounders. Look at spiderman. He's clearly stronger than any normal human could hope to be, he has a unique fighting style (martial arts) although he's never had a days formal training in his life, he uses ranged attacks, has a powerful pschic ability, can move around the city at frankly ridicuous speeds and frequently if irregularly he builds gadgets for specific perposes. Shoehorn him into an archetype. Seriously. I get the feeling that if a player turned up with a character like that to some of the games on this thread, they'd get the sheet torn up.
I don't think building generalist characters is much of a problem. If the build is too efficient, they can overshadow the specialists, but you need in that case to get the generalists player to tone it down, and help the specialist with his build. It's not a concept problem.

Anyway, speedsters and martial artists, I see where you're coming from. The difference is largly one of flavour and subtle nuances, rather than the two having completly different roles.