Archetypes Section

[Rawkstar]

Hey everyone, I'm kinda new here, but I wanted to add this to the main site somewhere. Basically, throughout the Fire Emblem series, there are many recycled character types and/or ideas recycled throughout the games. For example, there's almost always a trio of characters who can preform a triangle attack. There's almost always a Paladin who comes into play really early, and seems to have really good stats, but generally seem to have pretty bad growth rates which make them less than or equal to other characters later on. The list goes on and on. Here's a link to a bunch of known archetypes throughout the game, but this list ONLY relates to characters: Archetypes.

We can add there's always legendary weapons, common supports between character types, similar growth rates between similar character classes throughout the games, and so on. I know it isn't necessary, but it'd still make a nice addition to the site.

[Genuine Uncertainty]

I usually don't like making assumptions like this but I think most people in this site know that.

If this bites me hard, ouch.

[Parrhesia]

Half those archetypes aren't even... things.

[Mikado]

Notable Ests are:

Katarina (FE12)

wut?!

[VincentASM]

To be honest, I'm not keen on the ideas of an archetype section.

While I can't deny archetypes exist in the series, the concept of an archetype is very subjective and people can have widely varying views on what a particular archetype is and/or who fits into it.

At its worse, it can end up boiling down into archetypes that are based on rather obvious circumstances such as "a Myrmidon with low strength and high skill" or "the first Archer". Otherwise, they can also be dull lists that don't really share any useful information.

I believe it's not impossible to create an useful page, which highlights the more interesting aspects/ideas, but I think it would take a lot of effort. And since I'm a sceptic myself, I probably won't bother starting a page myself anytime soon : P

This is just my view, but a good place to get started might be the "official" archetypes, which have been mentioned in official texts (the Jagen, Pegasus/Triangle Atttack trio, Red/Green knights, Catria and possibly "the princess"). Although, be warned, some of these archetypes may differ slightly from the fan ones.

[Otherarrow]

Half those archetypes aren't even... things.

Indeed. The best part? This is the trimmed down version.

It was originally even worse.

If any sort of archetype list could work, it'd be talking about the ones actually mentioned officially, as mentioned. Anything else will just lead to bickering about if something counts or not.

[Rawkstar]

I knew most people wouldn't really agree with it, but it was worth a shot

If you guys do choose to do it for some odd reason though, I think we should go with what VincentASM wrote:

...I believe it's not impossible to create an useful page, which highlights the more interesting aspects/ideas, but I think it would take a lot of effort...This is just my view, but a good place to get started might be the "official" archetypes, which have been mentioned in official texts (the Jagen, Pegasus/Triangle Atttack trio, Red/Green knights, Catria and possibly "the princess"). Although, be warned, some of these archetypes may differ slightly from the fan ones.