I think most of them are pretty self-explanatory- warriors are the bread-and-butter axe-and-sword tank kind of profession, thieves are your rogue type, elementalists are your mage type. Guardians would be the white knight/paladin hybridized a bit with a cleric, rangers are your typical rugged wilderness rogue with aspirations of warriordom, hybridized a bit with a druid, and necros are the edgy dark/blood mage type (especially in GW1). Mesmers and engineers are the only ones without clear parallels, I feel. None of them entirely fit the mold either- thieves have magic, elementalists are flexible but not as versatile as your standard RPG mage, and so on.
That’s the thing about archetypes- I’ve always felt they’re an attempt to force square pegs into round holes.
(edited by Aaron Ansari.1604)
So, I don’t know where else to put this. (Not in the profession subforums that’s for sure – they’re too busy crying about their changes [I think. Meh, what do I know?])
Anyway, when comparing the Professions of GW2 to normal fantasy archetypes, where would the profession fall into? Like, a Guardian would be a Cleric or a Paladin or a Crusader or whatever.
Engineers would be alchemists and stuffs. Maybe they could even be modern day hunters .(you know, in Urban Fantasy people would use guns and gadgets and elixirs and crap.)
The classes don’t generally have hard arch-types. Because the archtypes will be dependant on many factors including player race, weapon, and personal preference.
e.g.: A ranger could be a scout or classic ranger for humans, beast master or scout for charr, hunter for norn, biologist for asura, warden for sylvari.
And of course there will be a lot of overlap just in those racial tendancies. That’s before we account for human hunters, sylvari scouts, etc. etc.
tldr: The classes don’t generally have hard lore like they do in other fantasy universes. So there is a lot of wiggle room for a lot of different arch types in each individual class.