Historically speaking, the notion of the type was reintroduced to the larger architectural discourse as a direct consequence of the crisis of the Modern. The task of revisiting the forms of the past also dictated the return of architectural methods that had long been considered obsolete by the propagators of the great rupture. But type was not alone in this mission. It coexisted with the introduction of another -less popular and equally difficult in definition- term; that of the pattern. Although pattern and type have different etymological roots, they also share a lot in common. Interestingly, they both appear in studies that exceed the disciplinary limits of architecture, often in a manner that makes it difficult to clearly separate their respective meanings. But in architecture, it is probably easier to grasp them, not by their definition, but by the function they have been summoned to fulfill. The current contribution will try to go through the aforementioned, in a rather investigative manner, highlighting the commonalities and the contradictions found between the two terms. Finally, with the help of specific historical examples, the presentation will examine the possibility of a shift in their relationship within the context of "The Fifth Typology". Instead of continuing to regard them as two contradictory notions, it is perhaps nowadays better to ask how both could function complementary to each other.