Renaming the G-word (hint: fighter-mages)

Anthelios · Sep 7, 2007

I must apologize in advance. I started to answer the question and my post quickly devolved into a naming-convention rant. Sorry.

Delta said:
In the past in my campaign I've called them "Myrmidon". I'd really like to have some natural, historical something for that class option (like paladin, ranger, witch, etc.) None of the sword-mage, battle-sorcerer, spell-sword hyphenated/compound words do it for me.

The problem with a historical name is that real world "magic" is more spiritual in description. Wizard is pretty much all we have. Everything else is Shaman, thaumaturge, warlock, witch, etc.. Those words don't really describe anyone capable of throwing fireballs and defending themselves with mage armor and shield spells.

So are we making up a new name for "Rhymes with Fish" for OOC or for an In-Character discussion? OOC is what its used for that seems to be pissing off the OP.. So why not just go with Fighter/Wizard? Too long? Wi-Fi? (heh)

A name for IC calling the class seems less solid. A person who can toss a fireball is a wizard or a sorcerer.. Regardless of their actual class. If they can wield a sword competently.. Then they are a scary sword wielding sorcerer.. But they are still a sorcerer.

Classic spell book reading wizard + fighter is something that would need to be named on a case by case basis. It doesn't really make sense from the point of view of a character. He spends 10-15 years studying books and lore... and decides to pick up a sword and wack people with it. IF he does this.. no one is going to have a special name for him other than whats is most impressive.

A sorcerer with a blade is much more fitting. His magic comes natural, so he just picks up the sword and calls himself a sorcerer. Theres no need for a special name. People would call him a witch, a mage, a wizard or a sorcerer.. maybe even a warlock. Its not like the peasants of a village are going to say.. "No, I haven't seen him use any invocations.. so he can't possible be a warlock!" or.. "No spell-book? Are you one of those sorcerers? Maybe a duskblade? I met one of them a while back. He had a good attack bonus.." No. None of that makes sense. People name stuff for what they see.

Now the wizard himself might name himself, because they like to describe their specialties. But another wizard is probably going to ignore his "spellsword" title and call him a "dabbler" for wasting all his time on a sword when he could of been practicing more powerful spells. Another warrior might call him a "trickster" for using those spells instead of relying on true skill to fight.

The problem with the naming conventions is that they don't really make sense. They took a bunch real life words that mean the same thing and seperated them into different classes. Warlock, Wizard, Witch, Shaman, Druid, Thaumaturge, Witch-Doctor, Sorcerer, and Magician all meant basically the same thing in real life.

So the question for the IC name for the class.. is what would that guy right there call them? Does anyone percieve a difference in the class versus profession? Is a fighter a fighter, or are fighters and rangers both warriors? Is a Druid a Shaman? A witch? A sorcerer?

/end rant

Patryn of Elvenshae · Sep 7, 2007

Korgoth said:
That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm sorry.

That's like saying "Flblinndle" is better than "warrior-poet" because otherwise I can't tell if he does fighting and poetry at the same time, or at different times.

No, it's saying that Bladesinger is a better term than Fighter-Wizard.

It's saying that THREADCRAPPING WORD is a better term than Warrior-Mage.

It's saying that Bard or Skald are better terms than Warrior-Poet.

It's saying that Swashbuckler is a better term than Fighter-Rogue.

Any term that sounds like a 2E multiclass character is inferior to a single word that encompasses the whole of the character.

TheCrazyMuffinMan · Sep 7, 2007

Who knows, maybe they may discontinue

in 4E references to Fighter/Wizards or Fighter/Sorcerers of the Githyanki, knowing the irritation that term brings. They may even use a fitting new name.

The Deftblades (or simply defts, meaning skillful. It has no bearing on WHAT skill.) of the Githyanki Tribe. That might work.

Clavis · Sep 7, 2007

This discussion ultimately comes down to the question of whether or not D&D should be a game with an implied setting. If there is a particular setting, then some term like the-one-we-will-not-use should be employed. If (like me) you prefer your D&D customizable, then a generic term is better.

Incidentally, use of the offending g-word seems only to have become current with the 3rd edition re-discovery of the Githyanki and Githzerai. Much like what 2nd edition did to the Drow, the Gith races have become the "formerly mysterious and really scary but now seen in every local tavern" race. For no other reason than to help make the Gith races mysterious again, the g-word (which dates all the way back to 1981) should not be used to refer to anybody who is not a Githyanki.

I have to wonder what Charles Stross (the British author who created the Githyanki) thinks of all this.

And I hate bladesingers on principle.

TheCrazyMuffinMan · Sep 7, 2007

In my case, if I saw fit to use Githyanki for some reason, I'd just give their topical archetype my other class instead, as long as I could do it without missing the point of their existence.

Edit: By addressing the multiclassing requirements of the archetype in question, and possibly making a single class that's as viable as the paladin or ranger, they may already be onto the task.

[sblock]

David Noonan's blog said:
The : lovers (and those who are, um, -curious), I've got your back.

Terminology Note: When I say "," I'm not referring specifically to githyanki fighter/wizards. Nor am I talking about a really good Smashing Pumpkins album, . I'm talking more generally about characters who are capable melee combatants and reasonably good arcane spellcasters, too.

One of the things I'm working on is some character-building pieces to support the archetype. And as I write, I wonder, "I'm not sure the needs the help. He might be OK with just our crazy new multiclassing rules."

Multiclassing: New multiclassing rules, you ask. Yep, we've got 'em. Multiclass characters are running at a couple of our internal playtest tables right now. Early results are promising, but we're talking about only a couple of characters, so we haven't seen broad proof of concept yet.

It's easy to critique 3e multiclassing, but it's also important to remember that they represent a massive, double-quantum leap from multiclass/dual-class rules in 1e/2e. We really like the configurability and freedom of 3e multiclassing, the way it's extensible even when you add new classes to the mix, and how it respects (to a degree, anyway) the changing whimsy of players as their characters evolve.

But it's got some problems--and in particular, it doesn't tackle the very well. There's the arcane spell failure problem, which takes some levels of the spellsword PrC, a little mithral, and some twilight enhancement to take care of. But beyond that, the low caster level can be just crippling for the fighter/wizard who wants to blast the bad guys into oblivion, rather than use his spellbook as a really good utility belt.

So that's one big problem--the caster level situation. In 3e, we've cemented over that with some prestige classes and feats. But there's another problem: Your journey through the "Valley of Multi-Ineffectiveness." For the , it's hard to truly be, well, y at low levels before you've figured out a reasonable answer to the armor problem. You can't really wade into melee like a fighter, because you're gonna get creamed. So you have to take an "I'm basically a wizard for now" or "I'm basically a fighter for now." That works, but you're just biding your time until you get to play the character you want to play.

And for the 's cousin, the wizard/cleric, his "Valley of Multi-Ineffectiveness" isn't quite as deep, but it lasts a little longer--until he qualifies for mystic theurge, anyway.

So the improvement we're seeking from the multiclass system is something that solves some specific math problems (the caster level thing) and some specific career-path problems (letting you feel like a blend of classes from the get-go).

The , Today: So what does this mean for our PCs at the playtest tables? Well, from very early levels, he's weariing armor, stabbing dudes, and casting spells. He's not as good at stabbing as the fighter, nor as good at casting as the wizard. But he's viable at both. In theory.

In theory? Well, like I said, the characters don't have a lot of mileage on them yet. And creating hybrid characters involves a careful balancing act. Multiclass characters can't be optimal at a focused task (because that horns in the turf for the single-class character) and they can't be weaksauce (because then you've sold the multiclass character a false bill of goods and he doesn't actually get to use the breadth of his abilities). There's a middle ground between "optimal" and "weaksauce" that I'll call "viable." But it's not exactly a wide spot of ground.

Finding that viable middle ground isn't a problem unique to 4e. The 3e designers (myself included) took lots of shots at it; the bard, the mystic theurge, and the eldritch knight are all somewhere on the optimal-viable-weaksauce continuum. And any WoW shaman, druid, or paladin knows firsthand the sorts of continual rebalancing they've undergone as Blizzard tries to keep their hybrid classes in the middle of that continuum.

[/sblock]

Drowbane · Sep 7, 2007

Oddly enough, I'm fine with teh G-word-that-mods-will-fix-for-you... but I would be annoyed if someone used Bladesinger to mean any Fighter/Mage who wasn't also an Elf. Crazy, no?

preacher said:
And not meaning to threadjack, but there's no term for a rogue/mage combo.

Assassin? the DMG seems to think so

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
...* On an unrelated note, does the OP indicate that I can designate what will be considered threadcrapping in each thread I start from now on? And that it will be enforced by the Mods? That might be useful to know ...

Bad form, everyone. Bad form.

QFT.

I expected better of ENworld.

MisterWhodat · Sep 7, 2007

What is the word?

TheCrazyMuffinMan · Sep 7, 2007

MisterWhodat said:
What is the word?

Githyanki, without the last 5 letters, replacing the t with s.

Arnwyn · Sep 7, 2007

Drowbane said:
Oddly enough, I'm fine with teh G-word-that-mods-will-fix-for-you... but I would be annoyed if someone used Bladesinger to mean any Fighter/Mage who wasn't also an Elf. Crazy, no?

Pretty much the definition of it, yes. (Not meaning to pick on you, though!)

If people are fine with using "Bladesinger" to mean any old fighter/spellcaster, and "Wizard" to mean any arcane spellcaster (wizard, sorcerer, warmage, warlock, etc), then they are probably fine in abusing the current term under discussion as well.

I suspect that'll be a tiny minority of people, though. Thankfully.

GreatLemur · Sep 7, 2007

Well, now we know what term Rich Baker prefers.

[url=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070907a]Rich Baker[/url] said:
My character is Karhun. In the 3E incarnation of our game, Karhun was an illumian warblade/warmage, mixing up Nine Swords stuff with a decent amount of arcane firepower. Unfortunately, we haven’t yet gotten to illumians, warblades, or warmages, so I was faced with a pretty tough translation for my character. I eventually settled on making Karhun into a human warlord, and then using our multiclass system to dip into some wizardly bits. I’ve been tanking a lot for the party anyway, so converting to a melee-competent base class seemed pretty reasonable, and multiclassing wizard means that I can get more out of my character’s outstanding Intelligence score. The wizard abilities I gained give Karhun a couple of decent ranged area attacks each encounter, something warlords otherwise wouldn’t get a lot of. That means I’ve got lots of flexibility. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll just have to get hopping and design the swordmage class we’ve been talking about.

Renaming the G-word (hint: fighter-mages)

Anthelios

First Post

Patryn of Elvenshae

First Post

TheCrazyMuffinMan

First Post

Clavis

First Post

TheCrazyMuffinMan

First Post

Drowbane

First Post

MisterWhodat

First Post

TheCrazyMuffinMan

First Post

Arnwyn

First Post

GreatLemur

Explorer

Similar Threads