PHB3 Debut: Ardent Speculation

[Kzach]

Consider this: no PC should ever say any of the above.

Why not?

There is nothing meta-gamey about knowing what you've been trained to be. A rogue can readily know they're a rogue without breaking any fourth walls. A fighter knows they're a fighter, a ranger knows they're a ranger, etc.

Saying that this is somehow beyond the ken of the character is just silly.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Saying that this is somehow beyond the ken of the character is just silly.

Not really.

Most people don't refer to themselves as "fighters" (unless you're talking boxing or MMA). They think of themselves as soldiers, warriors, or (in D&D/medieval terms) knights or swordsmen. Nobody calls themselves a "rogue" or "barbarian" unless they're being ironic. And while lots of spellcasters might call themselves wizards, many more would go with "mage" or "magician." Lots of clerics would go with "priest."

Class names in D&D are meta-terminology, just like levels or alignment. The fact that some of them can also be applied in-character doesn't change the fact that their primary intent is to inform the players of salient details.

 

[chronoplasm]

Not really.

And while lots of spellcasters might call themselves wizards, many more would go with "mage" or "magician." Lots of clerics would go with "priest."

I like to imagine that wizards would go for really esoteric and technical names for their professions. Even if two wizards do exactly the same things, they will argue some kind of minor quibble that they insist makes a huge world of difference.

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I don't care that if it's a noun or an adjective my problem is they used the name of one of the worse classes of 3e and decided to bring it forward, presumably ditching a wonderfully evocative name "Empath" that truely fits the psionic power source, a name with actual history behind it.

 

[Mercule]

Funny enough, Ardent and Divine Mind were once one class, but WotC separated them into the two, much weaker, classes.

That might explain why I found the "schtick" of the Divine Mind to be a bit anemic -- there wasn't enough personality to go around.

It's funny because the original class wasn't super powerful to begin with, so they made it worse. COM PSIIIIIIIIIIIII...! [/QUOTE]
Hey, I copped to never having seen it in play. I just like the concept.

 

[Kzach]

Not really.

Yes, really.

Providing a list of synonyms doesn't make calling oneself a fighter any less relevant than calling themselves a soldier or any other term.

Telling people how to think about their characters is bordering on a badwrongfun speech. I would have no problems with a player saying in character that they're a fighter, just as I wouldn't have a problem with them saying they're a soldier or a mercenary.

It's ridiculous to assert that one term is wrong just because there are numerous other names for it. Telling a person they can't say, "I'm a rogue," when they're playing a rogue character is just as silly and nonsensical as saying they can't call themselves a fighter if they're playing a bard.

Nor is either any more or any less logical in the context of in-character discussion than any other self-referential term that a player decides to use for their character.

 

[The Little Raven]

Ki

Removing Power Source: Asia is one of the best moves they made in this edition.

 

[Dragonhelm]

You know, in a way, the ardent sounds a bit like Dragonlance's mystic class. Mystics gained divine power from looking within.

While that was a divine concept in 3e, might it fit psionics better in 4e?

 

[RefinedBean]

I made a list of alternative possibilities earlier in this thread. I think my preferred choices would be "philosopher" or "contemplative." If those names are insufficiently action-oriented and AWESOME - or just too long - then perhaps "zealot" or "disciple.

I'm partial to Zealot, actually. Has a modern-day flare to it, and really expands on a central theme of psionics, the ki focus. Well, namely the "focus" part.

Ardent, on the other hand, is just meh. Nothing about it really grabs you. Plus, it's like nouning a verb, which is something I just abhor.

 

[Flobby]

Yes, really.

Providing a list of synonyms doesn't make calling oneself a fighter any less relevant than calling themselves a soldier or any other term.

Telling people how to think about their characters is bordering on a badwrongfun speech. I would have no problems with a player saying in character that they're a fighter, just as I wouldn't have a problem with them saying they're a soldier or a mercenary.

It's ridiculous to assert that one term is wrong just because there are numerous other names for it. Telling a person they can't say, "I'm a rogue," when they're playing a rogue character is just as silly and nonsensical as saying they can't call themselves a fighter if they're playing a bard.

Nor is either any more or any less logical in the context of in-character discussion than any other self-referential term that a player decides to use for their character.

I don't think that was what he was saying. You can call yourself a rogue or whatever - hell its a fantasy world you can call yourself anything you want - it's just something that wouldn't be used in the real world, and is not meant to be a title. A "rogue" can call themself anything they want but most likely not introduce themself as a rogue, or feel some identity with other "rogues" just as they wouldn't introduced the themselves as Level 3 Evil. It's meant as a meta-term but of course its your world, you can call yourself a fighter or a cleric or whatever.