PHB3 Debut: Ardent Speculation

[Dragonhelm]

So yeah, they're taking one of the less popular psionic classes and remaking it. Because...?

It's like movies. Rather than remaking classics, they should focus instead on remaking movies that were originally bad and make them good. So maybe what they're doing here is just that - taking a concept from 3e that wasn't the best, and making it into something good.

Give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Vael]

I'm not sure the Ardent is Psionic. With Empath and Battlemind, we have the full suite of Psi-classes for PH3, unless the Empath has been renamed. But, given that the Ardent did have a Divine slant, the 4e Ardent might be the Divine class everyone knows little about.

 

[Flobby]

Ah... for some reason I don't see the cover when I go to that link....

 

[Rechan]

That would be inner spiritual/divine power.

I always felt that was the monk's schtick.

 

[Kzach]

As I said above, I think "philosopher" would work. Other possibilities, depending on how you want to "slant" the class:

Disciple
Contemplative
Sophist
Sage
Apostle
Adherent
Erudite

All of these would be better than Ardent.

Consider this:

"I'm a ranger!"
"I'm a cleric!"
"I'm a warlord!"
"I'm a warden!"
"I'm a seeker!"
"I'm an ardent!"

 

[Dragonhelm]

I always felt that was the monk's schtick.

Kinda, but the monk manifests this in a physical way. I'm looking at spiritual power that works like spells/prayers. Ki, maybe.

It seems this is becoming the schtick of the psionic power source.

 

[Mercule]

Oh.

...Huh.

I guess this just sums up the fundamental weirdness of psionic classes to me. I can sorta see the concept, I guess, but I keep looking at it and going, "...Huh."

As someone who always loathed the idea that a cleric could serve a philosophy or anything other than a deity, I thought the Ardent finally provided something for that niche. It's a person with psionic potential that manifests through their devotion to some concept or ideal, rather than an actual entity.

In concept, it's one of my favorite psionic classes and I always wanted to give one a try. I never got the chance before burning out of 3e, though, so I don't know how well the mechanics worked. I'm glad they're bringing it back for 4e.

We don't speak of, "Complete Psionic," or any of the classes contained within it. It burns us!

I thought the Ardent was about the only redeeming feature of the book. The Lurk didn't really thrill me and I thought the Divine Mind was a horribly pointless entry. I don't even remember most of the rest of the book, but I did keep it when I sold off my 3e stuff, just for the Ardent.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I thought the Ardent was about the only redeeming feature of the book. The Lurk didn't really thrill me and I thought the Divine Mind was a horribly pointless entry. I don't even remember most of the rest of the book, but I did keep it when I sold off my 3e stuff, just for the Ardent.

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

It's funny because the original class wasn't super powerful to begin with, so they made it worse. COM PSIIIIIIIIIIIII...!

 

[doctorhook]

All of these would be better than Ardent.

Consider this:

"I'm a ranger!"
"I'm a cleric!"
"I'm a warlord!"
"I'm a warden!"
"I'm a seeker!"
"I'm an ardent!"

I don't follow. Why don't you like "ardent"? I don't think it's any more or less weird than any other class names. All I can see in the above is that it's the only one that starts with a vowel sound; is that what bugs you?

 

[Kzach]

I don't follow. Why don't you like "ardent"? I don't think it's any more or less weird than any other class names. All I can see in the above is that it's the only one that starts with a vowel sound; is that what bugs you?

There are two differences, actually. All other classes have descriptive names that tell you what they are and they're all nouns. Ardent is an adjective and tells you nothing about the class.

"I'm an ardent," says to you, what? There is no tacit implication in the name as to what the purpose and function of the class is or does. You can be 'ardent', but you can't be 'an ardent'. If it had preceded a noun, like, "Ardent Crusader" then it would make a lick of sense.

As it stands, it's nonsensical and doesn't even fit grammatically. It therefore serves no real purpose other than to confuse and annoy.