PHB3 Debut: Ardent Speculation

[Dausuul]

I point you to my own response earlier in this thread:

What the heck is an ardent?

If WotC released a "legionary" class, I'd have no questions about what it was. Clearly it's a martial class with some kind of formation fighting bonus. Either a defender or a leader, emphasizes professional combat training and military discipline, probably has a combination of melee and short-ranged maneuvers. At least one variant will certainly be proficient in javelin, short sword, and heavy shield. The word "legionary" describes a real-world profession that converts reasonably well to an adventuring context, so I know instantly what to expect.

If WotC released a "philosopher" class, I might scratch my head a little wondering what their adventuring shtick was - although if it came out in the company of classes like monk and samurai, I think I'd make the connection - but I'd have at least a vague idea what it was about. I know what a philosopher is in real life.

"Seeker" is pushing it. "Seeker" is not a profession per se, and while the term "a seeker" does have a real-life meaning, it's normally attached to another concept - "a seeker of [something]." Still, the word is used often enough in a fantasy context to suggest some possible interpretations... one who quests, one who searches for transcendent meaning, a wandering friar or knight-errant on a mission. (The knight-errant thing isn't too far from the actual class concept. I'd have expected it to be a divine class, but primal works... I guess.)

With "ardent," I had absolutely no clue. There's no such thing as "an ardent" in real life, and the word is so seldom used that I didn't even connect it to the adjective meaning when I saw it used as a noun - it just looked like a made-up word. Even if I had made the connection to the adjective, it wouldn't have conveyed much.

I see your point about "ardent" as an adjective, but I don't think it's a big deal. There's other examples of English adjectives finding use as nouns, i.e. substantive adjectives. For example, consider the word "marine": [snip]

Since a "marine" can be a marine without being especially marine, I figure an "ardent" can be an ardent without having to be especially ardent. Q.E.D.

Not a reasonable comparison. The word "marine" has been a shorthand for "marine soldier" for centuries. It has long since passed into common usage as a noun. The Marine Corps has likewise evolved from its naval roots.

Name the class "ardent philosopher," then call back in 50 years. If it's still in widespread use in 10E, we'll shorten it to "ardent."

Like, uh, in Batman Begins(the movie) where people start calling him "the Bat Man." Bat isn't an adjective, so "Bat Man" is actually incorrect. But it takes on its own meaning. To make this into an argument, if you don't like "Ardent" you must not like Batman!

While "bat" is technically not an adjective, the use of a noun in a descriptive capacity is common enough to pass muster. "The bat-man" thus makes sense when describing a man with attributes of a bat, kinda like "sword-mage" describes a mage who wields a sword.

It's about usage, not the dictionary. Although I think there actually is a grammatical term for using a noun as a descriptor.

 

[fuzzlewump]

While "bat" is technically not an adjective, the use of a noun in a descriptive capacity is common enough to pass muster. "The bat-man" thus makes sense when describing a man with attributes of a bat, kinda like "sword-mage" describes a mage who wields a sword.

"Ardent," despite being incorrect like "batman" would describe someone who is ardent, probably. I really know nothing about the class. I'm not sure what "common enough to pass muster" means exactly, or why common matters in weee fantasy world.

For another more better example, how about calling communists "reds"? It's an adjective used as a noun. Well, maybe it can be a noun too like an artist talking about "reds" and "blues" but I'm not sure that's correct either. For the most part it's an adjective though.

EDIT: upon looking it up red is clearly an accepted noun. Well, somehow I still think it stands, because it's not normally meant to signify a person.

 

[Dausuul]

"Ardent," despite being incorrect like "batman" would describe someone who is ardent, probably. I really know nothing about the class. I'm not sure what "common enough to pass muster" means exactly, or why common matters in weee fantasy world.

For another more better example, how about calling communists "reds"? It's an adjective used as a noun. Well, maybe it can be a noun too like an artist talking about "reds" and "blues" but I'm not sure that's correct either. For the most part it's an adjective though.

EDIT: upon looking it up red is clearly an accepted noun. Well, somehow I still think it stands, because it's not normally meant to signify a person.

By "common enough to pass muster" I mean that people use it this way, have been using it this way for a long time, and so it's become an accepted part of the language and people intuitively grasp the meaning in context, regardless of whether it conforms to the formal rules of grammar.

Nobody whatsoever uses "ardent" as a noun. It's not an accepted part of the language and conveys nothing, therefore it's a lousy name for a class.

New words, and new ways of using existing words, do not appear fully-grown from nowhere. Just as "marine" evolved from "marine soldier," and "red" came from the red Soviet flag, it's conceivable that "ardent philosopher" might eventually evolve into "ardent," but the term "ardent philosopher" would have to come into widespread use first.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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!"

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

 

[Nahat Anoj]

So... what race is that tiger guy on the cover?

I think it's just a weretiger monster that's being flanked by a dragon familiar.

 

[fuzzlewump]

New words, and new ways of using existing words, do not appear fully-grown from nowhere. Just as "marine" evolved from "marine soldier," and "red" came from the red Soviet flag, it's conceivable that "ardent philosopher" might eventually evolve into "ardent," but the term "ardent philosopher" would have to come into widespread use first.

Fine points, sir, but how did those uncommon terms become common? They must started out sounding funny! Is it D&D's place to try to coin words or give unique usage to old words? I would say... yes! But clearly, we'll have to disagree there.

EDIT: From your point of view, I mean that leap from "marine soldier" to "marine." Someone must have said it first and it probably sounded funny. Given, this is a bigger leap, but in my humble opinion, that doesn't matter much at all.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

New words, and new ways of using existing words, do not appear fully-grown from nowhere. Just as "marine" evolved from "marine soldier," and "red" came from the red Soviet flag, it's conceivable that "ardent philosopher" might eventually evolve into "ardent," but the term "ardent philosopher" would have to come into widespread use first.

Perhaps it has, in the context of the game world. It's just us in the real world that aren't used to it yet.

 

[Dausuul]

Is it D&D's place to try to coin words or give unique usage to old words? I would say... yes! But clearly, we'll have to disagree there.

The way I see it, coining words or altering usage is for when you don't have a word that already does what you need done. That's why we have the "warlord" class. It's not a very good choice of names. A warlord is a military leader who also functions as a civilian authority, most of which doesn't apply to the D&D class.

But nobody could come up with a better name for the class - "knight," "commander," and "marshal" have similar issues, and "tactician" is accurate but thematically jarring - so "warlord" was repurposed and we just had to get used to it. (Of course, the fact that "warlord" is two nouns mashed together, one of which is "war," probably tipped the scales in its favor.)

If there weren't a better word available than "ardent," okay, fine. We'd just have to get used to it. But there are plenty of words out there that do the job much better than "ardent."

 

[fuzzlewump]

But, coining words or coming up with new usages is how English is full of all the great synonyms for nearly every word we have today!

However, making up words or investigating new possibilities with old ones is the reason why English is stuffed with the tons of alternate ways of communicating meanings we have at this point in time.

I also just realized I'm not a very good thesaurus at all.

I think "an Ardent" still evokes the meanings of the adjective form of ardent. What would you rather see used, instead? Wizards may be waaatching

 

[Dausuul]

I think "an Ardent" still evokes the meanings of the adjective form of ardent. What would you rather see used, instead? Wizards may be waaatching

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."

At this point, it's probably too late to change the class name, but one can hope.