PHB3 Debut: Ardent Speculation

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm sure that if the Lurk ever came back, it would be called "The Soulknife".

 

[doctorhook]

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.

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":

• "Marine" is an adjective; e.g. "marine life";
• "Marine" can be a noun; e.g. one can be "a marine" (as in, "marine soldier");
• The United States Marine Corps doesn't generally call its troops "marine soldiers", rather it just calls them "marines".
• This use of "marine" to refer to a soldier is only loosely connected the original oceanic meaning of the word. Today, despite the USMC's close ties with the US Navy, most marines probably spend a lot more time away from the ocean than they do in it or on it. In this way, the term "marine" might not be an especially accurate descriptor, but it stands nonetheless.

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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

I actually agree with this sentiment.

On the other hand if we can handle the concept of indian braves without a second thought.....

 

[Belphanior]

D&D is rife with such naming conventions.

Barbarian is not a kind of class, it's a slur against a society you deem to be less civilized than your own. Assassin is a dumb name, because as soon as you hire some fighters and a wizard to rid the town of ogre raiders, they become de facto assassins as well. Thieves didn't have to steal, and rogues don't have to be disloyal to their cause. Seeker? What are you looking for, and what do we call you when you've found it? Avengers don't need to be wronged before they can unleash their special brand of hurting on you.

The Ardent is fine.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The Ardent is fine.

It just leaves me asking, "the ardent what? " every time I see it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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!"

As a non-native speaker that doesn't use the word ardent regularly, I can assure you - it all sounds fine to me.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I think it's potentially interesting, the name Ardent. It could be an in game thing, like that's what people call them. Something like, "those guys training sure are ardent." And despite being incorrect, it just stuck. 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! I think something like "Strong" would definitely be a lame class name, but ardent is just outside of the vocabulary enough to be cool. Of course, if it's an everyday word for someone, like strong is, then there's problems. Maybe, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

The seeker I play is a similar thing, what he goes by is "the Seeker." Obviously, that's correct in english, but it's the same principle: that a description basically defines the class/character. Unlike, say, Wizard or Cleric which are just names.

DISCLAIMER: Not an English or Linguistics Major

 

[Dice4Hire]

As a non-native speaker that doesn't use the word ardent regularly, I can assure you - it all sounds fine to me.

Native speakers don 't use the word Ardent regularly either.

 

[Jhaelen]

Native speakers don 't use the word Ardent regularly either.

For some reason I'm always mistaking it for 'argent', i.e. silver, ...

I think the 3e Ardent might have been cool if they hadn't split the class into Divine Mind/Ardent.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think it's potentially interesting, the name Ardent. It could be an in game thing, like that's what people call them. Something like, "those guys training sure are ardent." And despite being incorrect, it just stuck. 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!

Bat man is indeed incorrect. Batman is a proper noun when used as a name and is just fine.

Batman is an ardent crimefighter.