PHB3 Debut: Ardent Speculation

[Dice4Hire]

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.

I would have to second Zealot also.

Ardent is effectively meaningless to me, and has no historical, cultural or game history underpinnings to make it more interesting.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I feel "zealot" has too many negative connotations to make it a good name for a class. Indeed, I can't think of any instance (at least in the parlance of the present day) where it is used in a positive or even neutral sense. It almost always is used as a name to describe someone who is excessively and fanatically zealous. But, perhaps with time I'd get used to it, as I did with "warlord" and "assassin."

The only word I can find to describe someone with strong beliefs that doesn't have a negative connotation is "votary." I too find the usage of "ardent" as a noun a little clumsy, but I think in time I'll get used to it.

 

[doctorhook]

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.

It has to start somewhere; why not here and now?

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."

Not a reasonable request. The name "ardent philosopher" violates the naming convention of D&D classes. In D&D, "ardent" has already been a class name for a few years. It has long since become a noun. Language evolves constantly due to usage.

You should learn about linguistics and substantive adjectives.

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.

Now you're getting it! If you're curious, the grammatical term you're looking for is "attributive noun".

 

[RefinedBean]

Language evolves constantly due to usage.

Or devolves, depending on how one sees it.

 

[doctorhook]

Or devolves, depending on how one sees it.

Fair enough. Language changes constantly due to usage. Any other explanation is merely bias showing itself.

 

[Felon]

Here's my take on "ardent": it sounds like a defender to me. If the class turns out to be a defender, I like the name because it fits. If the ardent turns out to be any other role, I don't like it.

To my ear, "battlemind" is more lame in every respect and I dislike it unconditionally.

Now, as to the tiger-looking creature on the cover, I suspect it must indeed be a weretiger, as placing a new race on the cover without discussing it anywhere doesn't make much sense. Plus, it's a creature from Indian myth and it's wielding katars, so that all adds up.

Which is maybe too bad. I started out rolling my eyes and saying "a tiger race? like shifters didn't cover the furry angle sufficiently?", but then I thought about how cool it would be to have a tiger race that isn't all wild-tempered and feral (the de facto pigeonhole most beastman races wind up in), but rather more regal, as Indian and Chinese folklore depicted them. Think Kipling's Shere Khan and Disney's Tai Lung.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

Characters are not trained as 4E classes.

If I was to play Tanis Half-Elven in a 4E game, I would be playing a warlord. Why? Because that's what Tanis does in the story. What would Tanis tell people? If anything, Tanis would tell people that he's a ranger, because that's his role in the world and how he and others see him.

Look at all the organization write-ups from WOTC. These organizations are not just devoted to one class, they usually have multiple classes, all trained as one group. The class splits up the mechanics of how a character does things in narrated combat, not necessarily what they are in the world.

 

[Quantarum]

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

"When is the Contemplative going to take an action?! He's giving it deep consideration..."
"How do you like playing an Adherent? I'm sticking to it."
"Why did you land on him? He said he was the softest!"
"You're an Erudite you say? How are things in Erudia these days?"
-Q.

 

[fba827]

"When is the Contemplative going to take an action?! He's giving it deep consideration..."
"How do you like playing an Adherent? I'm sticking to it."
"Why did you land on him? He said he was the softest!"
"You're an Erudite you say? How are things in Erudia these days?"
-Q.

You left out a quote involving sage ... you know, something to do with thyme and rosemary... i feel sad now.

 

[JPL]

Actually, it's clear to me that in 4th Edition D&D, characters understand that a certain mix of abilities makes for a good party. I wouldn't find it too out of line for in-character dialogue to include discussion of who's going to be the new striker now that the dwarf got killed, or whether they should add a second defender. There must be some sort of slang among adventurers to cover these concepts.