Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreenTengu" data-source="post: 6789124" data-attributes="member: 6777454">No, I don't at all think you are right. The problem are that1) It implies a specific position of power that certainly has not been earned at low levels.2) It really fails to convey what the class is supposed to do.Cleric is just another word for Priest, you could call it a Priest and it would be just fine. If you called the class &quot;Pope&quot; or even &quot;Bishop&quot;, you'd likely have a problem.Similarly, Fight is not called &quot;King&quot; or even &quot;Knight&quot;And if Wizard instead was called &quot;Demigod&quot; or &quot;Archmage&quot; it would have similar problem.If Bards had been called Troubadours, it probably would have been just fine. &quot;Gleeman&quot; would have been avoided because it fails to describe what they do.&quot;Warden&quot; might have been a perfectly valid term for Druid. You could also call them perhaps &quot;Geomancers&quot; or they could have been &quot;Shaman&quot; had that word not been used for bad-guy spellcasters who could use both wizard and cleric spells. Although the concept was made specifically based on misconceptions of the Druidic faith and had been ladened with so much very specific lore, I guess it was hard to back off from the name.Pugilist is a word for a boxer-- someone who wears no armor and fights with their fists. That would have been an absolutely horrible name for the Fighter, but it might have been a possible name for the Monk.Warrior/Fighter partially had a generic name because it was the absolute go-to default class. 90% of NPCs in 1st and 2nd edition were described as being fighters of some level if casting spells or stealing things wasn't specifically part of their concept. It was also the class that had no special requirements and that all races could be without question.It is also worth nothing that the very narrow concept of &quot;Thief&quot; was replaced with the far broader concept of &quot;Rogue&quot; despite the fact that the &quot;Thief&quot; class had been around for quite some time by the time the name was replaced.On the other hand, the simple descriptive name of &quot;magic-user&quot; was replaced with &quot;wizard&quot;-- but that was at least partially because they wanted to break the concept up into &quot;wizard&quot; and &quot;sorcerer&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreenTengu, post: 6789124, member: 6777454"] No, I don't at all think you are right. The problem are that 1) It implies a specific position of power that certainly has not been earned at low levels. 2) It really fails to convey what the class is supposed to do. Cleric is just another word for Priest, you could call it a Priest and it would be just fine. If you called the class "Pope" or even "Bishop", you'd likely have a problem. Similarly, Fight is not called "King" or even "Knight" And if Wizard instead was called "Demigod" or "Archmage" it would have similar problem. If Bards had been called Troubadours, it probably would have been just fine. "Gleeman" would have been avoided because it fails to describe what they do. "Warden" might have been a perfectly valid term for Druid. You could also call them perhaps "Geomancers" or they could have been "Shaman" had that word not been used for bad-guy spellcasters who could use both wizard and cleric spells. Although the concept was made specifically based on misconceptions of the Druidic faith and had been ladened with so much very specific lore, I guess it was hard to back off from the name. Pugilist is a word for a boxer-- someone who wears no armor and fights with their fists. That would have been an absolutely horrible name for the Fighter, but it might have been a possible name for the Monk. Warrior/Fighter partially had a generic name because it was the absolute go-to default class. 90% of NPCs in 1st and 2nd edition were described as being fighters of some level if casting spells or stealing things wasn't specifically part of their concept. It was also the class that had no special requirements and that all races could be without question. It is also worth nothing that the very narrow concept of "Thief" was replaced with the far broader concept of "Rogue" despite the fact that the "Thief" class had been around for quite some time by the time the name was replaced. On the other hand, the simple descriptive name of "magic-user" was replaced with "wizard"-- but that was at least partially because they wanted to break the concept up into "wizard" and "sorcerer". [/QUOTE]

Verification