What are the most generic class names?

[Keldryn]

I think that the original class names in AD&D and B/X D&D were the most generic:

Fighter (one who fights)
Magic-User (one who uses magic)
Cleric (ordained member of a church)
Thief (one skilled in sneaking, stealing, and defeating locks & traps)

The level titles added flavor to these generic class names:

Fighter: Veteran, Warrior, Swordsman, etc, until Lord at 9th level
Magic-User: Prestidigitator, Evoker, Conjurer, etc, until Wizard at 11th level
Cleric: Acolyte, Adept, Priest, etc, until High Priest at 9th level
Thief: Rogue, Footpad, Cutpurse, etc, until Master Thief at 10th level

"Fighter" and "Magic-User" are more generic than "Cleric" or "Thief," but I'm hard-pressed to come up with more generic names for those archetypes.

 

[Vespucci]

I don't have much to add.

I suppose if you wanted to absolutely distill the 'core' essence of all classes into three categories:

Fighter - Focuses on combat.
Specialist - Focuses on skills.
Adept - Focuses on magic.

From there, pretty much every class is either a specialized or hybrid form of one of those three. For example, an Adept breaks down into divine and arcane magic users. A bard is a hybrid of a Specialist and an Adept, etc.

That's not really what you were asking, but it's all I have to add.

This 3 class model is only true as of 3e. (I'm not even sure that it applies in 4e.)

To cover the genre, you need just two classes:

Fighting Man
Magic User

Both of them do what they say on the tin. Everyone has skills.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Him
Her
It
That Other Thing That is Usually Green Except in the Morning

 

[FoxWander]

The only thing I can think to add is a mention of the 3E Unearthed Arcana generic classes:

Warrior
Expert
Spellcaster

For D&D, I think most classes would fall into one of those 3 roles.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

There are two elements at work in this situation: the concept of the "class" and the concept of the "role."

In earlier editions, the "role" and the "class" overlapped and to a degree didn't require differentiation, there was enough room (or holes) in the rules to allow unconventional uses of a class to fulfill whatever role was necessary in the party. The fighter could be religious while not wielding any divine powers, and could potentially have as much in character Knowledge: Religion as the party's Paladin or Cleric.

But, this is why in 4e the concept of the "role" is separate and more generic than the "class." The classes add flavor and some more specific elements to create uniqueness and build variety, yet they all essentially fall into several roles: defender, striker, controller, leader, etc.

So, one could completely eliminate the convention of named classes, instead describing the function or the role of the character. If one wanted to maintain the concept of a class however, I would recommend that the class should be observed completely without any influence upon the system or setting.

Someone up thread used the example of a barbarian, which implies that barbarians are a viable choice and therefore exist in the game setting. If one wanted to make a game setting without the typical "barbarian" tribe/clan/horde, the DM could simply rename barbarian to something more fitting. Perhaps berserker, or rage fighter, or something else. Why, one could even reskin the concept of a barbarian by saying that rages are actually some kind of stance, and that really the barbarian is a highly skilled swordsman with martial arts styles akin to a samurai.

So to more specifically answer your question Pinotage, I think you have to ask yourself if you would rather focus as the class and role fulfilling the same position in the game, or if the class will actually have some kind of meaning.

Otherwise, yeah I think Warrior, Expert, Mage works just fine.

 

[BriarMonkey]

How about "Adventurer"? That pretty well sums them all up.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think there are two major archetypes:

1. Man of Action
2. Man of Magic

• A Fighter is a mighty man of action.
• A Magic User is a man of arcane magic.
• A Cleric is a combination of the two major archetypes: he's part man of action and part man of divine magic, but not as good at either as the "pure" Fighter or "pure" Magic User.
• A Thief is a man of action, but instead of mighty, his focus is on sneakiness and skill.

(The original D&D rules only included the first three: Fighter, MU, and Cleric. It's probably no accident that they represent "action", "magic" and "combination of the two.")

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Most generic class names:

Magic-user

Ding, ding! Doesn't get more generic outside of "bashy-pokey-guy".

 

[Pinotage]

Lots of very useful names here. Spellcaster, magic-user and even adept go a long way for the magic using classes, and fighter, warrior, fighting man etc. do the same for the warrior.

I quite like expert and specialist for a 'rogue' type but they don't quite convey the versatility of the class. Quite the opposite in face, what with being a specialist.

Pinotage

 

[Doug McCrae]

Fighter = Manly Man
Wizard = Nerd
Cleric = God Botherer
Thief = Thief