Who mugged the Sword Sage?

[Zweischneid]

You can't name a base class swordsaint. The whole point of that term is that it's applied to warriors of legendary skill as a way of honoring them. A level one swordsaint is even more absurd than a level one archmage.

Or a level one Druid (equally associated with being aged & knowlegable spiritual leaders), or a level one Wizard (that is, not apprentice, acolyte, or some such.. but Wizard as in Wise man?) or a level one Barbarian (can you become more "barbaric" through experience?)?

Don't think the logic of reserving titles for proper seniority has ever had much weight with D&D. Just think of your lvl 1 Swordsaint as a aspiring Swordsaint. Works with other classes in the context of D&D, it'll work here. If you want suitable degradory names for low-level characters have them start as commoners or play Warhammer Fantasy.

 

[Gloombunny]

It's not the same at all. I mean, "inexperienced barbarian" or "apprentice wizard" make perfect sense. "inexperienced swordsaint" is an oxymoron. This isn't just like the squabble over "warlord". "swordsaint" specifically means "one of the best swordsmen who has ever lived".

Besides, it doesn't have much to do with what the swordsage class is about. A fighter would make just as good a swordsaint.

 

[Zweischneid]

It's not the same at all. I mean, "inexperienced barbarian" or "apprentice wizard" make perfect sense. "inexperienced swordsaint" is an oxymoron. This isn't just like the squabble over "warlord". "swordsaint" specifically means "one of the best swordsmen who has ever lived".

Besides, it doesn't have much to do with what the swordsage class is about. A fighter would make just as good a swordsaint.

Not really. It really depends on the context. Take a classical Middle Earth setting, and you'll already have alot more people who'd qualify for "swordsaint" than would qualify for "Wizard". Coming from classical fantasy literature, "inexperienced wizard or druid" doesn't make much sense at all. It made sense in D&D because the system made it so. It can do the same with the swordsaint, i.e. twist its original meaning by making it a class one can follow as a "career", rather than being an honorific term.

Goes even more so for the Barbarian. How the hell can you gain experience in being "barbaric". If anything, "Barbarian" is a label applied to you by outsiders (and unlike the swordsaint, not even a flattering one), and not anything a person would aspire to be.

 

[Klaus]

It's not the same at all. I mean, "inexperienced barbarian" or "apprentice wizard" make perfect sense. "inexperienced swordsaint" is an oxymoron. This isn't just like the squabble over "warlord". "swordsaint" specifically means "one of the best swordsmen who has ever lived".

Besides, it doesn't have much to do with what the swordsage class is about. A fighter would make just as good a swordsaint.

Yeah! It's be like naming a class, I dunno, "Jedi"! It's "Youngling" or nothing!


... wait.


If "apprentice wizard" is okay, why not "apprentice swordsaint"?

 

[Gloombunny]

Not really. It really depends on the context. Take a classical Middle Earth setting, and you'll already have alot more people who'd qualify for "swordsaint" than would qualify for "Wizard".

Because Middle Earth is a setting where "wizard" refers to five specific guys. That's not really comparable to anything D&D-ish.

Coming from classical fantasy literature, "inexperienced wizard or druid" doesn't make much sense at all.

Um, yes it does. What was the Gray Mouser before he went to Lankhmar with Ivrian, then?

Goes even more so for the Barbarian. How the hell can you gain experience in being "barbaric". If anything, "Barbarian" is a label applied to you by outsiders (and unlike the swordsaint, not even a flattering one), and not anything a person would aspire to be.

You'll get no argument from me that "barbarian" is a stupid name for a class, but it's not the same kind of thing. It's a stupid name because it treats a type of culture as a character class, not because it only applies to people of a certain level of skill.

 

[Gloombunny]

Yeah! It's be like naming a class, I dunno, "Jedi"! It's "Youngling" or nothing!


... wait.

No, it wouldn't be like that at all.

If "apprentice wizard" is okay, why not "apprentice swordsaint"?

"apprentice swordsman" would be fine. "apprentice swordsaint" is like "apprentice archmage".

 

[VirgilCaine]

Everyone.

They all took different bits, but the Swordsage has enough options for everyone. That's where most of the 'per encounter' stuff came from.

Geoff.

I want my Rogue to be able to non-magically teleport through shadows and choke people with shadowstuff. That would be really cool.

 

[Zweischneid]

Because Middle Earth is a setting where "wizard" refers to five specific guys. That's not really comparable to anything D&D-ish.


Um, yes it does. What was the Gray Mouser before he went to Lankhmar with Ivrian, then?


You'll get no argument from me that "barbarian" is a stupid name for a class, but it's not the same kind of thing. It's a stupid name because it treats a type of culture as a character class, not because it only applies to people of a certain level of skill.

a.)
Why is Middle Earth any less "D&D-ish" than Lankhmar, or Eberron, or the Forgotten Realms?
Thats stupid.

Generic D&D covers a wide range of settings. Some, such as Middle Earth might work better without a generic wizard class, others, such as the one you seem to have in your head might work better without a generic swordsaint classs.

But for the sake of adaptability, I see no argument to not include either in the core rules.


b.)
There is no "barbarian culture". It might be the case if the class were named "northern tribesman" or some such, but barbarian is a degradory term applied by other people to imply some people are inferior to their own. Hence it goes well as an alternative example to swordsaint, because it is orginally a term attributed to someone from the outside based on accounts of actions they have performed or on hearsay.

 

[Elphilm]

I used to think barbarian was a silly class name, but I nowadays find that it's a perfectly valid descriptor for a certain character type that is all over fantasy literature. Characters ranging from Tarzan to Conan, Fafhrd, and even Karl Edward Wagner's Kane are examples of barbarians in a fantasy context. You could say that the characters are in D&D terms multiclass Fighter/Rogue/Rangers (or whatever), but since the term barbarian seems to be a widely recognized fantasy stereotype, why not simply use it?

As for a sword saint/kensei class, perhaps it should simply be called the xiá?

 

[Zweischneid]

I used to think barbarian was a silly class name, but I nowadays find that it's a perfectly valid descriptor for a certain character type that is all over fantasy literature. Characters ranging from Tarzan to Conan, Fafhrd, and even Karl Edward Wagner's Kane are examples of barbarians in a fantasy context. You could say that the characters are in D&D terms multiclass Fighter/Rogue/Rangers (or whatever), but since the term barbarian seems to be a widely recognized fantasy stereotype, why not simply use it?

As for a sword saint/kensei class, perhaps it should simply be called the xiá?

I'm not against the naming the class catering to these fantasy stereotypes a "Barbarian". By the same token, I would not mind naming a class catering to another common stereotype encountered in fantasy a "swordsaint" or "swordmaster", etc..

Both could be accused of being somewhat odd if taken in the strict sense of the word, though both do describe a common character type well enough to justify naming a class after them. Unlike "xia" or whatever, they are also both descriptive of what they aim for.

In-game, it would IMO than anyways be up to the player to make his or her character a "Warrior from the Thunderbear clan" instead of a Barbarian, a "Disciple of the five-fold-lotus-school" (or a xia) instead of a Swordsaint or a "Mercenary serving under ol'Steelfist" instead of a Fighter.