Why the renaming of classes?

[DNH]

Does anyone know why WotC are systematically renaming all the character classes from earlier books? I mean, Fighter becomes Weaponmaster, Cleric = Templar, Wizard = Mage, and Rogue = Scoundrel. Um, why? Sure, it's only fluff when all is said and done and I can happily ignore it if I want (and I do and I am) but that just makes things difficult when it comes to looking things up.

Anyone?

 

[Nikosandros]

Fighters remain Fighters. the specific kind of Fighters from PHB1 are now called Weaponmasters in order to distinguish them from Knights and Slayers.

 

[delericho]

It's sort-of a return to the old class/subclass split from 2nd Edition (1st Edition had something similar but not quite the same).

You now have a class (Fighter) and a bunch of sub-classes/builds (Weaponmaster, Knight, Slayer...). Whenever they say "This option is available to Fighters", it means it is applicable to all the builds. On the other hand, they could say "This option is available to Knights", and you'd know it is only available to that one specific sub-class/build.

Personally, I think they've gone about it the wrong way - rather than rename the old builds to fit the model, they should have brought in "super-classes" with new names to group them under. (So instead of Fighter and Weaponmaster/Knight/Slayer, we should have had Warrior and Fighter/Knight/Slayer.) But that's just my opinion...

 

[SSquirrel]

Renaming Clerics to Templars is stupid, considering Templar holds a particular mindshare in Dark Sun. I know Templar is a much broader category of people who work for the Sorceror Kings in 4E, but now people will be saying they are a Templar Templar.

 

[Ryujin]

Renaming Clerics to Templars is stupid, considering Templar holds a particular mindshare in Dark Sun. I know Templar is a much broader category of people who work for the Sorceror Kings in 4E, but now people will be saying they are a Templar Templar.

Thusly they confuse things further, when attempting to remove confusion between classes, builds, Paragon Paths, et al.

 

[Pariah Silver]

It's sort-of a return to the old class/subclass split from 2nd Edition (1st Edition had something similar but not quite the same).

...

Personally, I think they've gone about it the wrong way - rather than rename the old builds to fit the model, they should have brought in "super-classes" with new names to group them under. (So instead of Fighter and Weaponmaster/Knight/Slayer, we should have had Warrior and Fighter/Knight/Slayer.) But that's just my opinion...

While I agree with you on this part, I think the problem stems from the fact that WOTC didn't know they were going to be doing this when they designed 4E. I really get the impression that they started developing classes for Essentials, and somewhere along the line they realized that they'd made multiple kinds of the same class and it was getting confusing. Grouping them all together as subclasses makes great sense, but they had to use what was already out there.

For example, right now a feat that has "fighter" as a prereq works with the weaponmaster, knight, and slayer. If you left fighter as a subclass of the "warrior" super-class, then you'd have to errata each and every fighter feat.

Though, if WOTC had done things like this from the beginning, I really think they'd have gone the route you suggest. Its much neater (and the name weaponmaster is rather silly).

 

[Camelot]

Delericho said it best. They have invented a subclass system, where the original classes were each one subclass of their overall class. So, why would the original fighters be called only fighters while Essentials has two more classes: fighter (knight) and fighter (slayer).

Though I don't agree with your last idea, Delericho. Superclasses would be too broad. Why would a warrior only be fighters, knights, and slayers? Aren't paladins warriors too? Would wizards and mages be spellcasters, and if so, what would sorcerers and swordmages be? And how would they come up with that many names that encompass the original class when that was what the original class name was meant to do? "Fighter" and the other class names already encompassed a wide variety of character types: fighter included great weapon, guardian, battlerager, tempest, brawler, gladiator, and probably more. It makes sense to have it be the superclass name, from a design standpoint and an in-game view.

When you say, "I'm a cleric," you now need to specify what you are. You can either say, "I'm a warpriest cleric" or "I'm a templar cleric." They are naming the old classes to avoid people having to say "I'm a cleric, the one from the Player's Handbook," because that is not what they are in the game world. I think it is a good decision, and fun, because I like names.

Renaming Clerics to Templars is stupid, considering Templar holds a particular mindshare in Dark Sun. I know Templar is a much broader category of people who work for the Sorceror Kings in 4E, but now people will be saying they are a Templar Templar.

Since there are no clerics in Dark Sun, I don't think that will be a problem.

 

[Klaus]

Renaming Clerics to Templars is stupid, considering Templar holds a particular mindshare in Dark Sun. I know Templar is a much broader category of people who work for the Sorceror Kings in 4E, but now people will be saying they are a Templar Templar.

Apart from the fact that are no clerics in Dark Sun, right?

EDIT: Ninja'ed by Camelot!

I'd have gone with Priest, myself. Or possibly raided the 1e Cleric level names.

 

[SSquirrel]

Since there are no clerics in Dark Sun, I don't think that will be a problem.

Says you. My DM is running the ever popular "Bringing gods back to Athas" campaign. Heck, my group has a Cleric AND a Paladin plus a Monk who MCed Cleric all worshiping Pelor. We have Team Pelor and Team Heretic heh. Conveniently, we sit around the table perfectly divided. Here is the Divine Characters sidebar from the DSCS:

"DIVINE CHARACTERS
The gods who once influenced Athas are long dead and
nearly forgotten by the people of the world Therefore,
heroes who draw on divine power are rare indeed. You
won’t find temples or priests of your god. You’ll probably
never meet another person who believes in any god. Still,
if you really want to play a divine character, you and your
Dungeon Master might be able to make it work. Here
are some suggestions for how your character might know
about divine magic and gain access to divine powers.

+ You have come to own a relic from an ancient age
that grants you odd powers. You’re unsure of its
origin or what the strange symbol emblazoned on
the relic’s surface represents.

+ You are a descendant of a long-forgotten demigod
whose lineage has survived across the centuries. You
draw divine power from your holy blood, disguising it
as psionic or primal magic to keep your secret safe.

+ Wandering in the wastes, lost and dehydrated, you
collapsed and heard a voice that promised to save
you in exchange for your devotion. You awoke in a
tribal camp, parched and burned but alive. You can’t
be sure exactly what saved your life, but you do your
best to hold to the bargain you made."

Plus given that they added the Dark Sun box to the CB to allow people to make any kind of character and still play it w/all the Dark Sun gear and options, I think that kind of kills the whole No Divine thing. As far as the official word for the campaign world, yes no gods. It's always been DM discretion in 4E and in 2E you still had Clerics, they were just elemental focused instead. They could have easily done that in 4E as well.

 

[Kinneus]

What I don't get is why they're renaming classes that don't have Essentials versions. I can understanding renaming classes to avoid confusion, but it seems to me that renaming Warlord to Marshal is just creating confusion, when there's no Essentials-version of the Warlord with which to confuse it! It's... confusing.

Unless, of course, they intend to make an Essentials-version of the Warlord...