WotC_PeterS: Class Names| NEW: Rouse-ist parts of PHB

[Lizard]

Actually, I liked Fighter as a name, for the same reason as I liked the d20 Modern ones - they're so generic, they force you to actually decide what your character calls himself instead of falling into the "class = character" trap.

Good point. I would not have minded the continuation of the D20M model into 4e. Extend to 20 levels, pad out madly with talent trees -- make casting, everything else, a talent.

 

[atom crash]

I've always assumed class names were something that players use to describe their characters, but not something characters might use to describe themselves. And in that case, something generic works best.

For example, I might have a character named Thimbold who is a fighter, but he certainly doesn't call himself a fighter, and neither does anyone else. When introducing himself he might say, "I am called Thimbold the Fiendslayer" because of that time he defeated three devils in a dramatic battle that very nearly ended in his death. Others might call him "Thimbold the Swordmaster" because his signature weapon happens to be a sword. I don't need to have a class called "fiendslayer" or "swordmaster."

 

[Zinovia]

Personally I think Thief and Barbarian were/are good names because players go "AHA that's what I want to be!" when they read it. Same for Cavalier or Knight (but lots of players are then disappointed that Knight isn't actually particularly interesting as a class). Better to keep class names as useful identifiers, and have characters role-play their self-description. I mean, a Fighter MIGHT describe himself as a Warrior, a Soldier, a Mercenary, a Protagonist, or just a person. Generally speaking, only characters with distinct magical powers or highly specific social positions (which in many cases are a result of their magical powers) would use their class name to describe themselves, anyway.

You have a good point regarding the rogue. It's not any more descriptive and is used in a specialized way. But I will *never* under any circumstances ever say that I want to be a barbarian. Some folks might like to play a character like Conan the Barbarian, but that's what other people called him, not what he called himself.

I also agree that it's better to roleplay whatever you call yourself rather than just telling people "I'm a 9th level fighter". So the names should be clear descriptors that convey something of what the class is about to the prospective players. That doesn't mean I have to like some of them though.

Let's just stick with saying the original post was funny, and I laughed at several of the bad class names. Henceforth I shall refer to myself as a "Morally Suspect Contortionist".

 

[Rechan]

I dislike Fighter, Thief and Barbarian.

Fighter: Let's just call the Wizard "Blaster", the Rogue "Kidney-stabber", and the Cleric "Healer". That's generic and says what they do. Right? All classes fight. The game is about combat - even the Bard fights. Warrior is also generic, but it has at least at least a little more creativity or at least, well, pinache than "Fight-man".

Thief: The problem with theif is that it becomes hard for quite a few people to think of themselves as anything but a thief. A rogue, from the rules perspective, can be a secret agent, an assassin, a spy, a commando, a con artist. A "Thief" just seems to limit the class to "You, pick pocket." It is like calling the Cleric a "Healer"; he does other stuff, but it pre-diagnoses the class in the player's head.

Barbarian: It's a cultural statement, not a class. Do we also need "City Dweller" and "Rural Dweller"? It attaches a specific flavor to the class. I had a newbie playing a barbarian tell me "Well, now that I'm around people and not in the wild, I don't see a reason to take more levels in barbarian; I don't see how I can KEEP being primitive despite the party's influences on me." This is the problem. Berzerker is more appropriate.

To the criticism that "It doesn't tell what the class does": "Cleric" "Wizard" "Bard" "Ranger" "Paladin" and "Druid" aren't descriptors that tell you what the class does either.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Fighter, magic-user, cleric and thief are all bad names.

Druid is bad in a different way because it's culture specific. It refers exclusively to the priests of the Celtic religion.

 

[grimslade]

I like Thief as a class name. I like Rogue as well. Both are relatively generic but have a flavor to them. Rouge is right out. It is the silly combination names that bug me Magic-User or Thief-Acrobat. What does 'thief' add? Acrobat is fine. In 1E you needed to be a thief before you became a T-A anyway. It was doubly reduntantly redundant.

Barbarian is an evocative name but it is a pejorative. Plus, berserker is just kewler.

So Barbarian* and Thief are stupid names, even though they tell the player what the character is about, simply because they "aren't something you'd call yourself", but Rogue, which is a pretty vague and meaningless name in exactly same way Fighter is, is a good name? Even though again, I can't see anyone calling themselves this in describing what they do. "A dashing rogue" is unlikely, in D&D, to be a Rogue, either. More likely a Fighter or Swashbuckler (or Warlord in 4E). I mean, a Rogue only means "a guy who steals things and stabs people in the back" in D&D. In general English, exactly like Fighter, it has a very different meaning.

I think your logic there is a bit horrible tangled and confused.

Personally I think Thief and Barbarian were/are good names because players go "AHA that's what I want to be!" when they read it. Same for Cavalier or Knight (but lots of players are then disappointed that Knight isn't actually particularly interesting as a class). Better to keep class names as useful identifiers, and have characters role-play their self-description. I mean, a Fighter MIGHT describe himself as a Warrior, a Soldier, a Mercenary, a Protagonist, or just a person. Generally speaking, only characters with distinct magical powers or highly specific social positions (which in many cases are a result of their magical powers) would use their class name to describe themselves, anyway.

* = Due to awareness of Conan the Barbarian, at least.

 

[The Little Raven]

I just want to point out to all the people complaining about Barbarian being on that list... well... Barbarian is not on that list. Double-check the number of syllables (Barbararian) and which letters (Bardarian) are in the name.

 

[Voss]

What's wrong with Fighter? What's a better term for a generic guy who, well, Fights?

Warrior

Magic-Users have become Wizards, Clerics became Priests (and back to Clerics), and Thieves have become Rogues, but 34 years later, Fighters are still Fighters. The name WORKS

Actually, they started as 'Fighting Man'.

 

[Elphilm]

I can think of dozens of literary characters who could be aptly described as warriors, but I would hesitate to call each and every one of them a fighter.

Besides, which is the more evocative title, "Warrior on the Edge of Time" or "Fighter on the Edge of Time"?

 

[Gloombunny]

So Barbarian* and Thief are stupid names, even though they tell the player what the character is about,

* = Due to awareness of Conan the Barbarian, at least.

Except, they don't. Stealing is only a small part of what the class is really about - backstabbing, scouting, and trap-disarming are all arguably more important aspects. And only in D&D is "barbarian" synonymous with "berserker".