Would You Use SRD Names For Custom Classes

[SiderisAnon]

My question and poll are about the class names.

I am working on a custom campaign where the classes are heavily changed. Rather than use set abilities, each time you get an ability, you get to choose from a list. This will allow players to customize their classes. There are six main classes, which are basically a fighter-type, a skill-heavy-type, and a spellcaster, then three classes which are the combos (fighter/caster, et cetera).

I could name the three "pure" customized classes as fighter, wizard, rogue. That would give them a familiar feel to people who are used to the terminology and style of D&D. They know basically what the classes are about.

However, I think it might also confuse people because those are also specific classes that are defined in core D&D. If I call them something like man-at-arms, spellbinder, and expert, then I know the players won't get confused. Then they have to learn new names and use them when talking about the game.

Which brings up the poll. If you were going to play in such a customized campaign, would you:

1) Rather use the core names.
2) Rather use new names.
3) Couldn't care either way.


If your answer would be, "I wouldn't play in such a customized game", please don't answer the poll. I'm not looking to debate whether I should customize the classes, I'm looking for help in what naming convention to use.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Crothian]

For me, the name of the class should actually be up to the player. I like renaming classers to help fit the archtype of the PC.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I think as long as you use names that are fairly descriptive (your examples work well) then it won't be hard for the players to learn the new names, so I don't really see a downside to new names. I think using the same names could be confusing though, so I'd use custom names.

 

[AE020704]

I voted to stick with core names.

Anyone playing in this game is obviously going to have been appraised of the house advancement rules, so they should already be aware that these class names are more descriptions of the role, rather than the actual class.

I hope that makes sense. If not, infer.

 

[RFisher]

However, I think it might also confuse people because those are also specific classes that are defined in core D&D.

I think the chance for confusion is pretty low.

In the context of this campaign just say "core fighter" or something like that if you need to make the distinction.

But, FWIW, the generic classes in the UA used Warrior, Expert, &...Spellcaster? Or was it Adept? I forget what True20 uses.

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, I'd go with Warrior, Expert and Mage (or Spellcaster).

Then allow the PC to call their class whatever they want in play... "I'm a barbarian!" or "I'm a sorceress!" or "I am a Wizard of the Orthodox Hermetic Tradition, South Darkmeer Chapter."

Cheers, -- N

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I could name the three "pure" customized classes as fighter, wizard, rogue. That would give them a familiar feel to people who are used to the terminology and style of D&D. They know basically what the classes are about.

However, I think it might also confuse people because those are also specific classes that are defined in core D&D.

Do you really think that your players are likely to be confused about whether they're playing the Player's Handbook fighter or your custom fighter?

It wouldn't bother me to use the same name or a new one, but I'm not sure it's an issue in the first place.

 

[JustKim]

For me, the name of the class should actually be up to the player. I like renaming classers to help fit the archtype of the PC.

That doesn't make any sense to me. The only time the name of a character's class comes up is on a characer sheet, and if it's all creative names and numbers then it's pretty counterproductive. If I call a wizard 4/fighter 2 a runecaster 4/shieldmaiden 2, it's snazzy and all, but even I am not going to know what the hell that means after a while.

But to answer the original question, I'd prefer new names. I think I'd prefer them to be something like "(name of world) fighter" instead of something completely new, though. Distinctive enough to tell them apart, intuitive enough to remember.

 

[arscott]

Use the add/replace guideline:

If your classes will be added to the existing options, then choose new names for those classes. But if your classes will replace existing options, then use the SRD names.

 

[interwyrm]

Yeah, I'd go with Warrior, Expert and Mage (or Spellcaster).

Then allow the PC to call their class whatever they want in play... "I'm a barbarian!" or "I'm a sorceress!" or "I am a Wizard of the Orthodox Hermetic Tradition, South Darkmeer Chapter."

Cheers, -- N

I'd basically go with the same. But for pure NPC-class goodness, I'd probably call the spellcaster class 'adept.'