Warlord - Marshal (check)
Fighter - Weaponmaster (check)
Cleric - ?
Rogue - Scoundrel (wait I think I read this somewhere)
Wizard - Arcanist
Druid - Animist
Paladin - Templar
Ranger - Forester
Warlock - ?
Scoundrel seems like a safe bet for the Rogue.
I don't think they will call the new-old wizard Arcanist (BUT, they did call one psionic class a Psion, so all bets are open) - I have no idea what will it be.
I don't think they will be rewriting the other ones (at first, the idea was just for the "classic" four, plus the warlord). However, I would very much like for them to do so, since Ranger and Warlock are my favorite classes in this game.
My vote would be for the ranger to become "Stalker".
"Templar" sounds about fine for the Paladin.
Don't know about Animist for the Druid, since we already have the Animist Shaman (Dark Sun), but it isn't impossible, after all, they have done worse things before (for example, to Hunter ranger builds). My guess would be "Shapeshifter".
And the Warlock... I would have guessed Binder one month ago, but now that we know the Binder is the Controller Warlock in HoS, the name is taken. So... Hexer? Witch? Voodoo Priest? I have really no idea.
I thought of Priest for Cleric, but with the Warpriest already a sub-class that doesn't seem right. How about Shield Anvil?
Wizard is tough because every synonym is already taken. Magus and Magician are basically the same as Mage. Sage and Mystic mean something different, and Sorceror is taken (don't get me started on that one). We need something that conveys an unfocused student of general magic (even less focused that the supposed generalist Mage). Spellcaster?
Rogue - Scoundrel is as good as any
Wizard - Thaumaturge
Warlock - Diabolist
Cleric - Chaplain
Rogue - Scoundrel is as good as any
Wizard - Thaumaturge
Warlock - Diabolist
Oooh, you're on to something. All of them, except for the Diabolist, are very likely terms in my opinion (I specially like the Thaumaturge).
But "Diabolist" is too much Infernal-Pact-centered... it needs to be a term that apply to all of the pre-existing pacts. My guess would be "Occultist" or something like it. Or perhaps "Jinxer".
Cleric - Chaplain
Rogue - Scoundrel is as good as any
Wizard - Thaumaturge
Warlock - Diabolist
Oooh, you're on to something. All of them, except for the Diabolist, are very likely terms in my opinion (I specially like the Thaumaturge).
But "Diabolist" is too much Infernal-Pact-centered... it needs to be a term that apply to all of the pre-existing pacts. My guess would be "Occultist" or something like it. Or perhaps "Jinxer".
Yeah, diabolist was too one-note; I just didn't like any of the other synonyms for "witch." Although Witch, in my opinion, isn't too bad either. Occultist works too (but it sounds too bland to my ear; I'm trying to think of something more ominous, but nothing's coming).
I could see Crusader used as the term for the Paladin, or Dragoon, or even just Champion.
Witch would be nice for the old Warlock.
Wildshaper is all that's coming to mind for the Druid; I guess you could do Ovate or Vate, but those are more like Shamans or Invokers than Druids.
I'd like to see Soothsayer, Inquisitor, Exorcist, and Shepherd to appear somehow this way, but I could see some of these as new subclasses of previous classes perhaps, rather than names for the old classes who's names were hijacked by Archetypes.
I personally like "Hexer" for the O-Warlock and "Wildshaper" for the O-Druid.
I think you might be onto something here. Tieing the new subclass titles to the unique class features is an excellent way to go. Wildshaper in particular makes sense. Let's see what the defining features are:
Cleric - Channel Divinity - not much help there, unless you want Divine Channeler
Rogue - Sneak Attack - no help, but we like Scoundrel anyways
Wizard - Arcane Implement Mastery - I think naming the class for this element makes a lot of sense: Arcanist or maybe Arcane Channeler to denote channeling magic through an implement?
Druid - Wild Shape - Wildshaper!
Paladin - Divine Challenge - not sure if that helps; how about Holy Hero, Batman!
Ranger - Fighting Style or Hunter's Quarry - neither really helps as Hunter is taken
Warlock - Warlock's Curse - Hexer or something referencing "curse" works here
Edit: Sorry abou the Warlock typo there.
I personally like "Hexer" for the O-Warlock and "Wildshaper" for the O-Druid.
I think you might be onto something here. Tieing the new subclass titles to the unique class features is an excellent way to go. Wildshaper in particular makes sense. Let's see what the defining features are:
Cleric - Channel Divinity - not much help there, unless you want Divine Channeler
Rogue - Sneak Attack - no help, but we like Scoundrel anyways
Wizard - Arcane Implement Mastery - I think naming the class for this element makes a lot of sense: Arcanist or maybe Arcane Channeler to denote channeling magic through an implement?
Druid - Wild Shape - Wildshaper!
Paladin - Divine Challenge - not sure if that helps; how about Holy Hero, Batman!
Ranger - Fighting Style or Hunter's Quarry - neither really helps as Hunter is taken
Warlock - Warlock's Curse - Hexer or something referencing "curse" works here
Fixed for you in bold.
I'd suggest Rangers to be called Skirmisher, and separate the Beastmaster out as a separate subclass (that would be a major overhaul which I'm not sure they're ready to do). That said, the Sentinel seems to be a replacement for the Guardian Druid, complete with the Guardian Druid's class feature choice, and the Guardian Druid's secondary role taking a primary focus.
There's already some redundancy with Knights and Guardian Fighters, Slayers and Great Weapon Fighters. Redundancy is okay. But Rangers were something that needed overhauling, because they're V-classes, and V-classes are inherently an issue. That said, you remove the V-class element by transforming all of the second primary powers into first primary powers, and you sacrifice races that liked that class when it was V-type. It's a difficult connundrum.
- Cleric: Adept
- Paladin: Crusader
- Ranger: Yeoman
- Rogue: Scoundrel
- Warlock: Acolyte
- Wizard: ???
- Barbarian: Rager (room for Nomad, Dervish, etc)
- Bard: Troubadour (room for Skald, Minstrel, Swashbuckler etc)
- Monk: Martial Artist
- Swordmage: ???
In addition, I would personally reclassify the following Classes as Sub-classes:
Were I to name the pre-existing sub-classes (for any class which has room for multiple sub-classes), I would use the following:
- Cleric: Adept
- Paladin: Crusader
- Ranger: Yeoman
- Rogue: Scoundrel
- Warlock: Acolyte
- Wizard: ???
- Barbarian: Rager (room for Nomad, Dervish, etc)
- Bard: Troubadour (room for Skald, Minstrel, Swashbuckler etc)
- Monk: Martial Artist
- Swordmage: ???
In addition, I would personally reclassify the following Classes as Sub-classes:
Dragonlance 5th Age: Heroes of Steel [TSR]
Yeoman: A yeoman is an outdoorsman adept at tracking and stealth. He may come from a city or a barbarian tribe, but he has made his own way in the world. This role includes explorers, scouts, pioneers, trappers, and itinerant do-gooders. Tanis Half-Elven, a Hero of the Lance, was a yeoman.
Were I to name the pre-existing sub-classes (for any class which has room for multiple sub-classes), I would use the following:
- Cleric: Adept
- Paladin: Crusader
- Ranger: Yeoman
- Rogue: Scoundrel
- Warlock: Acolyte
- Wizard: ???
- Barbarian: Rager (room for Nomad, Dervish, etc)
- Bard: Troubadour (room for Skald, Minstrel, Swashbuckler etc)
- Monk: Martial Artist
- Swordmage: ???
In addition, I would personally reclassify the following Classes as Sub-classes:
Cleric - Chaplain
Rogue - Scoundrel is as good as any
Wizard - Thaumaturge
Warlock - Diabolist
Oooh, you're on to something. All of them, except for the Diabolist, are very likely terms in my opinion (I specially like the Thaumaturge).
But "Diabolist" is too much Infernal-Pact-centered... it needs to be a term that apply to all of the pre-existing pacts. My guess would be "Occultist" or something like it. Or perhaps "Jinxer".
I think "Pactsworn" or "Oathbound" would be more descriptive.
I think "Pactsworn" or "Oathbound" would be more descriptive.
Contradictory. The word "warlock" literally means "oath breaker" in Old English.
Cleric - Chaplain
Rogue - Scoundrel is as good as any
Wizard - Thaumaturge
Warlock - Diabolist
Oooh, you're on to something. All of them, except for the Diabolist, are very likely terms in my opinion (I specially like the Thaumaturge).
But "Diabolist" is too much Infernal-Pact-centered... it needs to be a term that apply to all of the pre-existing pacts. My guess would be "Occultist" or something like it. Or perhaps "Jinxer".
I think "Pactsworn" or "Oathbound" would be more descriptive.
Contradictory. The word "warlock" literally means "oath breaker" in Old English.
True, it technically means that.
How many people use it as such?
Cleric - Chaplain
Rogue - Scoundrel is as good as any
Wizard - Thaumaturge
Warlock - Diabolist
Oooh, you're on to something. All of them, except for the Diabolist, are very likely terms in my opinion (I specially like the Thaumaturge).
But "Diabolist" is too much Infernal-Pact-centered... it needs to be a term that apply to all of the pre-existing pacts. My guess would be "Occultist" or something like it. Or perhaps "Jinxer".
I think "Pactsworn" or "Oathbound" would be more descriptive.
Contradictory. The word "warlock" literally means "oath breaker" in Old English.
True, it technically means that.
How many people use it as such?
Welll people with Wiccan background are more than a little aware of it.
So:
Warlock: Witch
Ranger: Skirmisher
Paladin: Crusader
Druid: Stalker
Assassin: Ninja (there you go, thaX)
We still need Sorcerer, Artificer, Swordmage, Bard, Avenger, Shaman, Warden, Barbarian, and Invoker, of course (plus Seeker, Runepriest, Psion, Monk, Ardent, and Battlemind) Those don't have second classes within their archetypes, but neither did the Warlord.
I would suggest these:
Artificer: Spellsmith
Bard: Minstrel, plus the upcoming Bladesinger
Sorcerer: Battlemage
Swordmage: Spellsword
Avenger: Inquisitor or Exorcist (I'd like to see one or the other as a ranged-weapon subclass…)
Invoker: Prophet or Scion or Shepherd (like to see that as a defender subclass…)
Runepriest: Runesmith, Archivist (I'd like to see that as a second subclass…)
Barbarian: Berserker
Shaman: Medicine-Man? Spirit-Guide? Not very many useful terms out there.
Warden: Guardian? Keeper?
Seeker: Could also be Stalker… I doubt Nimrod… due to nerdy/geeky fanspeak as opposed to origin.
Ardent: Empath (could be a seperate, implement-using subclass, though…), Wilder?
Battlemind: Psychic Warrior?
Monk: Cenobite? Marabout? Oblate?
Psion: Erudite
We still need Sorcerer, Artificer, Swordmage, Bard, Avenger, Shaman, Warden, Barbarian, and Invoker, of course (plus Seeker, Runepriest, Psion, Monk, Ardent, and Battlemind) Those don't have second classes within their archetypes, but neither did the Warlord.
I don't think we necessarily need to crowd the names of all those classes. WotC included the Warlord in the Class Compendium for one or both of these reasons: (1) They felt it was a good class to revisit for Essentials folks and (2) They may be planning a new build.
Thus if there were some future Class Compendium, maybe Wizards would redo Druid, Paldadin, Ranger, and Warlock plus ONE more class they felt deserved a revisit or that they had plans for. But we certainly don't need subclass names for ALL of them. That said, knock yourself out in the name of fun.
Assassin: Ninja (there you go, thaX)
Good point, the original Assassin should be on the list since we now have the Executioner. I don't particularly like Ninja, as its too eastern and wouldn't fit with any of the other titles chosen (Monk is a special exception). Shadowdancer would be perfect, but I think that's a new Paragon Path. Any other names evoke the strong use of shadow magic of this class, used to kill? I'm at a loss.
My picks in bold:
Warlord - Marshal (check)
Fighter - Weaponmaster (check)
Cleric - Templar (check)
Rogue - Scoundrel (suspected correct)
Wizard - Arcanist (check)
Druid - Suggestions: Animist, Shapeshifter, Wildshaper, Stalker
Paladin - Suggestions: Crusader, Dragoon, Champion
Ranger - Suggestions: Forester, Stalker, Skirmisher, Yeoman
Warlock - Suggestions: Hexer, Witch, Occultist, Jinxer, Acolyte, Pactsworn, Oathbound, Heretic
Assassin - Suggestions: Ninja
So: there are classes. There are subclasses. There are builds.
In what way are the cleric and invoker more or less different than the slayer and the weaponmaster? What makes the knight a "subclass" while the brawler is a "build" of the weaponmaster subclass? The brawler has as many class features in common with the weaponmaster fighter as the knight does (1) after all, and the knight functions in a manner far more similar to the weaponmaster than the brawler does. Is there a reason the executioner (and assassins in general perhaps) isn't a shadow/martial subclass of the rogue?
Couldn't shamans be a subclass of druid? Ardents a subclass of warlord?
Mechanically, none of this is particularly relevant. Conceptually, it's all very muddled.
Slayers and Weaponmasters share a conceptual space of heavy weapons, heavy armour, and a martial tradition of being great warriors who fight legendary battles with their martial skill. One might focus on slaying great foes and monsters, and the other on locking down enemies through mastery of various weapon styles, but they're both conceptually Fighters.
Invokers are not conceptually Clerics by any means. Templars and Warpriests share the conceptual space of being inspiring leaders who, rather than preaching in the pulpit, lead the soldiers of their gods into battle, and provide support for them on the front lines. But the other key element for the Cleric concept is that they were invested their power through rites of investure that are part of a Church, part of organised religion. Invokers are not "invested" with power. They have an inherent and very personal connection with their deity. They're more close to a theoretical demigod class or the theoretical Shepherd defender class that have been tossed around these boards than any Cleric subclasses. Invokers should never be tossed in with Clerics for that reason alone.
Runepriests are also extremely different from Clerics. They have no connection to the direct faith hierarchy as we see them, and have more in common with the old Archivist class from 3.5e, as well as almost seemingly with the Artificer and Swordmage, only spun to the Divine side of things. They are a divine leader, but that doesn't mean they're like Clerics at all. They stand in their own conceptual space.
Ardents at first glance seem a lot like Warlords, and that's probably because we've been given the subclass that uses weapons before getting the one that uses implements first. I would almost be surprised if we didn't get an Empathic-subclass that lacked weapons altogether in the future, more like the Wilder of 3.5e. But that's part of the story of the Ardent and the Battlemind. At first, it's possible to fool yourself into thinking you're not psionic; you're doing this with your own martial skill. But Psionics feature a union of body, mind, and heart, and by higher levels, you'd have to be covering your ears in denial as you're hopping through dimensional portals you create at-will, and mind-breaking enemies with your will. It may look like a Warlord on the outside, but it's an alien mind within.
The Knight does not function conceptually more similar to the Weaponmaster. The Knight is a master of a few simple techniques of locking down foes, and is really good at what he does. He doesn't have the diversity of study that a Weaponmaster does, unless he crosstrains using the crosstraining feats. The Brawling Weaponmaster, like all other Weaponmaster, uses a diversity of weapon techniques, and can perfect them through the usage of styles. The Weapon Styles used by Weaponmasters, Scoundrels, O-Rangers (name pending), and Marshals from Martial Power 2 are very important to the Weaponmaster, and one of the things that sets it apart from Slayers and Knights. These styles would be pretty difficult to study and train in when you're so focused on the Knight's job or the Slayer's job. The mechanics of the Knight and the Slayer support their flavour. They're very focused on what they do, but they don't have as many exploits or styles they can use. The Brawling Weaponmaster has a potential to utilise styles of fighting, and is more open to a number of different exploits. Versatility is a hallmark of Weaponmaster Fighters, why they're Weaponmasters, and not Knights or Slayers. They're the masters of Weapon-styles.
Executioners and O-Assassins (name pending) learn their powers and techniques from Assassins' Guilds, such as the Night Stalkers, the Bleak Disciples, the Red Scales, or the League of Whispers. This is a different conceptual space than the Thieves or Scoundrels that make up Rogues. Yes, it's possible that they could have been considered sub-classes of Rogues. They certainly have the tools that overlap. But while Rogues are generalists that do a number of things, sometimes on either side of the law, othertimes outright thievery or piracy or knavery, Assassins are very focused on one thing: killing, and they're willing to sacrifice a part of their soul to shadow to carry that out. Yes, Fighters have room for generalists like Weaponmasters and specialists like Knights and Slayers. But when it comes down to it, the Assassin's life revolves around killing. They're more likely to identify with being an Assassin than being a Rogue. A Knight or a Slayer is more likely to identify with other Fighters than an Assassin is likely to identify with Scoundrels and Thieves. There are conceptual boundaries, and the shadow part is a big element here. Executioners feel very Martial, but there are sometimes they really can't take anything but Shadow utilities. These shadow utilities really remind them that they sold their soul to the Shadowfell, in exchange for the techniques necessary to kill and get away with it. It's too specialised conceptually to be an aspect of Rogues.
Shamans and Druids have very different directions when it comes to primal magic. Shamans are in communion with the spirit world – with animistic spirits of nature, with the ancestors, and with the Great Elders. Druids have a relation with a single Great Elder: the Primal Beast, and their primal magic is much more feral, much more of a relation with wild animal and where the animal and the spirit world interact. These are conceptually different enough that the Sentinel and the Shaman – both primal leaders with a "pet" – play and feel extraordinarily differently.
- I agree with Mirandahir that the Invoker has a distinct place from the cleric. It does different things and represents different fictional archetypes.
- I agree with Damor_Tor that the assassin could have been a subclass of rogue. In fact, it used to be one in 1st edition. But its a gray area, and I'm happy with two distinct classes with two subclasses each. Also note that, once again, the O-Assassin was created prior to subclass invention.
- I don't think Paladin should be a subclass of fighter, very different archetype. Its actually closer to Cleric. The O-Cleric just got renamed Templar for goodness sake! But even those are totally different. Paladins have swords sometimes. ;)
- The rest I've commented on before, but can basically be summed up as: At least half of PH3 should be subclasses.
But that is half.
It's a very good point, that it's New Tech: it means, it's something that'll be fixed for 5th edition, but because Assassins are their own class that is primarily Shadow in 4e, Executioner is a subclass of Assassin, rather than both being subclasses of Rogue. Similarly, Seeker COULD have been a subclass of Ranger, if it was concieved before then. They run the gamout: Fully Martial Striker O-Ranger, to Martial/Primal Striker Scout, to Martial/Primal Controller Hunter, to Fully Primal Controller Seeker.
I disagree, Damon_Tor. Mechanical and Conceptual design are very relevant in relation to one another, especially since the design going forward is to have the mechanical design reflect the conceptual design.
Slayers and Weaponmasters share a conceptual space of heavy weapons, heavy armour, and a martial tradition of being great warriors who fight legendary battles with their martial skill.
Tempests, Battleragers, Gladiators, and Brawlers are all builds of the weaponmaster: they do not fit this archetype. One standard works to compare a subclass combo that doesn't work for another. That's sloppy design.
Invokers are not conceptually Clerics by any means. Templars and Warpriests share the conceptual space of being inspiring leaders who, rather than preaching in the pulpit, lead the soldiers of their gods into battle, and provide support for them on the front lines.
In other words, the leader role. You're using combat role to justify a class division when multiple subclasses of the same class don't necessarily do so. Again, changing the defferantiating factors to retcon a justification.
But the other key element for the Cleric concept is that they were invested their power through rites of investure that are part of a Church, part of organised religion. Invokers are not "invested" with power. They have an inherent and very personal connection with their deity. They're more close to a theoretical demigod class or the theoretical Shepherd defender class that have been tossed around these boards than any Cleric subclasses. Invokers should never be tossed in with Clerics for that reason alone.
And yet Cavaliers have and even more divergent means of communing with their diety: they don't. Their powers come from the divine powers of abstract concepts. If the cavalier and PHB paladin are capable of being in the same class for backstory reasons, then so too should the cleric and invoker.
I'm not going to go down the whole list. You're using different metrics for each combination, metrics which contradict your other arguments within the same post. My point is not necessarily that the Invoker should be a Cleric Subclass, my point is that there's a lack of uniformity to the system. Sometimes builds seem more concept-specific than a subclasses do, sometimes classes seems very concept-close compared even to builds. Why does combat role and source-of-power fluff separate the invoker and cleric into two different classes while the paladin has subclasses with different roles and very different sources of power?
Just be consistent. That's what I'm asking for here.
As for fighters, I disagree with you that Brawlers, Tempests, and Arena Weaponmasters don't fit the Weaponmaster archetype. They utilise combat styles and many exploits just as Battleragers, Great Weaponmasters, and Guardian Weaponmasters do. The mechanics reflect the flavour.
Except that all Paladins are inducted into divine power the same way: through investiture by knightly orders. Clerics are inducted into divine power by investiture by priesthoods. The difference here is that Invokers are NOT. They aren't Clerics because they get their power from a direct relationship with their deity. You could have a defender subclass, a leader subclass, or a striker subclass of Invoker, but it's not an Invoker if you were invested by the Church. That's all I'm saying with this.
As for fighters, I disagree with you that Brawlers, Tempests, and Arena Weaponmasters don't fit the Weaponmaster archetype. They utilise combat styles and many exploits just as Battleragers, Great Weaponmasters, and Guardian Weaponmasters do. The mechanics reflect the flavour.
As I said, I agree about Invokers, but not because of whether they're inducted or they graduate or join a fraternity. The Invoker class allows players to play as characters very important to many a myth, legend, and modern fantasy tale. The character that posesses some sort of divine power of their own. Demigods, children of gods, gods incarnate, or holy prophets all spring to mind. The rise and adventures of such a character make for great stories as well as great D&D fodder. This is quite distinct from the priestly mantle of the cleric.
As for all of the older builds for martial classes and whatnot - again, we're in a gray area. Yes, some are similar to subclasses conceptually. But that is because they were built using the old tech, not the new hotness.
My advice is that if it really bothers you, don't worry about what should and shouldn't be a subclass; they're not going to chance all of that stuff at this point. If you enjoy speculating about what-ifs like I do, no harm done. But really, in the end we have a menu of choices for building characters. And most of those choices make sense, as they were well designed by the premiere role-playing company in the business. Even older builds stand up just fine alongside newer essentials stuff, so enjoy the variety!
P.S. Not everything holds up as well... *glances sidelong at PH3*
The Marshall is now a subclass of the warlord, right? Is there another warlord subclass released or upcoming?
None that we know of. "Warlord" is just a class with one subclass.
Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms had to ignore the existence of Weaponmasters, Scoundrels, Templars, Arcanists, O-Rangers, O-Paladins, and O-Warlocks because they were all O-*insert-class-name-here*s at that time, and it would be strange to suddenly retroactively call them that without doing the Class Compendium stuff first. Now they can deal with it all lore-like and stuff.
We still need Sorcerer, Artificer, Swordmage, Bard, Avenger, Shaman, Warden, Barbarian, and Invoker, of course (plus Seeker, Runepriest, Psion, Monk, Ardent, and Battlemind) Those don't have second classes within their archetypes, but neither did the Warlord.
I don't think we necessarily need to crowd the names of all those classes. WotC included the Warlord in the Class Compendium for one or both of these reasons: (1) They felt it was a good class to revisit for Essentials folks and (2) They may be planning a new build.
Thus if there were some future Class Compendium, maybe Wizards would redo Druid, Paldadin, Ranger, and Warlock plus ONE more class they felt deserved a revisit or that they had plans for. But we certainly don't need subclass names for ALL of them. That said, knock yourself out in the name of fun.
With a proper rewrite, I personally think that the runepriest could be redone as a cleric subclass. Just one that is similar to paladins in the fact that a lot of their at-wills and encounters are chosen for them, at least early on.
With that, they could avoid the issues with later compatability, and allow for expansion at least in the domain of utility powers, while they will still keep the flavor they have now.
Fundamentally, the Runepriest doesn't feel like a Cleric.
The issue is the opposite for the Seeker: it fundamentally feels like a fully-mystical Ranger. I could see it being roped into the Ranger class, so that we get the full gamot from fully-Martial O-Ranger, to Martial/Primal Hunters and Scouts, to fully-Primal Seekers.
Cleric - Chaplain
Rogue - Scoundrel is as good as any
Wizard - Thaumaturge
Warlock - Diabolist
Oooh, you're on to something. All of them, except for the Diabolist, are very likely terms in my opinion (I specially like the Thaumaturge).
But "Diabolist" is too much Infernal-Pact-centered... it needs to be a term that apply to all of the pre-existing pacts. My guess would be "Occultist" or something like it. Or perhaps "Jinxer".
I think "Pactsworn" or "Oathbound" would be more descriptive.
Contradictory. The word "warlock" literally means "oath breaker" in Old English.
True, it technically means that.
How many people use it as such?
Welll people with Wiccan background are more than a little aware of it.
Most of them who play DnD probably understand that it's not the same thing here.
Personally, I think that Heretic works ok. It's not perfect, but it works.
I also like Pactsworn or something involving the word oath. Other than the whole pactman thing, I don't see any silliness in the name.
Wizard = Arcanist
Cleric = Templar
Rogue = Scoundrel
any others would be complete guesses. my question is, if they gave the warlord a fancy new name does that mean there's gona be a new essentialized warlord? heck maybe he'll be a controller sort of a branch off the skirmisher warlord though now he's starting to step on the toes of the hunter hmm...
if it hasn't been said already the class compendium article on feats tells us what some of the other classes will be called...
Wizard = Arcanist
Cleric = Templar
Rogue = Scoundrel
any others would be complete guesses. my question is, if they gave the warlord a fancy new name does that mean there's gona be a new essentialized warlord? heck maybe he'll be a controller sort of a branch off the skirmisher warlord though now he's starting to step on the toes of the hunter hmm...
The warlord suprised me. I would have gone with Captain, personally. But then, that's what I would have called the class originally, so...
But the other classes, I would vote:
Paladin: This one is hard, because Paladin really is the most archetypal name for this...erm...archetype. Crusader could work. Chevalier is too close to Cavalier, and Templar is taken by Clerics apparently, so that's the only name I can even think of.
Warlock: Pactsworn works for me. thaumaturge sounds cool, even if the definition better fits other arcane classes like the wizard and bard. Occultist also works. Any of those three would work for me.
Bard: Spellsinger? Again, Bard is the common general term for characters of this type, with all the synonyms holding a "sublcass" sort of place in terms of common usage. So any of the other common Bard titles would work, but none stand out as especially appropriate for the pre-e bard subclass.
Ranger is tough, because Hunter is taken, and woodsman is a better fit for either of the essential subclasses than it is for the PHB ranger. Also, I'm sure some people would be annoyed at woodsman, and woodsperson just doesn't have a nice ring.
Barbarian: Easy, Berserker.
Monk: Here, I would give the archetype a new name, and keep monk for the sublcass, if they were to make a new subclass for the Monk. Probably just Martial Artist.
Shaman: Spirit Talker? Mystic?
Druid: Shaper. transmogrifier. therianthrope or theriamorphist, but those sound most like something an arcane spellcaster would call themselves.
My picks in bold:
Warlord - Marshal (check)
Fighter - Weaponmaster (check)
Cleric - Templar (check)
Rogue - Scoundrel (suspected correct)
Wizard - Arcanist (check)
Druid - Suggestions: Animist, Shapeshifter, Wildshaper, Stalker, Shaper
Paladin - Suggestions: Crusader, Dragoon, Champion
Ranger - Suggestions: Forester, Stalker, Skirmisher, Yeoman
Warlock - Suggestions: Hexer, Witch, Occultist, Jinxer, Acolyte, Pactsworn, Oathbound, Heretic, Thaumaturge, Witchalok
Assassin - Suggestions: Ninja, Shadow, Stalker, Darkblade
My picks in bold:
Warlord - Marshal (check)
Fighter - Weaponmaster (check)
Cleric - Templar (check)
Rogue - Scoundrel (suspected correct)
Wizard - Arcanist (check)
Druid - Suggestions: Animist, Shapeshifter, Wildshaper, Stalker, Shaper, Beastform
Paladin - Suggestions: Crusader, Dragoon, Champion
Ranger - Suggestions: Forester, Stalker, Skirmisher, Yeoman
Warlock - Suggestions: Hexer, Witch, Occultist, Jinxer, Acolyte, Pactsworn, Oathbound, Heretic, Thaumaturge, Witchalok
Assassin - Suggestions: Ninja, Shadow, Stalker, Darkblade
if it hasn't been said already the class compendium article on feats tells us what some of the other classes will be called...
Wizard = Arcanist
Cleric = Templar
Rogue = Scoundrel
any others would be complete guesses. my question is, if they gave the warlord a fancy new name does that mean there's gona be a new essentialized warlord? heck maybe he'll be a controller sort of a branch off the skirmisher warlord though now he's starting to step on the toes of the hunter hmm...
As of right now I don't think there are plans, but I think they are doing this so that if they decide to do it in the future they can. I could see the classes in PHB2 getting this same treatment (but PHB3 would probably be left alone), as the Druid already has a second class and many essentials fans are hoping to see a bard subclass.
I would enjoy seeing a controller warlord who controls battle with strategic bluffs. He might be the game's first melee controller or he might take a page from the skirmisher warlord or both.
I also think a controller bard would be cool. One who distracts foes with his songs rather than heal or buff the party but seeing how the bard already kinda has some controllery aspects built in it might be hard to establish as a new subclass.
I wouldn't mind if some classes simply became subclasses of other classes too. Like cleric: avenger, cleric: invoker, shaman: seeker, etc.
edit: forgot original assassin and executioner are both strikers so sorta toss that theory out the window lol. fighters and knights both defenders. clerics and warpriests both leaders... so to old class + new role just add, old class + old role w/ new mechanics
Runepriest should get it's own subclass that is more scholarly-bent in the Archivist. I could see the current Runepriest being called the Runesmith.
Invoker could branch out to include the Incarnate (divine being wrapped in mortal flesh or demigod growing into power) and the Shepherd (divine defender with a more humble background and more basic relation to his/her deity). I could see the current Invoker being called the Prophet.
Avenger could branch out with an Exorcist (Striker) subclass and an Inquisitor (Controller) subclass, and renamed the original subclass the Witchhunter. Exorcist could be making ranged weapon attacks.
Interestingly, the Wizard and the Rogue have been renamed the Arcanist and the Scoundrel respectively in the D&D Insider Compendium, though their flavour text still reflects the PH1, rather than the Class Compendium like the Marshal, Weaponmaster, and Templar. This is probably due to feat compatibilities.
I too would like to see the archivist, and it seems like it could make a subclass of runepriest. Though it always bugs me that the runepriest, student of the ancient language from which the world is shaped, can have intelligence as his dump stat! How did that oversight make it to publishing?! And that is the one reason I've never gotten into runepriests.
Well there are three stats that correspond in some fashion to what we often
consider intelligence in the real world
Wisdom includes - perception (could be precise thinking) and discipline (the latter is good for rote learning and memorization)
Charisma includes - creative thinking, inspiration and communication (esp good for divine languages)
intelligence - the stat has a strong connection to quick thinking (and reflexes ) not necessarily an archivists thing.
Being somewhat flexible about how you interpret stats can be of benefit. The Players handbook encourages you to think about how your abilities present themselves... though examples they give are things like Strength not necessarily being about bulk muscle ... its a concept you should consider open to all stats.