Character Classes Probably Shouldn't Have Names

[Username17]

Think about it: game balance doesn't stem from whether your character class is named "Bard" or not, it stems from what you can actually do.

Changing the name on a character class doesn't actually change anything in actual play. Therefore, since those names don't do anything in play, and do cause people to make retarded balance decisions when writing content for the game - character classes shouldn't have names.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

lol I see this as Prince changing his name to "that symbol."

Everything needs a name. The answer is to have generic names that don't carry emotional weight leading towards subjective opinions of power. IOW, "Cleric" should be called something like "Wisdom Caster."

[RandomCasualty]

For core classes, sure. Though I think the abilities also need to become a bit more streamlined. I could see them breaking warrior types into strong warrior, agile warrior and tough warrior similar to D20 modern. This type of name change is ok.

I'm not sure if you can really rename classes like the paladin, cleric, or druid because they inherently carry some flavor baggage with them in the concept. Whenever you can lose your powers, you're no longer just a set of abilities.

Wizard and sorcerer could easily just be spellcaster, and I suppose you could do it to the rogue, but people would still ID it as a rogue class anyway.

As for prestige classes, I think they really do need a name. PrCs aren't supposed to exist in a vacuum. They're stuff you've got to qualify for, they're special organizations in your game, and they don't spontaneously come into being just because a PC wants to take one. PrCs represent something special and as such, they always have some kind of flavor baggage attached to them.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I agree wholeheartedly. It's annoying when people ask why my inventor doesn't have max ranks in pick lock or find traps even though he's a rogue.

-Desdan

[Wrenfield]

True. Especially evident when you have PrC's like the Nar Demonbinder that can help you simulate a whole bunch of other core classes ... with 7th or 8th level spells attached and still getting a BAB +16. I can make a 20 level Nar Demonbinder build that can simulate or improve upon a vanilla-straight Ranger, Paladin, Hexblade, or Bard. You can also make awesome Tank-type builds using Templar or Holy Liberator (CD revised) as the base for a Nar Demobinder investment. As well, you can make an even more wicked Blackguard Tank build with Nar Demonbinder using a baseline of Paladin1 / Blackguard10 (assuming conversion to the dark side).

Nar Demonbinders can help you make Arcane Tricksters, Divine Tricksters, Triple Threats (BAB +16, high level divine & arcane spells), ultimate Necromancers/Blasphemers (with Ur-Priest, True Necromancer-1, Beads of Karma, and 2 Disciplined Spellcaster feats [CD]).

That's just one multi-faceted PrC right there. And no one to my knowledge has ever taken a full 7 levels of Nar D to use it as it was intended. It's the ultimate plundering PrC ... good for anyone really.

[User3]

Unearthed arcana has basically already done it, but they should have gone farther.

It would only work if you remade all of the cool class abilities as feats. then it would work wonders.

Fighter, d12 HD, 4 skill points, good BAB, one feat/2 levels (or possibly 1 feat/level), can take feats like Rage, Favored enemy, Frenzy, Superior power attack, etc.

Rogue, d8 HD, 8 skill points, medium BAB, one feat/2 levels. Can take feats like Sneak attack, Music, Unarmed strike, Improved speed, Spring attack, etc.

Magic user, d6 HD, 4 skill points, poor BAB, one feat/3 levels. Can take feats like Spellcasting (Spontanious), Spellcasting (Prepared), Spellcasting (Psionic), Divine source, Familiar, Turn undead, Metamagic, Craft item, etc. Maybe remove spell progression completely and make them take Improved spellcasting feats.

And for the multiclassed types, there can be feats like Insightful strike, Totem warrior, Magical dilettante, and so on.

-Catharz Godsfoot

[The_Hanged_Man]

That'd define classes by feat lists. Interesting.

But then there's no need to call them feats. Just give the classes ability pools of some sort.

[Essence]

The problem isn't that classes are named -- it's the convention of referring to your character as "A 7th level Rogue" when he is, in concept and in fact, "A 7th level Inventor" who happens to use the Rogue class to fufill his concept.

[User3]

1084934679[/unixtime]]The problem isn't that classes are named -- it's the convention of referring to your character as "A 7th level Rogue" when he is, in concept and in fact, "A 7th level Inventor" who happens to use the Rogue class to fufill his concept.

Of course, it would be nice if he could trade Sneak attack for something more appropriate.

[Josh_Kablack]

Ah....but changing the name of your character class does indeed have rules ramifications.

Anyone else here remeber the stupid MtG arguments about Slight of Mind and the sefl-referential Black Vise? Similiar rules issues can arise if you rename classes at whim.

For example, if you decide to call your fighter a "soldier" instead of " fighter", you now can no longer take Weapon Specializtion, as you now fail to meet the prerequisites.