WHY must you continue renaming existing classes?

187 posts / 0 new
Last post
I just went to the Compendium to look up the Rogue, and was shocked when I couldn't find it.  At all.  I could get Hybrid Rogue, but not Rogue.

Then I noticed "Scoundrel" listed in the results.  Why?  Just a simple question. 

why?

I mean really, is it really that beneficial to no longer have the online resources match the printed books on the names of the classes?  How does this do anything other than increase confusion?  What benefit does it serve?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I get the desire to differentiate between the classic builds and the new ones, but... yeah, I've seen at least two players who aren't aware of the current environment, who were stumped when searching the compendium and trying to find the classes they were looking for.

Would it really be that hard to at least list them as Rogue: Scoundrel and Rogue: Thief?
While I agree it could be made clearer for new players, the reason WotC has given for this change does make some sense, at least to me.

I don't remember exactly the wording, but the idea was to help in the organization of feats.  A feat that has a pre-req of 'thief' can only be taken by the thief class.  A feat that has a pre-req of 'scoundrel' can only be taken by the class previously known as rogue.  A feat that has a pre-req of rogue, can be taken by either scoundrel or thief.

In real terms, this doesn't actually change anything, other than adding an extra step in choosing what class you will play. Before, it was: 'I want to play a rogue.' 'Okay, what type? Artful Dodger, Brutal Scoundrel, Ruthless Ruffian, or Cunning Sneak?'

Now it's, 'I want to play a rogue.' 'Okay, scoundrel or thief?' 'Scoundrel.' 'Artful Dodger... etcetc'. 
Except that Scoundrel is never used again, anywhere.  It has only replaced the name of the class.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Except that Scoundrel is never used again, anywhere.  It has only replaced the name of the class.



So, every where else, they still just say rogue?
That's what I remember reading from another post on this - all the feats/powers/etc. still say Rogue in their various descriptive texts, requirements, and so forth.
It's because they didn't rename the class. Scoundrel is the name of the subclass that encompasses all of the rogue builds except the thief. Things listed "rogue" apply to the whole of the class and not just the subclass.

This distinction is also why they had to rename them. I think there's a lot they could do/could have done to lessen confusion though. I think they should just list the classes as Class(subclass) in the compendium. So the scoundrel would be listed as Rogue (Scoundrel) and the thief would be Rogue (Thief).
That's what I remember reading from another post on this - all the feats/powers/etc. still say Rogue in their various descriptive texts, requirements, and so forth.



Yeah, that's what I thought.

it doesn't matter what or why they did, it's confusing. They did a bad job of it. It makes no sense, it's a change that changes nothing other then clarity.
I have poked WotC about the changes in the names of the classes and the disconnect between the PHB1 classs and the DDI classes, and they are looking into what can be done about it within the framework of DDI to make sure that when people look up fighter (for example), they realize the name change.
Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere
I have poked WotC about the changes in the names of the classes and the disconnect between the PHB1 classs and the DDI classes, and they are looking into what can be done about it within the framework of DDI to make sure that when people look up fighter (for example), they realize the name change.



Um, undo the changes, because there wasn't a discconnect before?
Ok so they did use it again:


CREATING A SCOUNDREL


The aerialist rogue, brawny rogue, cutthroat rogue, and trickster rogue are the four rogue builds. Dexterity, Charisma, and Strength are the rogue’s most important ability scores.


AERIALIST ROGUE, BRAWNY ROGUE, CUTTHROAT ROGUE, SHADOWY ROGUE, TRICKSTER ROGUE




SCOUNDREL CLASS FEATURES


All rogues share these class features.

FIRST STRIKE, ROGUE TACTICS, ROGUE WEAPON TALENT, SHARPSHOOTER TALENT, SNEAK ATTACK



...really, guys?  really? 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Allow me to suggest a benefit:

Melee Training
Requirement: Scoundrel, Weaponmaster, Templar
Benefit: Use [stat] in place of strength for melee basic attacks.

By renaming all the original classes they are providing the framework of removing the mandatory nerf to MT. 
I agree, the renaming of the original classes is very annoying.  Besides the obvious confusion this creates, classes like the fighter are really iconic D&D classes.  Just the way terms like armor class and hit points have remained constant even as the rules have changed, certain class names are important for preserving that D&D "feel."

I was fine with the renaming of the Essentials classes - it helps differentiate them from the PHB classes.  But going back and renaming the original classes, eliminating classes like the fighter entirely from the game in the process, really grinds my gears.
They didn't rename them, though. A weaponmaster is still a fighter. He's just a specific type of fighter. It's relly not that complicated. The issue here is that it's not labeled in an intuitive way in the DDI tools but I have a feeling they will be changing that soon as well.
You're seriously claiming they didn't rename them?  What, exactly, would constitute renaming them, if not replacing their current name with a new one?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
A fighter is still a fighter. They didn't rename anything. Think of it this way: the subclass of the fighter that encompasses everything released pre essentials never had a name (because it didn't need one) so they named it the weaponmaster. Naming something that didn't previously have a name is not renaming. It's just naming.
A fighter is still a fighter. They didn't rename anything. Think of it this way: the subclass of the fighter that encompasses everything released pre essentials never had a name (because it didn't need one) so they named it the weaponmaster. Naming something that didn't previously have a name is not renaming. It's just naming.


It did have a name.  It was the fighter.  They certainly created some problems in class namespace with the essentials sub-class system, but to say that the old class didn't have a name is... weird.  It was the fighter.  It sounds like you're saying there's a three-tier system: class, sub-class, and build.  While that may be true with essentials material, it wasn't true of pre-essentials classes.  They had class and build.  By turning the class into a sub-class, you're both renaming and recategorizing.

The renaming is a messy and very irritating fix to a problem they created by doing a poor job of naming the essentials classes/subclasses/builds/whatever you want to call them.
[20:53] [SadisticFish] yeah Llamas convinced me
A fighter is still a fighter. They didn't rename anything. Think of it this way: the subclass of the fighter that encompasses everything released pre essentials never had a name (because it didn't need one) so they named it the weaponmaster. Naming something that didn't previously have a name is not renaming. It's just naming.



So now you're saying that the Fighter class never had a name before but it's still a Fighter?  That's weird, I don't seem to ever remember playing a Dragonborn Class Formerly Known as (Blank)/Whateveritis.  I always called it a Fighter and so did everyone else I know.

Seriously, this is the second most pendantic thing I've read on these boards since I started reading them.  Probably the first most pedantic thing was me saying that what people call masterwork armor is not masterwork armor.  ;)

Face it, the name changing is real and is causing real confusion for real people in the real world, really.  Whether it was necessary or good is something I won't address.

Maybe they could make it clearer by changing the Fighter or whatever you think it was called to some sort of abstract symbol like THE ARTIST did.  We'll just call it THE CLASS(tm) from now on.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Here is what is really confusing to me. A group of people, arguably one of the most intelligent cultural subgroups, can't figure out this tiny change. It is simple to the point of being stupidly simple.

WHY must you continue complaining about nothing?

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Allow me to suggest a benefit:

Melee Training
Requirement: Scoundrel, Weaponmaster, Templar
Benefit: Use [stat] in place of strength for melee basic attacks.

By renaming all the original classes they are providing the framework of removing the mandatory nerf to MT. 




This is the same type of thing I envisioned would be gained by going back and dropping in a "sub-class" name for the original classes. This MINOR change will hopefully pay off down the road by making it easier and less confusing to differentiate between original class x and essential class x.

I can't believe that some people (with 1K + posts) are really having this difficult of a time with it. The only ones who probably will suffer through some confusion are those who don't spend a lot of time on the boards / web. The'll go to create a new pc on the cb or maybe go to look up something on the compendium and wonder what went wrong. Even then, it probably wouldn't take anyone that long to figure it out. Some google searches will hopefully clear it right up.

In the meantime, WoTC will get the hint and clean up the changes and make it a little more intuitive. 
A fighter is still a fighter. They didn't rename anything. Think of it this way: the subclass of the fighter that encompasses everything released pre essentials never had a name (because it didn't need one) so they named it the weaponmaster. Naming something that didn't previously have a name is not renaming. It's just naming.



My point is that if you type in "Fighter" into the Search bar of the compendium, and check "Search by name only" you get two results:

Hybrid Fighter
Weaponmaster

Neither of which, however, is what you might be looking for if you look in your PHB, see the Big Large Text that says 'Fighter' at the top of the page, and want to look that up on the Compendium.  

How is that not renaming?  How would a new person know that they should be really looking at Weaponmaster?  Fighter and Weaponmaster could easily be seen as different classes, as Fighter and Warlord are, because their names are different and the search result entries are given full, equivalent treatment in the Compendium.  Of course, the reality is that they're not different classes, but that isn't what I'm complaining about.  I'm complaining about the name.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Here is what is really confusing to me. A group of people, arguably one of the most intelligent cultural subgroups, can't figure out this tiny change. It is simple to the point of being stupidly simple. WHY must you continue complaining about nothing?



Nobody misunderstands the class / subclass relationship. The gymnastics required to claim that changing the name of a thing is not changing its name are impressive, but we all understand it. We - or at least I, as well as some others here, apparently - disagree with the premise and justification. 
No they will not!
Ok so they did use it again:


CREATING A SCOUNDREL


The aerialist rogue, brawny rogue, cutthroat rogue, and trickster rogue are the four rogue builds. Dexterity, Charisma, and Strength are the rogue’s most important ability scores.


AERIALIST ROGUE, BRAWNY ROGUE, CUTTHROAT ROGUE, SHADOWY ROGUE, TRICKSTER ROGUE




SCOUNDREL CLASS FEATURES


All rogues share these class features.

FIRST STRIKE, ROGUE TACTICS, ROGUE WEAPON TALENT, SHARPSHOOTER TALENT, SNEAK ATTACK



...really, guys?  really? 




The issue here, really, is that they released the Class Compendium: Feats article which named Scoundrel and Arcanist subclasses for Rogue and Wizard respectively, well before the actual articles on those.  They had to update the D&Di Compendium with these names for compatibility's sake with the feats in that article.  However, since they don't have the new flavour or write-ups, the only thing they changed were the titles and the section titles.  If you read the Weaponmaster, Marshal, and Templar entries, they're written as they are in the Class Compendium, rather than just inserting those words some of the time into the text from the Player's Handbook

These are temporary changes.  The full change won't happen until the playtest on Scoundrels is over and gets incorporated into D&Di.  But since we demanded playtests, we get playtests, which means even longer before this is fixed.  Don't colour me upset though:  I like playtests.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

Here is what is really confusing to me. A group of people, arguably one of the most intelligent cultural subgroups, can't figure out this tiny change. It is simple to the point of being stupidly simple. WHY must you continue complaining about nothing?



Nobody misunderstands the class / subclass relationship. The gymnastics required to claim that changing the name of a thing is not changing its name are impressive, but we all understand it. We - or at least I, as well as some others here, apparently - disagree with the premise and justification. 




So then let me refer you to my last sentence quoted above. 

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

A fighter is still a fighter. They didn't rename anything. Think of it this way: the subclass of the fighter that encompasses everything released pre essentials never had a name (because it didn't need one) so they named it the weaponmaster. Naming something that didn't previously have a name is not renaming. It's just naming.


It did have a name.  It was the fighter.  They certainly created some problems in class namespace with the essentials sub-class system, but to say that the old class didn't have a name is... weird.  It was the fighter.  It sounds like you're saying there's a three-tier system: class, sub-class, and build.  While that may be true with essentials material, it wasn't true of pre-essentials classes.  They had class and build.  By turning the class into a sub-class, you're both renaming and recategorizing.

The renaming is a messy and very irritating fix to a problem they created by doing a poor job of naming the essentials classes/subclasses/builds/whatever you want to call them.



Why are you having such a hard time with this? The class is still Fighter. IT NEVER CHANGED. The SUBCLASS is "Weaponmaster". Subclasses didn't exist before Essentials so it didn't have a name. They exist now so they have a name now. Again, WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

Wait I think I understand now. Are you being dense on purpose? Are you trying to prove some point about subclasses?
Nick, I don't mean to be rude, but I fail to see how you have anything valid to add to this discussion since you can't even access what's being discussed.


THIS IS NOT ABOUT SUBCLASS/CLASS THEORY OR WHETHER IT'S A NEW CLASS OR NOT
.


When you search for "Fighter" in the Compendium, you don't get any results that have the name "Fighter."  At all.

I would say try it, but you can't.  I mean you can't even say "Well, it looks clear to me, I understand" and have any validity because you can't actually see it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I have an account. It's attached to a different log in. I've even explained this before to you in particular (No need to be patronizing, chief).

When you search for "Fighter" in the Compendium, you don't get any results that have the name "Fighter."  At all.



I agree completely that this is an issue. I have said several times that this is an issue. This is, however, not the issue that's being complained about. If the thread said something like: "Classes aren't being labeled correctly in the DDI tools!" I would agree and that would be the end of it. Instead I hear people whining about renaming the classes when they aren't actually being renamed.

It's a minor distinction but an important one.  
You're telling me that what I'm complaining about isn't what I'm complaining about?

Really?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Perhaps you were being unclear?

Also, you weren't the only one who was posting in the thread.

Anyway, now that it's clear that we agree I can't really tell why you're being so angry. What are we even fighting about?
Things were pretty clear until you sidetracked it into the class/subclass debate by claiming they didn't rename a clearly renamed class.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Things were pretty clear until you sidetracked it into the class/subclass debate by claiming they didn't rename a clearly renamed class.


I have to say I'm with Nick on this one.  They did not "rename" anything.  They "added" a sub-class name to the PHB 1 Fighter (Weaponmaster).  The fact that they are idiots for putting the sub-class name first where you can't search on the "super-class" name is a whole separate matter which I'd almost bet money on them fixing/changing as has been suggested here or in some other thread I've read.
i had no issue with the names i said rogue when talking about PHB1/MP1/MP2 rogue and theif when talking about the HOFK's theif i never had any issue with this.

that said, its simply cemantics as long as we know what your talking about its cool, however dont rename things that already exist (ie hospitlar theme/paragon path, warpriest subclass/paragon path, templar class/paragon path) 
Allow me to suggest a benefit:

Melee Training
Requirement: Scoundrel, Weaponmaster, Templar
Benefit: Use [stat] in place of strength for melee basic attacks.

By renaming all the original classes they are providing the framework of removing the mandatory nerf to MT. 

I was kind of thinking this same thing, so that oversights like the way melee training interacted with Essentials builds, the errata to it, and the subsequent backlash from the community could be avoided in the future.  if so then the renaming actually does have a real purpose to it, and I can't fault the devs for trying to avoid the MT shitstorm from ever happening again. 
They didn't rename them, though. A weaponmaster is still a fighter. He's just a specific type of fighter. It's relly not that complicated. The issue here is that it's not labeled in an intuitive way in the DDI tools but I have a feeling they will be changing that soon as well.



Sorry, DrNick, but there is no way this can't be seen as anything else.

If you remove the word Rogue, and put in the word Scoundrel, where the Class Name goes, it means you are renaming it.


Here is what is really confusing to me. A group of people, arguably one of the most intelligent cultural subgroups, can't figure out this tiny change. It is simple to the point of being stupidly simple. WHY must you continue complaining about nothing?



Nobody misunderstands the class / subclass relationship. The gymnastics required to claim that changing the name of a thing is not changing its name are impressive, but we all understand it. We - or at least I, as well as some others here, apparently - disagree with the premise and justification. 



All he's doing is trying to stick in an insult.

I now see how I was so irriatating to so many people for a long time. But even I wouldn't have tried to claim that renaming a class isn't renaming a class, and that anyone who can't see this, is stupid.

A fighter is still a fighter. They didn't rename anything. Think of it this way: the subclass of the fighter that encompasses everything released pre essentials never had a name (because it didn't need one) so they named it the weaponmaster. Naming something that didn't previously have a name is not renaming. It's just naming.


It did have a name.  It was the fighter.  They certainly created some problems in class namespace with the essentials sub-class system, but to say that the old class didn't have a name is... weird.  It was the fighter.  It sounds like you're saying there's a three-tier system: class, sub-class, and build.  While that may be true with essentials material, it wasn't true of pre-essentials classes.  They had class and build.  By turning the class into a sub-class, you're both renaming and recategorizing.

The renaming is a messy and very irritating fix to a problem they created by doing a poor job of naming the essentials classes/subclasses/builds/whatever you want to call them.



Why are you having such a hard time with this? The class is still Fighter. IT NEVER CHANGED. The SUBCLASS is "Weaponmaster". Subclasses didn't exist before Essentials so it didn't have a name. They exist now so they have a name now. Again, WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

Wait I think I understand now. Are you being dense on purpose? Are you trying to prove some point about subclasses?



Um, wrong.

The class, formerly called fighter, is now called weaponsmaster. Underneath that, are all the old FIGHTER builds there have allways been, since 4E came out, and all the new ones that have been added since.

Originally, there was the fighter, in the players handbook. And you had two builds.  Guardian and Great Weapon. As more build options were added, they were part of the fighter class...like Arena, Tempest and so on...

Now, it's called Weaponsmaster, and those are build options for that, along with all the other builds that used to be under the Fighter...

So yeah, I'm not sure where you are getting that Weaponsmaster is a subclass of something else.
Things were pretty clear until you sidetracked it into the class/subclass debate by claiming they didn't rename a clearly renamed class.


I have to say I'm with Nick on this one.  They did not "rename" anything.  They "added" a sub-class name to the PHB 1 Fighter (Weaponmaster).  The fact that they are idiots for putting the sub-class name first where you can't search on the "super-class" name is a whole separate matter which I'd almost bet money on them fixing/changing as has been suggested here or in some other thread I've read.



Are you intentionally ignoring the posts I'm making, or are you really that blind?

When you search for "Fighter" in the Compendium, you get Weaponmaster.

JUST WEAPONMASTER.

Not Weaponmaster (Fighter).  Not Fighter - Weaponmaster.  Not Fighter, Weaponmaster.  It's not an issue of having Weaponmaster first, or primary, or whatever.  It's that Fighter is gone as an entry.

And if you aren't paying attention to the magazine articles enough to know what happened, it's an easy source of confusion.  I mean, I do pay attention to the articles, and was surprised when my list of entries didn't bring up Rogue when I wanted it to.  Sure, it took me a little bit to find it, but in the absence of actually knowing that the Scoundrel really is the rogue I'm looking for :mindtrick: it's needlessly confusing and pointless.

Is this really that complicated?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Things were pretty clear until you sidetracked it into the class/subclass debate by claiming they didn't rename a clearly renamed class.



exactly.
Things were pretty clear until you sidetracked it into the class/subclass debate by claiming they didn't rename a clearly renamed class.


I have to say I'm with Nick on this one.  They did not "rename" anything.  They "added" a sub-class name to the PHB 1 Fighter (Weaponmaster).  The fact that they are idiots for putting the sub-class name first where you can't search on the "super-class" name is a whole separate matter which I'd almost bet money on them fixing/changing as has been suggested here or in some other thread I've read.



Are you intentionally ignoring the posts I'm making, or are you really that blind?

When you search for "Fighter" in the Compendium, you get Weaponmaster.

JUST WEAPONMASTER.

Not Weaponmaster (Fighter).  Not Fighter - Weaponmaster.  Not Fighter, Weaponmaster.  It's not an issue of having Weaponmaster first, or primary, or whatever.  It's that Fighter is gone as an entry.

And if you aren't paying attention to the magazine articles enough to know what happened, it's an easy source of confusion.  I mean, I do pay attention to the articles, and was surprised when my list of entries didn't bring up Rogue when I wanted it to.  Sure, it took me a little bit to find it, but in the absence of actually knowing that the Scoundrel really is the rogue I'm looking for :mindtrick: it's needlessly confusing and pointless.

Is this really that complicated?


No.  And I thought I was pretty clear.  It's a bug and should be reported as such.
Sign In to post comments