Class Name change?!

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ok what is with the name changes? Cleric to Templar, Fighter to weapon-master, Wizard to Arcanist. Why? There names were just fine for 37 years and now you change it?

This bug the hell out of anyone else but me?

Templar and Clerics are not even the same damn thing!
and sorry if this kind thing was already posted. I could not find anything.
and sorry if this kind thing was already posted. I could not find anything.



These are the new sub class names. The weapon master is now a fighter sub class, just like the slayer and knight are. Templar is a cleric subclass, like the warpriest. It's to make them fit the essentials mold.
Then were in the CB is the basic cleric, fighter, and wizard?
Then were in the CB is the basic cleric, fighter, and wizard?



The Weaponmaster is the phb1 fighter. It's now classified as a subclass. "Fighter" is the archetype. This is basically how they're doing it from now on. "Cleric" is the archetpe that the Templar and Warpriest fall under. "Wizard" is the Arcanist and Mage, etc.
If I'm not mistaken (and it's likely I am) it goes something like this:

Wizard (class)
Arcanist (sub-class) PHB
War-Wizard (build)

or

Wizard (class)
Mage (sub-class) HoFL
Enchantment School (build)
so in other words. There changing the name of the basic class. This makes no sense to me. It just seems like there trying to phase out the names. There is no differeince between a Wizard and a Arcanist, except for the name.

I know this is a stupid nerd rage. But it bugs me.
so in other words. There changing the name of the basic class. This makes no sense to me. It just seems like there trying to phase out the names. There is no differeince between a Wizard and a Arcanist, except for the name.

I know this is a stupid nerd rage. But it bugs me.



They "basic class" is now an archetype that the subclasses fall under. The Arcanist is a Wizard, and so is the Mage.
Its no longer a subclass if you cant just pick the basic thing.
I get that. Why call it an arcanist. And not just stick with a wizard. It just makes no sense. I know im being stupid over this. Like i said before it just bugs me.
It used to be

Fighter
 --> 1-Hand
 --> 2-Hand
 --> Tempest
 --> Battlerager
 --> Brawler


Now it's

Fighter
 --> Weaponmaster
    --> 1-Hand
    --> 2-Hand
    --> Tempest
    --> Battlerager
    --> Brawler
 --> Knight
 --> Slayer

Yes, it's a totally unnesecary distinction that could have been avoided if the essentials classes were actually new classes instead of the decision for them to piggyback all of the old stuff. 
If you look past the plot and the voice acting, Metroid: Other M was an okay game. Not a great game, but an adequate one. Not using the Metroid item collect jingle though? That, was a mistake.
Its no longer a subclass if you cant just pick the basic thing.



What do you mean? They've just divided it into seperate subclasses is all. It's still the same thing. 
Ok what is with the name changes? Cleric to Templar, Fighter to weapon-master, Wizard to Arcanist. Why? There names were just fine for 37 years and now you change it?

This bug the hell out of anyone else but me?

Templar and Clerics are not even the same damn thing!



It is simply an adjustment of the nomenclature to simplify adding new material in the future. Essentials added the concept of a 'sub-class' which is basically a somewhat more diverse build than most of the classic 4e builds. In 4e originally you had 'Fighter' and within that "Fighter Weapon Talent" builds (and subdivisions of that with 1 and 2 handed), then you had "Tempest", "Battle Rage Vigor", etc. When Essentials was released they created the "Knight" and "Slayer", which are fighters but with considerably different mechanics, much more so than the existing fighter builds. So they are considered sub-classes, and that begged the question of what sub-class existing fighter builds belonged in. This would be irrelevent except WotC probably really didn't want to have to keep putting phrases in the rules like "Fighters except for Slayer and Knight" or other such nonsense. So they invented a sub-class name for the classic 4e fighter, "Weaponmaster". CB now lists all classes that have Essentials sub-classes by sub-class name instead of the top level class name.

So there is no choice of 'fighter' in CB, just slayer, knight, and weaponmaster. ALL of them are fighters and belong in the fighter class. Anything rules-wise that works with fighter works with all of them. Stuff that works with weaponmaster, knight, or slayer only works with that specific sub-class.

Nobody is abandoning any existing traditional names for classes. They're just making up additional terms to differentiate sub-types. Presumably at some future time 5e will show up and the hierarchy of source -> class -> sub-class -> build will probably get flattened somewhat.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
It used to be


Fighter
 --> Weaponmaster
    --> 1-Hand
    --> 2-Hand
    --> Tempest
    --> Battlerager
    --> Brawler
 --> Knight
 --> Slayer

Yes, it's a totally unnesecary distinction that could have been avoided if the essentials classes were actually new classes instead of the decision for them to piggyback all of the old stuff. 



Thank you!
Note how you can not do any changes from weaponmaster on. Thus the name Fighter is now useless. Everything is now based off of the Weaponmaster class, not the fighter. Its not a subclass unless something about it is different.

There slowly phasesing out the names Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard.
The problem is, the name “Arcanist” already has a meaning, its the only name that refers to anyone that uses the Arcane power source, including Artificer, Bard, Wizard, etcetera.


It is simply an adjustment of the nomenclature to simplify adding new material in the future. Essentials added the concept of a 'sub-class' which is basically a somewhat more diverse build than most of the classic 4e builds. In 4e originally you had 'Fighter' and within that "Fighter Weapon Talent" builds (and subdivisions of that with 1 and 2 handed), then you had "Tempest", "Battle Rage Vigor", etc. When Essentials was released they created the "Knight" and "Slayer", which are fighters but with considerably different mechanics, much more so than the existing fighter builds. So they are considered sub-classes, and that begged the question of what sub-class existing fighter builds belonged in. This would be irrelevent except WotC probably really didn't want to have to keep putting phrases in the rules like "Fighters except for Slayer and Knight" or other such nonsense. So they invented a sub-class name for the classic 4e fighter, "Weaponmaster". CB now lists all classes that have Essentials sub-classes by sub-class name instead of the top level class name.

So there is no choice of 'fighter' in CB, just slayer, knight, and weaponmaster. ALL of them are fighters and belong in the fighter class. Anything rules-wise that works with fighter works with all of them. Stuff that works with weaponmaster, knight, or slayer only works with that specific sub-class.

Nobody is abandoning any existing traditional names for classes. They're just making up additional terms to differentiate sub-types. Presumably at some future time 5e will show up and the hierarchy of source -> class -> sub-class -> build will probably get flattened somewhat.




This makes it make somewhat more sense. But still it bugs me. I know its a stupid nerd rage. thanks for the help.Sealed

The problem is, the name “Arcanist” already has a meaning, its the only name that refers to anyone that uses the Arcane power source, including Artificer, Bard, Wizard, etcetera.




Also in my mind when I think templar, I do not think Cleric, I see more of a pally or something along those lines.
It used to be


Fighter
 --> Weaponmaster
    --> 1-Hand
    --> 2-Hand
    --> Tempest
    --> Battlerager
    --> Brawler
 --> Knight
 --> Slayer

Yes, it's a totally unnesecary distinction that could have been avoided if the essentials classes were actually new classes instead of the decision for them to piggyback all of the old stuff. 



Thank you!
Note how you can not do any changes from weaponmaster on. Thus the name Fighter is now useless. Everything is now based off of the Weaponmaster class, not the fighter. Its not a subclass unless something about it is different.

There slowly phasesing out the names Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard.



You're not getting it. Nothing is based off of the weaponmaster. They are based off of the Fighter. The Weaponmaster is based off of the Fighter archetype. That is why they changed the name. I'm not a fan of it either, but that's how it is. They restructured class design under archetypes.
It's not like it's the first time.
IIRC the 2nd edition classes were under groups also, and wider groups that is.
The Warrior group was composed of the Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin I think.
I have not played 3rd edition long enough to remember if it was the case in that edition too.

After all it's only a name to me, call it "platemail guy with sword" and I'd be fine with it. You can still use the term fighter to identify your character in-game.

It's all about semantics, and I don't think everyone will agree on anything, so might as well accept the current naming convention for this edition and take it only as that: names to identify a class and sub-class.

I hope this does not ruin anyone's genuine fun playing the game, it is probably one of the easiest things to fix at your table. Happy gaming.



-Realize You are your own source of all Creation, of your own master plan.
It's not like it's the first time.
IIRC the 2nd edition classes were under groups also, and wider groups that is.
The Warrior group was composed of the Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin I think.
I have not played 3rd edition long enough to remember if it was the case in that edition too.

After all it's only a name to me, call it "platemail guy with sword" and I'd be fine with it. You can still use the term fighter to identify your character in-game.

It's all about semantics, and I don't think everyone will agree on anything, so might as well accept the current naming convention for this edition and take it only as that: names to identify a class and sub-class.

I hope this does not ruin anyone's genuine fun playing the game, it is probably one of the easiest things to fix at your table. Happy gaming.





yes you are 100% right. It just bothers me to think that the Terms that I know and love for the classes I like are going to be phased out. And right now thats what it seems like there doing.
Ok what is with the name changes?
The name change is to distinguish between class archetypes and specific classes.

Cleric to Templar, Fighter to weapon-master, Wizard to Arcanist. Why?
To distinguish between class archetypes and specific classes

There names were just fine for 37 years and now you change it?
Yes.

This bug the hell out of anyone else but me?
Probably, but I find most of them to be complaining about nothing.

Templar and Clerics are not even the same damn thing!
You're right. Cleric is an archetype term that includes the Templar. Templar is a specific class with the Cleric archetype.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
It's not like it's the first time.
IIRC the 2nd edition classes were under groups also, and wider groups that is.
The Warrior group was composed of the Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin I think.
I have not played 3rd edition long enough to remember if it was the case in that edition too.

After all it's only a name to me, call it "platemail guy with sword" and I'd be fine with it. You can still use the term fighter to identify your character in-game.

It's all about semantics, and I don't think everyone will agree on anything, so might as well accept the current naming convention for this edition and take it only as that: names to identify a class and sub-class.

I hope this does not ruin anyone's genuine fun playing the game, it is probably one of the easiest things to fix at your table. Happy gaming.





yes you are 100% right. It just bothers me to think that the Terms that I know and love for the classes I like are going to be phased out. And right now thats what it seems like there doing.

I don't think that's what is happening.  I think that it is, if anything, a bit of shoe-horning to make the Essentials-designed classes make sense along side the o4e classes.  The Slayer and the Knight were so different mechanically that they didn't make sense as being classified as a Fighter build (as seen in PHB and MP1 and MP2).  The were left with a choice of creating 2 new classes for HoFL and having no "Fighter" represented or re-arranging the structure of the Class -->Build system.  They chose the latter.  So now we have Class -->Sub-class -->Build.  I don't think the "franchise classes" are in any danger, I just think there was a little adjustment in this edition for the new design going forward.  Of course, you are under no obligation to like it at all.
The problem is, the name “Arcanist” already has a meaning, its the only name that refers to anyone that uses the Arcane power source, including Artificer, Bard, Wizard, etcetera.




Also in my mind when I think templar, I do not think Cleric, I see more of a pally or something along those lines.

Heh. When I think of a D&D “Cleric”, I can barely tell the difference between a Cleric and a Pally. Both are “holy” melee-weapon warriors.

Whatever happened to the mage, the healer in robes?

Meh.  When I hear 'cleric', I don't think 'healer guy with a mace and chainmail running around the countryside kicking ass', I think 'dude in robes in a church addressing a congregation'.  When I hear 'Fighter', I think of a guy in trunks with boxing gloves on.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Im making a mountain out of a heh.

Templar and Clerics are not even the same damn thing!
You're right. Cleric is an archetype term that includes the Templar. Templar is a specific class with the Cleric archetype.



Nope.  In D&D a Templar is an arcanist who draws his magic from sorcerer-kings in a world where gods do not exist, and has been for almost 20 years now.  This was most recently revisited about 10 months ago in the Dark Sun Campaign Guide, where the most common type of Templar is actually a warlock with the Sorcerer-King Pact.
So now we have Class -->Sub-class -->Build.  I don't think the "franchise classes" are in any danger, I just think there was a little adjustment in this edition for the new design going forward.  Of course, you are under no obligation to like it at all.


The restructuring should make it a lot easier to handle class feats in the future.  Let's say they want to release a feat that works well for the "classic" fighter but not the essentials classes, they can now set Weaponmaster as a prerequisite.  Similarly they can use Slayer or Knight as prerequisites if they want it specific to those subclasses.  And finally, if they want the feat to be accessible to all 3, they just have Fighter as the pre-req.
Yes, the latest book/release that you don't like is a blatant attempt by Wizards of the Coast to make money off the fanbase. They all are. That's kinda the point of the Free Enterprise system, companies are in it to make money...
Show
69889855 wrote:
You can't! I tried... and the next night masked men came into my house and beat me until I burned up my ranger character sheet and rolled a scout. They told me... if I ever thought of making a non-essential character that they would kill mitsy..... OH GOD THEY ARE COMING BACK AND ARE FORCING ME TO BUY HEROES OF SHADOWS! SOMEONE STOP THEM PLEASE!
58321818 wrote:
Your DM is your friend. He's not trying to screw with you, or dick you around. Play your character how your character would act. Accept that your character won't always be able to do what he's best at, but also know that as a goddamn HERO, he's gonna try to do his best at what he can do. Roleplay your goddamn character, make the decisions he would make, and roll appropriately. Everything will be fine.
57025236 wrote:
But filling a post with vitriol, hate-filled comments, like "these people should be fired", swearing at us or other ambiguous members of the company - there really is no reason for that. Please share your feedback respectfully, and consider how you would share your ideas if this were a face to face conversation between real people, not faceless names on a screen.
If you see me posting in a thread about editions or Essentials (that isn't simply a rules thread or similar) remind me that I'm trying to stay away from them. (My blood pressure will thank us both.)

Templar and Clerics are not even the same damn thing!
You're right. Cleric is an archetype term that includes the Templar. Templar is a specific class with the Cleric archetype.



Nope.  In D&D a Templar is an arcanist who draws his magic from sorcerer-kings in a world where gods do not exist, and has been for almost 20 years now.  This was most recently revisited about 10 months ago in the Dark Sun Campaign Guide, where the most common type of Templar is actually a warlock with the Sorcerer-King Pact.



That is the case in Dark Sun.
It need not (and obviously is not) the case in regular D&D.  Not that it matters, because characters generally shouldn't be referring to themselves by class name anyway.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
yes you are 100% right. It just bothers me to think that the Terms that I know and love for the classes I like are going to be phased out. And right now thats what it seems like there doing.



I don't think they're phasing the terms out, they're just using them differently, but in such a way that you can use them more or less as before. A weaponmaster can still call himself a fighter and be perfectly accurate in doing so, only now it's a more generic term instead of a specific term, since it covers various sub-classes. It's as if I call myself an American instead of a New Yorker. I still distinguish myself from Canadians and Mexicans, but I lump myself together with Iowans and Californians. But I'm nonetheless a bona fide American. Likewise, you're a bona fide fighter whether you're a weaponmaster, a knight, or a slayer, and by calling yourself a fighter you distinguish yourself from wizards and rangers and all the other classes, which have their own subclasses. Logically, it makes perfect sense, although it's butting up against a long-standing tradition.

Maybe I'm stretching things a bit here, but it kind of reminds me of what the French revolutionaries did when they tried to make more "rational" borders between provinces, replacing the crazy ones that had developed over the centuries. The new borders made perfect logical sense, but they were a dismal failure and people just went right back to what had always been. I get a similar "French revolution" vibe with the way WotC is trying to make the class system more "rational." We'll just have to wait and see how it pans out.

 
Maybe I'm stretching things a bit here, but it kind of reminds me of what the French revolutionaries did when they tried to make more "rational" borders between provinces, replacing the crazy ones that had developed over the centuries. The new borders made perfect logical sense, but they were a dismal failure and people just went right back to what had always been. I get a similar "French revolution" vibe with the way WotC is trying to make the class system more "rational." We'll just have to wait and see how it pans out.




Given the level of civil eWar kvetching going on here from people who all like 4e not just trolls crawling out of wood work your analogy is poignant 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Templar and Clerics are not even the same damn thing!
You're right. Cleric is an archetype term that includes the Templar. Templar is a specific class with the Cleric archetype.



Nope.  In D&D a Templar is an arcanist who draws his magic from sorcerer-kings in a world where gods do not exist, and has been for almost 20 years now.  This was most recently revisited about 10 months ago in the Dark Sun Campaign Guide, where the most common type of Templar is actually a warlock with the Sorcerer-King Pact.



Technically, Dark Sun Templars (Arcane defiling Theme) and Templar (Clerics) don't exist side by side, because there is no Divine Power Source in Dark Sun, and the Templar Theme is tied to the Dark Sun setting, and doesn't work well outside of that setting (in fact, it would be better called Arcane Inquisitor or something beyond that setting, since Knights Templar are actually much more similar to Battle Orders of Clerics or to Paladins than they are to Warlocks).

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

...because characters generally shouldn't be referring to themselves by class name anyway.


Y'know, that was the first thing that I thought of when I saw this topic title. Doesn't every description of the Fighter class always say "nobody calls themselves fighters; they are knights, mercenaries, etc."
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
Ok what is with the name changes? Cleric to Templar, Fighter to weapon-master, Wizard to Arcanist. Why?



This question was answered on 4/18/11 in the Rule of Three.

Why is the Player’s Handbook fighter now referred to as the weaponmaster, and the warlord as the marshal?

In order to keep things clear and to make feats such as the multiclassing options work smoothly, we retroactively applied Heroes of the Fallen Lands-style names to the existing classes that have been updated via Dragon. These names allow us to make a distinction between an option for all fighters and one aimed specifically at a weaponmaster, knight, or slayer. The name change has no mechanical impact on your existing character.


so in other words. There changing the name of the basic class. This makes no sense to me. It just seems like there trying to phase out the names. There is no differeince between a Wizard and a Arcanist, except for the name.

I know this is a stupid nerd rage. But it bugs me.

Well, technically you are mistaken. There is a difference. "Wizard" is a category name that includes Arcanists, Mages, and maybe others - while Arcanists have some significant difference from Mages. Similarly, "Fighter" is a category name that includes Weaponmasters, Knights, Slayers, and maybe others.

But I agree with you nonetheless: Shoehorning an entire layer of classification into the middle of things at this time is strange, and I haven't yet identified a useful purpose it actually does serve. (Except maybe from Paizo's point of view.)
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

Templar and Clerics are not even the same damn thing!
You're right. Cleric is an archetype term that includes the Templar. Templar is a specific class with the Cleric archetype.



Nope.  In Dark Sun a Templar is an arcanist who draws his magic from sorcerer-kings in a world where gods do not exist, and has been for almost 20 years now.  This was most recently revisited about 10 months ago in the Dark Sun Campaign Guide, where the most common type of Templar is actually a warlock with the Sorcerer-King Pact.



Fixed.

thanks for the help guys. Makes a little more sense now.
Just to put in a qualifier here.

The classes are the fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Ect...

The builds are the Weapon Master, Arcanist, Templar Ect...

The Subclass builds are the Essentails builds that have the Classes as a base... a loose base in some cases.

Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
So now we have Class -->Sub-class -->Build.  I don't think the "franchise classes" are in any danger, I just think there was a little adjustment in this edition for the new design going forward.  Of course, you are under no obligation to like it at all.


The restructuring should make it a lot easier to handle class feats in the future.  Let's say they want to release a feat that works well for the "classic" fighter but not the essentials classes, they can now set Weaponmaster as a prerequisite.  Similarly they can use Slayer or Knight as prerequisites if they want it specific to those subclasses.  And finally, if they want the feat to be accessible to all 3, they just have Fighter as the pre-req.



To be fair, they'd be in the same boat if they had simply been a new, wholly separate class. Given that the essentials design seems to downplay class / racial feats, there seems to be no mechanical justification that required the shackling of the essentials classes to the 'classic' classes, especially in cases where the fundamental role of the class is completly inverted.
If you look past the plot and the voice acting, Metroid: Other M was an okay game. Not a great game, but an adequate one. Not using the Metroid item collect jingle though? That, was a mistake.
Its no longer a subclass if you cant just pick the basic thing.


My problem in a nutshell.,


Also, Templars are KNIGHTS, WOTC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What complete and utter IDIOT greenlight Templar for Cleric?
Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.

Also, Templars are KNIGHTS, WOTC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What complete and utter IDIOT greenlight Templar for Cleric?



First, don't nitpick. You're complaining for the sake of complaining, and it's damn annoying.

Secondly, the Knights Templar were, historically, a group of religious warriors who were endorsed by the Catholic church. A Knight Templar could hold a sermon, and could preach to the common folk. They could perform all of the same rites and rituals that a Catholic priest could do. From a D&D perspective, this makes perfect sense, and it fits the name perfectly.

Also, Templars are KNIGHTS, WOTC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What complete and utter IDIOT greenlight Templar for Cleric?



First, don't nitpick. You're complaining for the sake of complaining, and it's damn annoying.

Secondly, the Knights Templar were, historically, a group of religious warriors who were endorsed by the Catholic church. A Knight Templar could hold a sermon, and could preach to the common folk. They could perform all of the same rites and rituals that a Catholic priest could do. From a D&D perspective, this makes perfect sense, and it fits the name perfectly.


That just means trained in religion (with flavor background to support it - historic rituals were umm not miraculous in efffect) .... the Paladin not really being religous in its original flavor but becoming more so is interfering here and so is the difficulty of finding an armored miracle worker in legend that doesnt fit the Paladin somewhat better than it fits the cleric.

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sign In to post comments