Over-ambitious fool and Class renaming

Design
1

Hello, it is I, the soldier enjoyer, the creator of the painters woes.

But that’s not important, I’m here asking for something related to naming, naming classes.

If you have a few minutes to spare, would you like to look over this abomination of mine?

FULL CLASS CHART REVAMPED
FULL CLASS CHART REVAMPED1920×1423 678 KB

Now now, before you go off and obliterate me in the comments, the tree and the shown classes arnt the main focus, rather, their names/titles.

I need help with renaming a bunch of these, since the current 1:1 copy for the names doesn’t quite fit, and I’d like to try to be a little more distinct.

I’m trying to figure out other names to use then the bog standard for the following:

  • Solaris Magic Tree (anima, light, dark. Don’t want the light to be religious focus, and simple element classifications for the anima feel stale, and the dark magic class titles have existed for a while yet were never really related to what they do.)
  • Solaris Bow Tree (Past archer, bowgunner, and arbalest, uncertain if I should move around/rename some of them)
  • Journeyman, Axeman, Bladesman (Currently have a ‘lass’ variant for these classes but it feels like bloat that can be trimmed. If you can think of a gender neutral term for them, would make my life ever so slightly easier)
  • Visage Paragon (was trying to figure out any other term for what is basically a dismounted master knight superweapon)

Of course, outside of those I’m directly seeking, if you feel there’s a better name or think that a certain class could use a different title then what’s present, I’m open to hearing your ideas/input on class renaming outside of the specific ones

Just please understand that I am an over ambitious fool who will fly too close to the sun and see what happens, regardless of if this project sees the light of day or not.

After looking over consensus, heres the current rename plan

Changes

[MISC]
Breaker → Breacher

Paragon → False Prefect

[MAGIC TREE]

Belieaver → Initiate
Pilgrim → Apothacary

Monk → Light Adept
Cleric → Scribe
Bishop → Alchemist
Matriarch → Judge

Shaman → Seer
Druid → Prophet
Abyssal Druid → Abyss Watcher

Fire Mage → Arsonist
Thunder Mage → Tempest
Wind Mage → Stormcaller

Arcane Sage → Anima Weaver
Battle Sage → Spellblade

[PHYSICAL WEPs]
Bladesman/lass → Mercenary
Axeman/Lass → Sapper
Bandit → Brigand

[TYPO FIXING]
ballistican → ballistician
rouge → rogue
sergant → sergeant
brusier → bruiser
spector → specter
Arch-Sage → Archsage
War Sage → Warsage

FULL CLASS CHART REVAMPED
FULL CLASS CHART REVAMPED1920×1423 679 KB

4 Likes
(Theoretical) Soldier emblem
2

With Fortune’s Weave coining the neologism “Bardinger” as its Paladin equivalent, I think we’re past the point where anyone should be judged for class names in their own, personal project.

7 Likes
3

I think Breacher would be a better name than Breaker, since Breaker’s pretty generic and Breacher- through “Breach and Clear”- feels a touch more connected to guns.

Atomos what are you doing here

I am detecting serious implications that horses do not exist here.

OKAAAY onto questions you actually asked…

I think splitting Anima into fire wind and thunder is bloat. It’s bloat, it bothers me, it is not a strength of the Tellius games and is an explicit weakness of them, and it doesn’t have much of a point if you’re gonna have them all go to the same T2s anyway. Tellius was the only set to do that for a reason, Just condense them back down to the standard Pupil and Mage, though your T2+3 seems fine. there.

Student, Scholar, Philosopher, and Initiate are probably words to bear in mind and throw around if you wanna un-religion the light tree(reasonable desire), but I’m pretty sure I’d keep Inquisitor as-is. Philosopher seems like a good match for an Un-religioned Bishop, if distinctly Greek-feeling in that particular context. But who knows, maybe that’s fine. It’s probably fine.

I think the Bow Tree is fine and needs no adjustment.

Bladesman is transparently Mercenary, and if I knew why it’s not Mercenary, helping with that issue might be easier. On this topic, Skirmisher is transparently Warrior, and I’d be asking about that as well- keeping it as Warrior would free up the name “Skirmisher” for something else- though I have a plan to use it for a mounted T1 archer in my hack. Journeyman has a very explicit and specific historical context, so I’m oddly more inclined to keep the name identical for the female variant, otherwise, wikipedia is your friend here. My first instinct is “Apprentice”, considering said context, but many people in the modern day may find that Magicky. Axeman and Fighter appear redundant at first glance, but I don’t see any 3-branch promotions. I’d have to root around for historical terms. If you’re having the same issue with Rifleman as you are with these three, “Infantry” just slots in with absolute perfection.

My first idea for the problem you’re having for Paragon was “Master,” but uncertain. Second was “Ultimate,” which feels silly. Going by the Superweapon term, “Perfect” may be viable.

4

Will consider Breacher

Horses do exist, but for lore reasons they are rarer and limited to being used for trade/transport rather then combat cavalry, as seen in the top right classes

I have plans for anima, dont worry ill tinker with it later down the line

I could see Philosopher working for the bishop replacement, but gonna need to think further on the others

I can turn bladesman/bladeslass back into mercenary, although I did want to try to think of something that wasnt just the standard mercenary. Skirmisher felt more interesting then simply ‘Warrior’, but those 2 titles could be moved around if needed. and ‘Infantry’ is already used in the Visage class tree for a basic spear guy, but im open to other names for firearm users

‘Perfect’ does sound viable for the master of all class, but a class simply ‘called’ perfect sounds off, perhaps similar terms…

Ill see about making actual edits to the chart tomorrow, im going eepy shortly, so ill be able to see further replies when I awaken and any discussions i miss reguarding naming classes n such.

1 Like
5

Consider: Prefect.
My work here is done.

6

For real though lol, Dark magic could either go more evil evil cult-y or science/alchemy-y, depending on your world’s lore around it. For more evil darkness stuff, Cultist, Zealot, Prophet/Harbinger (though that would require renaming your existing Harbinger), Doomsayer, or even Messiah/Savior if you feel like it. (Also, you have two classes named Acolyte, one for the Kingdom of Solaris and one for the Visage. Just wanted to let you know, in case it wasn’t intentional.) For the more science-y, Researcher, Alchemist, Medium, Experimenter, etc. Necromancer can probably stay as is.

I really like Starshadow Melody’s light magic ideas, though you could also add in things like Scribe or Historian too, if you wanted. I’m less sold on historian. Or if you want to make light magic more non-religious, you could instead make it the next most controversial thing, government. Bureaucrat, Aristocrat, Senator, Councilor, Judge/Justice, Autocrat/Oligarch/Whatever. Something to consider.

If you end up keeping amina separate, you could have them end in different classes (although that would be more work for you, maybe just the T3 weapon ranks change?), and you could have names like Windcaller, Stormcaller… Firecaller i guess, Tempest, Inferno, Hurricane/Tornado, Pyromancer, Thundermancer, Galemancer, you get it. That might be too similar, but it is at least fancier. Names could also reflect when they get multiple ranks, e.g. Tempest (Wind+Thunder), Firenado? (Wind+Fire), Plasma (Thunder+Fire). That would probably need some work, but you catch my drift. Also, I’m a big fan of Arsonist, though that probably doesn’t quite fit the vibe.

I like the bow tree pretty well, although I’d say if you’re not doing mounted classes, you should rename Operative to Ranger. It’s a good name, be a shame not to use it, and Operative is the weakest link, I think.

Sojourner is a gender-neutral Journeyman, I think, and Axe Grinder is an amusing replacement to Axeman, at least for me. Or Executioner, though that’s probably too fearsome for a T1 class. It’s an option at least.

Also, just my two cents, but I’m not a huge fan of Bandit over Brigand as a class name. And calling the T2s Knights instead of Generals also strikes me as odd. Anywho, I hope at least some of this was helpful.

7

Sirroco’s what I’d use for that combination.

1 Like
8

armored units being called “knight” bothers me but if there’s no cavalry class i can tolerate it. “squire” itself seems like a t0 class name, like for the militia class (though it depends on what role your t0 spear fighter plays). “infantry” on its own doesn’t make sense as a class name.

suggestion: squire is the t0 trainee spear class, t1 armored units are called [weapon] armor, and the visage infantry class is named “militia”.

typos: “ballistican” should be “ballistician”, “rouge” should be “rogue”, “sergant” should be “sergeant”, “brusier” should be “bruiser”, and “spector” is probably meant to be “specter”.

the hyphen in arch and war sage is odd. they should be “Arch Sage” or “Archsage” and “War Sage” or “Warsage”.

Same thing applies to splitting tomes into anima, light, and dark but fe8-centrism decrees the three be separate. hacks need to do monotype tomes more :neutral_face:

I’m wondering how movement variety is going to be handled without any horseback units. Will some classes like thieves be built for increased mobility? Tbh without any movement variety I can see your hack being a bit monotonous to play.

My suggestion is to have a foot class dedicated to being the high mobility unit.

Otherwise, IDK. I can’t give many suggestions. It seems like a typical romhack class tree to me.

9

They really don’t that makes mages too samey even with the classlock thing Awakening does for nosferatu and maybe like one other tome. There’s three different types of magic tomes for the same reason there’s three different melee weapons, then bows and staves are Weirdos.

10

mages are samey because they all do the same thing. yes, even in the games with split magic. magic isn’t like physical weapons, it’s equivalent to bows. imagine splitting bows into three types. yes you can stat them differently but they fundamentally all play the same role. there’s no real reason to do so when you can lock longbows to snipers for example.

monotype magic has literally never been a problem in the series’ history. mages have always been “samey” even in the split magic games. like… would dark mages play all that differently if they used the same spells as anima mages but with nosferatu added on as a bonus? they wouldn’t.

you correctly make the observation that split anima is bloat but for some reason the same thing doesn’t apply to light and dark magic?

anyway… this is off topic. maybe a separate thread should be dedicated to this idk.

11

Did you notice that they did Both?

12

of course i did.

their system can easily work by merging the three mage types and monk. dark mage has a unique promotion and access to dark tomes which sets it apart from the standard mage so it can stay as a separate class.

if fighting monsters is a focus i’d recommend making one choice get a couple of specific light tomes (with monster effectiveness) locked to that class or a staff-using class. monster combat vs. staff utility.

the concepts can easily be done without the bloat of four unnecessary magic types. plus it makes mages more fun to use by broadening their options.

13

The I don’t see how you’re failing to understand that my stance is “Three is good, six is not.”

… tellius didn’t have dark & light, did it.

14

oh i know. i just don’t agree with you that magic needs three types.

tellius is weird. path of radiance had light but not as a separate type (it used staff rank). there was no dark magic.

radiant dawn had both light and dark as separate types but dark magic was only on a few enemies and usable by a character you can only get on a second playthrough.

tbh i think it’s somewhat hypocritical to dislike tellius magic but praise fe7/8 as tellius practically has three types anyway on the units it matters for. light and dark aren’t used that often in either game.

sure it’s not as interesting as luna or nosferatu but it isn’t adding any extra bloat compared to what fe6-8 already did. light magic in fe7/8 is just anima but worse. why does it need to be its own type with a separate weapon rank?

even in fe8 you can condense the three magic classes into a single magic class with the option of bishop vs. summoner without losing much in terms of gameplay.

15

Oh I won’t disagree that the anima/dark/light split is mishandled in vanilla, everyone knows that, but I just find having only one(technically two but Staves are the Bows to tomes’ melee weapons so they like half don’t count and if they do then two’s boring and there’s four physical weapon types and *ramble ramble ramble*) kind of magic boring, and the way Awakening handles Dark Magic is a myrm lock and I find that to be a boring downgrade.

I also probably just don’t like tellius IDK I haven’t played them yet so it’s hard to say for sure.

16

yeah but i’m talking about gameplay, not vibes.

it’s not that i don’t like dark mages or even light mages. it’s just that mechanically i prefer light and dark tomes to do something meaningfully different compared to basic magic.

i just dislike them being completely separate types with separate ranks. this results in bloat like the entire light magic line and flux.

my preferred way is to use weapon locks. it may seem “boring” to you but that’s only because you’re used to how magic works in fe8 (reminder: most of the series only has one tome type, including every single game post-radiant dawn).

i did an fe8 romhack where all light magic was monster-effective. i cut down light magic to three tomes and removed flux. shamans got anima + dark weapon lock and monks got anima + light weapon lock. this changed literally nothing in terms of flavor but expanded what weapons artur and promoted dark mages could use without any jank involving increasing ranks.

i don’t get why this system isn’t more popular? it doesn’t hurt the flavor at all?

17

Because there’s just no point in moving to a weapon lock when they’re already split up the way you’re using a weapon lock to split them up, minus all of them having anima? I only need them to be as different to eachother as swords, axes, and lances are to eachother, though. Because frankly, a weapon type is either a weapon type, or staves.

Oh and it cuts mages out of having their own weapon triangle, making them just better archers b/c they can 1-range.

18

The magic triangle is pointless as it’s generally more important to fight a mage with a physical attacker. Mage-on-mage combat isn’t going to amount to much as magic casters all have high res.

If you want an interesting weapon triangle relationship involving magic, Fates has you covered. In that game magic works alongside swords and is strong against axes and bows, but weak against spears and shuriken. Tomes can outrange archers and overpower low-res axe users, but struggle against the speedy high-res pegasus knights and ninja. this relationship only works with one magic type.

also i just do not like how solo-type mages play in gbafe. anima usually has variety but dark mages are so boring to use because they only have one basic tome to wield. light is just boring anima as it only has simple damage ramps. combining the three so every mage has a variety of spells to use is the most intuitive evolution of the system to me.

19

so stop giving all mages high res, god damnit.

and the fates solution is a solution but it takes away Bows’ ability to just not give a shit about the weapon triangle, which is also a consideration to take into account when designing a game or hack. It also gives a weapon in a triangle using a totally different stat to the rest of the triangle, so whether you want that is also something to consider.

To me, while magic certainly has problems, combining them all just removes what’s special about them all, and loses a lot of flavor. I’m planning a hack where the final enemy faction is strongly associated with Light magic, and the player’s faction is more associated with Dark magic, and that little line wouldn’t be able to be there in the same way if tomes were all just tomes.

20

mages having variable res stats wouldn’t fix the issue of magic triangle being irrelevant as mages still aren’t common. the fates approach works better as it puts mages up against axe users and archers, all of which are equally numerous.

let’s say mages are 20% of your army and 20% of the enemy’s. assuming every player fights every enemy equally 4% of battles are going to be mage vs. mage. that isn’t a lot. definitely not frequent enough for a weapon triangle to be impactful.

does magic using a different stat matter at all as far as the fates triangle is concerned? of course not. the triangle affects damage taken/received and hit/avoid. it has nothing to do with strength or magic. it just feels weird to you because it’s a system you’re not used to.

like… idk. do what you want. i’m just advocating for more hacks to take the simple approach rather than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. gbafe hacks break tradition in many other ways, so why are we so beholden to this archaic design decision?