i don’t think the average war seas citizen is learned enough to know that word
MY GOAT MENTIONED:bangbang:
I am quite confused. Why do people like artificer as a conjurer replacement so much? Looking at the definition and the roots of the word, it seems the word is very much focused on invention and crafting. I would not assume that it meant someone who uses magic imbued into a weapon.
Somebody put “autist” for savant and the worst part is that they’re not wrong
Again, dnd (I think)
Knight (VIT + WEP) should be Paladin, but if it can’t be called Paladin then it should be called Guardian.
1 Like
we are all completely disregarding the rules 
I play D&D a lot. I write lots of homebrew. Artificers are not known for imbuing magic into an item is any similar method to one in AO whatsoever. They offer permanent, more neutral affects to an item. These are called “Artificer Infusions” . They aren’t seen as the most combat focused, but rather are given more utility abilities involving magical trinkets.
If we are going off of D&D and want a magic casting weapon user, Bladesingers are a wizard subclass that gets light weapon abilities, and Eldritch Knights are a fighter subclass that get spellcasting.
The thing artificers are associated with in D&D is undoubtably invention and crafting. Not swords and sorcery.
1 Like
yeah but that’s just my guess as to why people are voting it, not an explanation for it making sense or something
I currently rely on vetex vetoing the name paladin for knight to save me
Sad, sad day. Confirmed by tester.
If you had any Savant names that could fit other classes you could recycle them. I’m definitely going to be suggesting Synergist for Warlock now that it can’t go to Savant.
I suppose by combining magic with a weapon you’re technically transforming it into a new one since it has very different properties than before. I guess that’s the justification.
Swordsman?
Swordman suggests that you specialize in swords, not in weapons.
I’m sorry but if someone named Goliath the Warlord is coming after you then you already might have a picture in your head of what he might look like.
Could u think of smn better?
I prefer a different execution on the adjective idea that vetex had. Something akin to Arcane/Magic Warrior/whatever name ends up for Warrior. I believe that the classes that have spirit or magic imbuement should follow that philosophy, with the exception of Paladin and Savant.
Both Artificer and Conjurer have the same problem, which is that they don’t very much to do with the actual class. One of the rules is that they should resemble what the class actually does, which is not what they do. Arcanist also falls into this same hole, but at least it accurately portrays the fact that it uses magic.
I also take issue with the name Enchanter, as enchanters are already a thing on the world. They are separate in the lore, as proved through the Sameria NPC which explains a bit about their lore, so it would also break one of vetex’s philosophies on naming.
I also take issue with Spellblade and Spellsword because they refer to specific classes of weapons, which would mean that they infer a more limited idea of what the class actually does. Arcanist also lightly falls into here, as it refers to Arcanium as well, which not all Conjurers use.
Then we have names like Chaneller or Imbuer which, while accurate as to what they do, fail to say much about the magic or weapon side. Enchanter would also fall in here, in addition to contradicting the lore.
That is why; for Warlock, Juggernaut, Knight, and Conjurer; I believe that the adjective approach is the only method that accurately displays what the class is and what they do while remaining within the rules provided. There may be some extremely good name out there that accurately depicts the class without relying on the adjective method, but no one has provided such a name so far.
we already have assassin maestros so it would be confusing
ngl wheres my suggestion of calling it skibidi toilet