the problem with ‘arcane warrior’ is that its two words and doesnt really abbreviate well. artificer is one word, sounds cool, and abbreivates well, so it has that going for it, even if it doesnt technically fit like a glove. additionally my google search results definitely give that the artificer infuses magic into something, so
Yeah, it really does feel like a special build. Even without the “divine spirit energy” thing, being both a Mage and Oracle has to be EXTREMELY rare. Mages are a minority in AO, Oracles even more so. That alone feels like it should have its own name even in the lore.
1 Like
WHAT DO YOU MEAN INFERIOR, KNIGHT IS MUCH BETTER THAN PALADIN e
Knight seems tied to vitality specifically, but vitality is being replaced, so we’d want it changed to something more related to spirit than vitality.
Same goes for Juggernaut.
Vitality names moreso are being changed from being “beefy”/“big guy” related to being more spiritual like if that makes sense
2 Likes
can’t we just repurpose a more niche word to be the new name for knight instead so it isn’t confused for anything in game
No, but Vetex can.
i would just suggest spirit knight, a weapon user who also has some spirit shenanigans
Two words, no good.
two words are completely fine, the rules even said so
It might be viable but it’s not good.
Paladin is marginally more spiritual than Knight. Idk what to tell you.
(Also knights are still a real and very common profession, but paladins don’t seem to be)
I agree that it does not sound as well, but I struggle to see precisely what you mean by “abbreviate”, as I think they abbreviate about as well. I think it is merely that I am misunderstanding what you mean by “abbreviate well”. Could Arcane Warrior not abbreviate to “ArcWar”? Artificer could abbreviate to “Art” or “Arti” (which is what I would prefer, as Art is another word on its own). So they both could easily abbreviate.
If we look at the first non-D&D link for Artificer, we see it is the definition for Artificer, which has absolutely nothing todo with magic.
If you search by images you will find that even after minutes of searching, you will likely find no non-D&D results. Thus, it is safe to say that D&D Artificer is the fantasy of Artificer that most people believe in and imagine when they hear “Artificer”.
So let’s instead look at the D&D version.
The main feature of the D&D version is Artificer Infusions, if we look at their first appearance in 3.5e Ebberron Campaign Setting of D&D, we find that they don’t use any magic at all. They are purely things of invention, thematically. Mechanically, they created permanent magic items at the cost of treasure, but unlike other PCs (which could do the same thing) they didn’t lose XP by crafting.
So in their original production (ignoring the wizard subclass in 2e that no one knows about), they were not thematically magic-users.
But 3.5e was not nearly as popular as 5e, so let’s look at that instead. Here, in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, we see that they have been removed from their plane-specific lore. Thus, they now are magical, as would be necessary outside of Eberron. Here, their main feature is Artificer Infusions, where they change an item to have magical properties until they die, they forget how to make the infusion, or until they make a new infusion beyond their cap and choose which previous infusion must be removed.
Now, I will use my hot dog example again. The Conjurer puts a bun (their magic) around their sausage (their weapon) which makes a hot dog. The Artificer takes the meat (the item, not specifically a weapon) and infuses bread into parts of the meat (by injecting or something, idk). One fundamentally changes the item, the other does not.
Even if I were to say that Artificer had a magical connotation, we would find that it has no weapon connotation. One of the rules is that it must relate to what the class does, and the Conjurer primarily casts magic, swings weapons, and coats their weapons with magic.
The Artificer, in the best case scenario, only manages to encapsulate one of these three attributes. Even though it sounds the best, it fails in terms of encapsulating the class. I believe that the bare minimum a class should do is allude towards all their stats.
While I agree that one word names sound better than two word names, I disagree that two word names do not sound good. Although, this is all a matter of opinion.
Sometimes two words are the only way to accurately represent a class, or at least get the closest to accurately representing a class.
yes it is, especially given the rules
the suggested names have to be something that the people of the war seas would use to describe someone with that particular style of fighting, not just titles to give the builds. these aren’t established jobs like in other rpgs, so things like a gladiator or a monk don’t work, those are other things entirely that already exist as something else and aren’t actually related to how someone fights in universe
3 Likes
Good because “spellblade” is fucking stupid 
Not as stupid as monk though
Ahh okay 
Thanks, I really appreciate that. Let’s hope Juggernaut gets picked.
Depending on the magic, its stats may be radically different, and it may apply a new effect. All this considered, I admit it may be a little weak of an argument.
Hmm… This raises the question of whether or not imbuement is infusion, or merely coating. Let’s look at what the secret in Port Mistral says.
Not very clear. There’s wiggle room in here for either interpretation. On one hand it says “regular metal can still be coated in magic,” which could possibly imply it’s limited to only coating, although doesn’t outright state it. But then it says “By conducting energy through arcanium, a majority of the energy runs through the sea salt within rather than the metal itself.” This seems to definitively state that imbued energy not only coats the metal but also runs within it as well, deeply intertwined with the object.
All this is to say, I believe Conjurers do fundamentally change the item. They inject bread into the sausage. They are close to equivalent to the D&D Artificers you mentioned.
I wonder if the person who made D&D Artificers was ever told that the term was ill-fitting? I wonder if, at that time, people had the same discussions as we did now. What this proves to me is that media can change terms and expand upon them, making their own versions. D&D Artificers are more in-depth, detailed, specific, and magical than the original definition, which is simply “inventor or craftsman.” I think Arcane Odyssey can forge its own definition as well.
I had actually never known of D&D Artificers until recently. I associated the term with the Artificer from Rain World, who coats rocks and spears with her special saliva to turn them into explosive weapons, which is actually a lot like AO Conjurers. Both coat weapons with a special substance that comes from themself, giving the object new and explosive properties.
I concede that this is true. Artificers in both D&D and Rain World are heavily associated with technology, which AO lacks. But this doesn’t mean we can’t use the term. As a creative, I find that to be a saddening thought, and also one that’s proven false in practice.
Just because someone else used a certain term first, and popularized a common idea around it, doesn’t mean we can’t throw our own ideas into the ring. That’s restrictive. It’s even a law that you can’t patent a word.
Think of the word “demon.” Think of how many wildly variable interpretations of them exist. They range from evil spirits, to freakish monsters, to nuanced beasts, to even some good or decent people. They have been portrayed as looking like just about anything, and the rules of how they work and their physiology has changed again, and again, and again, differing from every depiction.
Imagine how much good, thought-provoking media we would have never gotten if everyone saw the first interpretation of a demon and thought “No, I can’t put my own spin on this. People have already built up an association with this one version of demons, so if I tried something different it would just confuse everyone and turn them away.”
This is also true. The name “Artificer” has no direct ties to weapons or magic, instead it refers exclusively to imbuement. But it might be perfect that way. These class names are supposed to be used in-universe, so let’s try to get into the heads of the people in AO. I will make my case from that perspective, and hopefully confirmation bias doesn’t blindside me.
Weapon usage is extremely common, in fact it seems like the most common method of fighting that we’ve seen. Anyone can do it. Magic is rarer, but it’s not generally something you have to work to unlock, it’s something you’re born with. Thus, having both weapons and magic is nothing exceptional. A little above average, if anything.
On the other hand, imbuement is something that’ll get heads turning to look. I am of the belief that imbuement is far more complex and respect-worthy in-universe, than it is in-game where all we do is press a button and move our cursor a little.
Let’s go back to that paragraph from the Port Mistral secret. It establishes that imbuement coats the weapon both inside and out, and it has the potential to damage the metal. Also, obviously different metals have different levels of durability, so it stands to reason that how much magic a weapon can handle depends on what it’s made of.
This makes imbuement an incredibly complex process. Not only must you weave your energies into it, you probably have to fine-tune it perfectly, making micro adjustments to the intensity of energy and how you’re applying it, all so the weapon doesn’t snap. It’s made harder by the fact that what a weapon is made of won’t always be obvious at a glance. Which generic gray silvery metal is that? Is it alloyed with anything? Even little differences left unaccounted for could leave your weapon damaged when you imbue it.
If you can mix the ingredients, and you don’t let them get destroyed and burnt to a crisp in the oven, are you not a baker?
There is a reason Vetex made a point of how Shura is very exceptional for learning how to imbue so early on. Most NPCs don’t learn to imbue until level 120. While that may seem low to us (the cap is gonna be 600 after all), it’s hugely above average in lore. Evander is only level 100 and he somehow earned a title like “Mountainbreaker.” We killed a king at level 100. The average NPC who knows how to imbue is 20% higher than that.
Possessing both weapons and magic is nothing to write home about. But imbuement? Mastering this delicate art, intertwining your powers and showing them off in a colorful, elemental display of slashes and shots? That is what I believe Conjurers would get their name for. That is what people respect them for, know them for, and what they think of when they think of a master of weapons and magic. Artificer is a finely fitting name, even if it only refers to imbuement.
And hey, who’s to say Artificer couldn’t refer to magic and weapons too?
It doesn’t in our universe, but AO isn’t like ours. Think of how many words have changed their meaning over time. Some words have meant many things over the course of history.
Imagine a world where satanism didn’t exist, and thus the upside down cross remained a symbol of Saint Peter. Would the people from that world look at ours and think “That’s stupid, why would Saint Peter’s Cross represent satanism?!” They probably would. But the fact of the matter is, that’s how things turned out, because our world is different from theirs, and we don’t think it’s illogical.
In a world where something as big as MAGIC exists, I’m sure it would have huge effects branching into every area of life. Tons of words we know very well in our world, might have evolved to mean something totally different in the arcane universe. Tons of terms would be invented and co-opted to mean something else related to magic. Oracle is a perfect example of this. Prophet in our world, master of spirit weapons in theirs.
While we should strive to find names that fit well… I believe that, within reason (looking at you, Savant), some names being a little bad or not quite perfectly fitting is actually immersive. When given the opportunity to create our own fictional worlds, we often try to fine-tune everything, make everything perfect, forgetting that humans are not perfect. They make stupid choices. They name things in really stupid ways. Do you have any gripes with our language? I know I do.
Every now and then, I want to see that humans in Arcane suck at naming stuff. That’s relatable, it draws me into the world. I wanna say “What? Why would they name it like that, lol? Weird choice but okay.” I want to point and laugh at fictional words in the same way I’d laugh at Torpenhow Hill, or the pronunciation of “colonel.”
It’s hilarious that “Aura” has three different meanings in arcane. Makes me imagine a bunch of magic scientists who were just super lazy at naming things and kept reusing the same generic term instead of making up new words. Researchers make the silliest choices sometimes, and that’s consistent across every universe.
All this is to say, it’s fine if Artificer refers to different things in Arcane than it does in our world. Honestly, we have so many niche terms and an overabundance of synonyms, I think it would be cool to see fictional characters recycling our silly terms into actual useful words that pertain to something unique.
“Inventor or craftsman” here, “imbuer of magical weapons” there.
Well! That’s the last of my argument. I wanna close this off by saying it’s been great exchanging ideas with you. I really appreciate the good faith argumentation you’ve given; it’s sadly a rare find on the internet.
Oh boy… this has never been truer 
1 Like
The reason as to why the names needs to be changed:
Just call conjurers spellswords. ‘Sellsword’ is a historical term used to refer to mercenaries, swords for hire. They didn’t always use swords, but the term just stuck with them.
I believe this was ruled out?
Within reason it’s okay for imperfections in the names. Knight and Warlord are real titles and professions used elsewhere in AO’s society. And Savant is just too far.
Not all conjurers in-universe will know how to use a sword, so this title is wildly inaccurate and alienating. It’s not like the game where you master every type of weapon at once. People will specialize in only a few types, which may not include blades.
Also calling someone a Spellsword sounds like you’re calling them a weapon. It sounds silly to me. I don’t think I’m ever going to get behind this.