Colloquial names for classes

[king_steve]

For RP purposes, it can be fun to describe stuff without using specific terms. A commoner may not have deep understanding about the differences that make someone a wizard vs a warlock and might refer to both as simply a magician. It can also add an air of mystery to said magician that lives in the woods. Is he a warlock trying to summon some unspeakable horror or is he a wizard that has secluded himself to his research? Who knows until your adventuring party arrives and find out.

What are some common colloquial names you like to use for classes?

Here are some I might user (in no particular order)

Artificer: tinker, mage, inventor, mechanic, builder
Barbarian: warrior, zealot, rager
Bard: hedge mage, singer, poet, wanderer
Cleric: disciple, priest, bishop, inquisitor
Druid: shaman, witch doctor, naturalist, summoner, blessed
Fighter: warrior, tactician, captain, knight, archer, hedge knight
Monk: hermit, disciple, pugilist, boxer, blade master, master, disciple, blessed
Paladin: warrior, adjudicator oath bound, captain, knight
Ranger: naturalist, monster hunter, huntsman, highwayman, wanderer, archer
Rogue: assassin, pirate, thug, cutthroat, highwayman, archer
Sorcerer: mage, witch, naturalist, dragonkin (or other types of 'kin' based off subclass)
Warlock: mage, witch, summoner, hexer, fiend
Wizard: magician, mage, witch, professor, summoner

[Dienekes]

Paladin: could always just use the name of a holy order: templar, hospitaller, knight-brother
Fighter: Serjeant-at-arms, mercenary, guard, bodyguard, brigand
Rogue: thief, spy, brigand, ruffian,
Bard: musician, minstrel, orator, politician, lech

[Sam113097]

Artificer: Crafter, Technician, Magewright
Barbarian: Slayer, Brute
Bard: Jester, Artist, Performer
Cleric: Sage, Preacher, Seer
Druid: Medicine Man, Soothsayer
Fighter: Gladiator, Duelist, Warlord
Monk: Brawler, Ascetic, Lama
Paladin: Champion, Protector, Guardian
Ranger: Warden, Explorer
Rogue: Outlaw, Lowlife, Scoundrel, Trickster
Sorcerer: Spellbinder
Warlock: Conjurer, Occultist
Wizard: Adept, Enchanter

[Evaar]

I played a Rogue with an Al Swearengen affect who called all spellcasters “Finger Wagglers.”

[Lord Raziere]

Paladin: Templar, Demon-hunter, crusader
Fighter: mercenary, assassin
Rogue: spy, agent, saboteur

[Kane0]

I'm guessing slang would count?

'Mancer (spellcaster)
Knave (bard, rogue)
Wilder (barbarian, ranger, druid)
Clanker / Squire (cleric, paladin, fighter)
Jammy (monk, wizard)

[Zetakya]

Bard: Minstrel, Gerthddyn, Herald, Skald

[No brains]

A cleric would probably be more accurately called a prophet. They bring more wrath than clerical paperwork.

[Cicciograna]

Add "berserker" to the Barb list.

[EggKookoo]

What are some common colloquial names you like to use for classes?

I don't. I'm a firm advocate of no one within the fiction knowing anything about classes, including the PCs themselves. "Wizard" is applied to anyone who can do anything dazzling and impressive. "Warrior" is more of a vocation, like "soldier." These apply to NPC and PC alike. No one uses the term "fighter" to identify a specific group of people skilled in martial combat. An eldritch knight, arcane trickster, and sorcerer team are as likely to call themselves the "Three Magicians" as anything else, and no one would tell them they're wrong.

I think of this as the Conan approach (speaking more of that first movie than the books). Conan is nominally a barbarian, but he's highly trained in combat arts like a battle master, and is even referred to as a thief a few times (albeit disparagingly). Mako plays a character who functions much more like a cleric than the "wizard" he's repeatedly referred to as. Subatai is also called a thief and certainly is nimble and stealthy, but he's also kind of like a monk or a fighter.

YMMV but for me, class names are for players.

[Boci]

"Wizard" is applied to anyone who can do anything dazzling and impressive.

That works for commoners and other leymen, but evoker wizards and draconic fire sorcerors can presumably tell that whilst both can make something pretty dazzling and impressive, their magic is very different.

[EggKookoo]

That works for commoners and other leymen, but evoker wizards and draconic fire sorcerors can presumably tell that whilst both can make something pretty dazzling and impressive, their magic is very different.

I encourage my players to reskin spells as much as they want. I usually prompt them with something like, "so, what does your wizard's magic missile look like?" The more you can make your spells unique, the better. And I run the world as though that difference in appearance "really" means two wizards aren't casting the exact same spell. They may be very similar and one can be kind of ported to the other, but it's tied to how one wizard can't just pick up another wizard's spellbook and start preparing spells out of it. The first wizard has to transcribe the info into something of their own creation. Every single spell is, at some level, unique to the caster that casts it.

So this means two evoker wizards casting the exact same spell (from the perspective of the PHB) may present very differently. Only a magical expert would even begin to understand that there's some kind of underlying unity between them.

In general, I try to reinforce to the players that their character's don't exist in a game, and certainly wouldn't think of themselves as being in a game. Whenever I can put a barrier between game terminology and in-fiction terminology, I do. One thing I can't stand about games like WoW is how shopkeepers refer to you by your class. Takes me right out of the fantasy.

[Boci]

I encourage my players to reskin spells as much as they want. I usually prompt them with something like, "so, what does your wizard's magic missile look like?" The more you can make your spells unique, the better. And I run the world as though that difference in appearance "really" means two wizards aren't casting the exact same spell. They may be very similar and one can be kind of ported to the other, but it's tied to how one wizard can't just pick up another wizard's spellbook and start preparing spells out of it. The first wizard has to transcribe the info into something of their own creation. Every single spell is, at some level, unique to the caster that casts it.

So this means two evoker wizards casting the exact same spell (from the perspective of the PHB) may present very differently. Only a magical expert would even begin to understand that there's some kind of underlying unity between them.

You really seem to be over selling how difficult it would be to spot the difference. However different you fluff invokers, they learn spells from some form of writing, usually their book, they can learn new spells from eachother, and they skult their spells. The draconic sorcerors cannot learn spells from each other easily, not all can skulp spells and if they can skulp spells, and if they can they do so differently to the evokers, and they all have scally hide and affrinity for 1 element. It really shouldn't take a genius to notice that all for the two wizards are never technically casting the same spell, there's still a clear difference between the magic users: the well read ones who are much better at sharing knowledge (willingly or unwillingly), need to study writings in the morning to cast spell and can all skulp their spells, vs. the guys who cannot share knowledge easily, do not need to prepare them, seem to have a more varied assortment of ways to manipulate their amgic, yet all have scales and a focus on one energy type.

[EggKookoo]

You really seem to be over selling how difficult it would be to spot the difference. However different you fluff invokers, they learn spells from some form of writing, usually their book, they can learn new spells from eachother, and they skult their spells. The draconic sorcerors cannot learn spells from each other easily, not all can skulp spells and if they can skulp spells, and if they can they do so differently to the evokers, and they all have scally hide and affrinity for 1 element. It really shouldn't take a genius to notice that all for the two wizards are never technically casting the same spell, there's still a clear difference between the magic users: the well read ones who are much better at sharing knowledge (willingly or unwillingly), need to study writings in the morning to cast spell and can all skulp their spells, vs. the guys who cannot share knowledge easily, do not need to prepare them, seem to have a more varied assortment of ways to manipulate their amgic, yet all have scales and a focus on one energy type.

Well, I also need to mention that I don't do PC classes for NPCs. So until a player makes, say, an invocation mage, they literally do not exist anywhere in the universe. An NPC with some invocation magic is not an invocation wizard, as far as I'm concerned. They don't have all the features of the PC class.

So this kind of thing would only really be an issue if I had two players pick the same class, and that basically never happens just out of player desire to be different from one another.

[Boci]

Well, I also need to mention that I don't do PC classes for NPCs. So until a player makes, say, an invocation mage, they literally do not exist anywhere in the universe. An NPC with some invocation magic is not an invocation wizard, as far as I'm concerned. They don't have all the features of the PC class.

So this kind of thing would only really be an issue if I had two players pick the same class, and that basically never happens just out of player desire to be different from one another.

Well if the layers are unique like that then there's really no need for terms refering to classes, if there's only 4-7 of them in the entire realm.

[EggKookoo]

Well if the layers are unique like that then there's really no need for terms refering to classes, if there's only 4-7 of them in the entire realm.

Yup. Ergo, "I don't." :smallsmile:

[RSP]

Well, I also need to mention that I don't do PC classes for NPCs. So until a player makes, say, an invocation mage, they literally do not exist anywhere in the universe. An NPC with some invocation magic is not an invocation wizard, as far as I'm concerned. They don't have all the features of the PC class.

So this kind of thing would only really be an issue if I had two players pick the same class, and that basically never happens just out of player desire to be different from one another.

So does the “not a Wizard” NPC not have a spellbook then?

This removes some of the advantage a Wizard PC would normally have.

[HappyDaze]

Most commonly, in-character references refer to "warriors, rogues, and spellcasters" with rogue not necessarily being limited to the Rogue class. All of the classes are some blend of the three (e.g., Barbarian is almost always referred to as a warrior while a Bard is a roguish spellcaster and both clerics & paladins are spellcasting warriors).

[EggKookoo]

So does the “not a Wizard” NPC not have a spellbook then?

This removes some of the advantage a Wizard PC would normally have.

It might, it might not. If I were to use the MM mage, I might give it a spellbook, but mainly because its stat block specifically says it has "wizard" spells prepared. But it doesn't have Arcane Recovery or an Arcane Tradition. It's somehow proficient in four languages. I'm not sure it's proficient in any weapon aside from its dagger (strictly speaking it's not, since its stat block makes no mention of it). So giving it a spellbook isn't outrageous, but it technically is a homebrew.

The mage stat block says it's a "9th level spellcaster," but I'm not sure a 9th level PC wizard would be map over to a CR 6 creature. Seems like the wizard would be a higher CR, but then that makes some sense given the mage is lacking a number of wizard features. A mage isn't actually a PC wizard. It's just wizard-like.

To be fair, the MM is a little inconsistent here. The knight entry, for example, refers to an ability that recharges after a long or short rest. But unless the knight is some kind of DM PC that hangs out with the party, we're never going to see it rest in the game. Most other creatures use the d6 recharge mechanic, and I think I would apply the same to the knight if I were to use him straight out of the book. I suspect it's an oversight. I did a quick Google search but I don't know if there was ever a Sage Advice about whether or not mages and knights are supposed to literally be monster versions of PC classes.

[Boci]

It might, it might not.

But then we're still back to there big a very obvious in game tell between caster types. "needs book" vs. "doesn't need book" sounds like a fairly easy tell to spot in game, and the implied difference in how magic works should probably lead to a term for each group.

[HappyDaze]

But then we're still back to there big a very obvious in game tell between caster types. "needs book" vs. "doesn't need book" sounds like a fairly easy tell to spot in game, and the implied difference in how magic works should probably lead to a term for each group.

How often is a spellcaster's spell preparation being observed?

The book isn't being waved around or read from during casting; it's not like using a spellcasting focus. However, it should be possible to distinguish users of one type of focus from another.

[Boci]

How often is a spellcaster's spell preparation being observed?

The book isn't being waved around or read from during casting; it's not like using a spellcasting focus. However, it should be possible to distinguish users of one type of focus from another.

Oh certainly. I'm not saying commoners will be discussing the difference between a wizard and a sorceror, but people who know about magic will probably notice that some need a book to cast spells and others don't.

[EggKookoo]

But then we're still back to there big a very obvious in game tell between caster types. "needs book" vs. "doesn't need book" sounds like a fairly easy tell to spot in game, and the implied difference in how magic works should probably lead to a term for each group.

Druids might keep a spell journal. Sorcerers might have something similar. They might even hold them open and "cast" from them, even if they don't need to mechanically.

Without reading through it and deciphering it, could you tell a wizard's spellbook from a sorcerer's casting focus that happens to be a book?

For that matter, does a spellcaster that uses a spellbook need to have it on their person all the time? I mean, yes, adventuring PC wizards tend to keep their books with them because they often expect to be out adventuring for multiple days, and need the book with them to re-prepare spells. But when you break into a spellcasting NPCs sanctum, his book could be anywhere in the building.

Further, is there anything by RAW that requires a PC wizard's spellbook to appear as an actual page-bound book? It could be a long scroll. And depending on how free you are with reskinning, it really could be anything that costs the same and has about the same degree of availability to the character. Maybe the wizard embroiders spells with 100gp fine thread on the inside of their robe...

[Boci]

Without reading through it and deciphering it, could you tell a wizard's spellbook from a sorcerer's casting focus that happens to be a book?

A wizard needs the spell book only in the morning. The sorceror needs their focus on hand to ignore material components. Big difference, easily observable in game.

[EggKookoo]

A wizard needs the spell book only in the morning. The sorceror needs their focus on hand to ignore material components. Big difference, easily observable in game.

Ok, then you can tell a wizard casting a prepared spell with no spellbook in sight from a sorcerer casting without a focus?

[Boci]

Ok, then you can tell a wizard casting a prepared spell with no spellbook in sight from a sorcerer casting without a focus?

From a single casting? Probably not, its the DMs call. But spellcasters exist for more than a single casting, and there are very easy to notice differences between morning book mages and arcane focus book mages. You'd imagine someone would notice them eventually.

[RSP]

Ok, then you can tell a wizard casting a prepared spell with no spellbook in sight from a sorcerer casting without a focus?

But the point is there are differences. It may not apply to the lay person, but those educated in, say, Arcane, would know there are different ways to approach being a person who controls magic; namely how those individuals acquire their magic abilities.

In a sense, there’s less difference between a Druid and a Sorcerer, then a Sorc and Wizard, or Cleric and Druid. To the lay person, a Druid and Sorcerer might be the same thing; but a Cleric will standout as different.

So I think the point of the thread is “how would the lay person see the different classes.”

It sounds like even in your home brew world, this would be a thing, though probably not apples to apples as how it would apply in FR (though FR would probably not apply the same to say Eberon).

[EggKookoo]

In a sense, there’s less difference between a Druid and a Sorcerer, then a Sorc and Wizard, or Cleric and Druid. To the lay person, a Druid and Sorcerer might be the same thing; but a Cleric will standout as different.

It seems to me the bulk of that difference emerges from the individual and how they present themselves. I mean a cleric might be understated in how they cast their spells, while the druid espouses the virtues of their deity. A layperson might well assume the druid is a cleric or priest of some sort, while thinking the cleric is just some kind of run of the mill magician.

There's certainly nothing mechanical that would provide a distinction.

[Boci]

It seems to me the bulk of that difference emerges from the individual and how they present themselves. I mean a cleric might be understated in how they cast their spells, while the druid espouses the virtues of their deity. A layperson might well assume the druid is a cleric or priest of some sort, while thinking the cleric is just some kind of run of the mill magician.

You can contribe indevidual example where this fits, but overall one would expect clerics of most non-evil dieties to be fairly open about that. In indevidual examples, sure, laypeople could often mix up a religious sorceror (especially divine souled) and a charismatic cleric, but it would be wierd if no one on any level of society had ever figured out that there is a difference between those who are granted spells by a god and those born/mutated into magic.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Artificer: Tech Guy
Barbarian: Strong guy
Bard: Music Guy
Cleric: Holy Guy
Druid: Hippie Guy
Fighter: Weapons guy
Monk: Ninja guy
Paladin: SMITE guy
Ranger: Tracker guy
Rogue: Skills guy
Sorcerer: Magic guy
Warlock: Edgy Magic Guy
Wizard: Nerdy guy

[Silly Name]

I tend to think more of "professions" or "walk of life". The Fighter isn't going to say they're a Fighter, but they might introduce themselves as a mercenary, a soldier, a man-at-arms, a knight, a bodyguard. swordsman, etc. "Fighter" is a meta-game term that doesn't exist in the fiction (well, it does exist as a noun, but it doesn't necessarily refer to someone with Fighter class levels). Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins are much the same (although sometimes a Paladin is a paladin), being known by their profession rather than their class name.

The same goes for many classes: a Cleric is just as likely to introduce herself as a priestess, the local shaman or miracle worker, seer or sibyl or prophetess, depending on how her culture defines her role and abilities. Rogues are particularly duplicitous about their profession, since you don't announce you're a thief or an assassin in the middle of a town's square: they like to use euphemisms and jargon or, in short, a Thieves' Cant to refer to themselves.
Bards can be almost any sort of entertainer and artist, from poets to clowns to actors to dancers to musicians, depending on how they like to perform. Druids are often known simply as that, but like most magic users could be referred simply as mages or wizards and witches; they may like the title of Shaman or Protector of the Wild, medicine-men or other tribal titles.

Now, a few classes may insist on proper terminology: while in common parlance Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock are pretty much synonyms (and the average person is unlikely to be able to tell the difference), most Wizards would be disgusted or angered if compared to a Warlock or a Sorcerer: they spent years studying and mastering the arcane arts, poured their time in understanding the inner machinations of the universe. They are sages and mages, wizards, evokers and abjurers and so on, not to be confounded with uncouth simpletons who one day found out they can do magic because someone in their family tree made offsprings with a dragon or a fae; or worse, compared to those who take the easy way out and sell their soul and free will to a being of power in exchange for a fraction of arcane potency, never wielding magic of their own but simply borrowing from an entity far beyond them.

[BurgerBeast]

It seems to me that you might run the list the other way:

“Warrior” and most of its synonyms describe: Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue

“Priest” and most of its synonyms describe: Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Warlock

“Rogue” and most of its synonyms describe: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Ranger, Rogue

“Wizard” and most of its synonyms describe: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

[EggKookoo]

It seems to me that you might run the list the other way:

“Warrior” and most of its synonyms describe: Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue

“Priest” and most of its synonyms describe: Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Warlock

“Rogue” and most of its synonyms describe: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Ranger, Rogue

“Wizard” and most of its synonyms describe: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

Hey look, it's AD&D 2e!