Guild Wars 2

Cut right to the chase. Lots of people have expressed reactions ranging from indifference to disgust leaning more heavily toward the latter and it can and will continue to be discussed elsewhere.

So, lets have a place to talk about better names and leave it at that. Short posts. Leave the dissertations for later. Lots of places for them on other threads in the forum.

Names that I’ve liked that are still justifiable with the theme of the specialization:

Inquisitor
Justicar
Judicator

Someone recently came up with DragonsBane which I also like more than DH. It’d be an acceptable alternative imo.

What are some names you all like more or have come up with yourself?

Deny its current name. everyone just refer to it as paragon. it will stick eventually. from now on its just gonna be a paragon. agreed?

As much as I love Paragon from GW1 I think no. This specialization is design to be a hunter with Trap and it has nothing to do with Paragon theme beside it has one or two skills have wing. Just because you like a name that doesn’t mean you can just stamp it on anything you like.

fine call it dragonhunter.

Sure I call it dragonhunter but if I want to short it be paragon ..or highen par

Because paragons wielded bows and used traps right? People who were pulling for a paragon should be happy with this news because it means that if land spears ever get added, the next guardian elite will probably use spears and will probably be a paragon. Would you rather have something that is worlds apart from the GW1 paragon for the sake of the name or something that represents the GW1 paragon further down the road?

It doesn’t even add shouts, and it’s a backline thing, doesn’t seem very paragon-ish to me. The name really could be better though.

While it might not be a frontliner, the Dragonhunter has nothing to do with shouts and chants, like a Paragon. That’d be like saying “Well let’s just call this Blueberry Pancake a Chocolate Pancake. Eventually, it will stick!”

Paragon would have been the logical name, and a nice throwback to GW1.

no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN3EnanKbhM&t=1m45s

FrownyClown.8402:

Deny its current name. everyone just refer to it as paragon. it will stick eventually. from now on its just gonna be a paragon. agreed?

They can’t. Paragon’s were all about shouts and related effects; they can’t give 6 more shouts to a class that already has them as that does not give more diversity to the class. I loved paragon’s in the original, and it would make sense to make the Guardian Specialization similar, if they wanted to include Paragons at all, but Guardians already have tonnes of options for group support and the general theme of the specializations seems to be shoring up the weak points of the various professions, rather than accentuating their strong points. They have to do it that way, or else there wouldn’t be a reason not to take the specialization over the base class.

I’ve read my way around the web and have seen that many of us aren’t satisfied with the name “Dragon Hunter”. It seems to stray a bit too far from the core Guardian theme of a holy warrior. I’ve come across a few names I really Iilke, for instance, Warden and Arbiter. The theme of “Big-game hunter” also seems very out of place. Personally, I think that instead of a big-game hunter the theme could be just a general hunter of evil things. Imagine Van Helsing but a bit less dark. Other than those two things I’m happy with getting the longbow and Virtues with a higher skill cap. I haven’t seen what Guardian traps do yet but I don’t hate the idea of getting them do long as they pack a unique punch.

TL;DR – Dragon Hunter isn’t a very good name. What do you think the Guardian elite spec should be called?

So to those of you with a bright idea for a better name for the Guardian elite specialization, post away!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the GW1 Paragon class (as well as the Monk) were the most influential during development of the Guardian. Now, we get a long-range support specialization (sound familiar?)

The Paragon was a very specific class, with very specific flavor. Characterized as being Destiny-driven, Honor-bound, and Protective, they sought out and fought evil. Just imagine how Paragons would have reacted to the threat of the Elder Dragons. It seems to me like at least a few would have become… Dragon Hunters.

Fast forward to GW2, there’s no spear weapon (at least on land), and the Guardian can already use shields, so I’m happy with longbows being the weapon of choice. I rather like most of the skills/mechanics of the Dragon Hunter, but I have issue with the lore behind it. All characters in GW2 are dragon hunters; I find it equivalent to naming the Elementalist’s Spec simply ‘Mage.’ Frankly, it’s completely redundant. I realize ANet wanted to add some new flavor to the game, loosely based off of medieval witch hunters, but the term ‘Hunting’ is the opposite of ‘Guarding.’ Paragons, on the other hand, are established in the game lore and fit nearly perfectly into the role ANet was trying to create.

I understand many people don’t mind the name, or even care about the lore. These people wouldn’t care either way, but quite a few people actually DO care. I, being one of them.

If the specialization was called Paragon then it would have been even more argumentative since we have a Bow instead of a Spear and Shouts. I’m quite happy we didn’t go that route.

Not to mention the Paragon class already has a stand alone foundation to it that’s completely different than the Guardian’s themselves. Should we also bring back Ritualists, Monks, Dervish, and merge them with other classes? It all sounds very conflicting to me and that’s because I haven’t played GW1 and I’m not submerged in its lore. I see the whole ideal very confusing in general.

Saiyan.1704:

If the specialization was called Paragon then it would have been even more argumentative since we have a Bow instead of a Spear and Shouts. I’m quite happy we didn’t go that route.

They do have wings and a spear courtesy of their new virtue skills, and guardians already have shouts. ;p

Saiyan.1704:

Not to mention the Paragon class already has a stand alone foundation to it that’s completely different than the Guardian’s themselves. Should we also bring back Ritualists, Monks, Dervish, and merge them with other classes? It all sounds very conflicting to me and that’s because I haven’t played GW1 and I’m not submerged in its lore. I see the whole ideal very confusing in general.

Lore-wise Guardians are the combination of Monks (meditation/signets), Paragons (defensive shouts), Warriors (melee), and Ritualists (spirit weapons).

Because if they ever want to do an Elonian expansion they have to leave something for it.

Saiyan.1704:

If the specialization was called Paragon then it would have been even more argumentative since we have a Bow instead of a Spear and Shouts. I’m quite happy we didn’t go that route.

Not to mention the Paragon class already has a stand alone foundation to it that’s completely different than the Guardian’s themselves. Should we also bring back Ritualists, Monks, Dervish, and merge them with other classes? It all sounds very conflicting to me and that’s because I haven’t played GW1 and I’m not submerged in its lore. I see the whole ideal very confusing in general.

The lack of play in GW1 is what is throwing things off for you.

As stated, The Guardian is essentially a mash of the GW1 build called an Imbagon (P/W) which is basically a Heavy Armor Group Support Build and the Monk class. The angel wings hearken directly to this. Many of the skills are similar (or even exactly the same). I don’t see any conflict at all and it would not be confusing to have called it Paragon. Of course a new spear weapon would have been icing on the cake.

There are elements of all GW1 classes that can be found in the skills and builds of each GW2 class. Only those who have played GW1 for many years truly realize how GW2 is a mish mash of some of the best and worst ideas from GW1. The Engineer is the only class that is mostly unique. Probably about half (or more) of all the skills in the game are either directly copied or closely mirrored from GW1.

I’m glad they didn’t name it Paragon. I hope they never use a name that already has an in game title.

Because they were going for a witchhunter feel as a high concept. The idea of a zealous pursuit of evil as a twist on the guardians protector image.

Personally I think this ignores the fact that the term dragonhunter carries its own baggage that is incompatible with the high concept they were going for.

TooBz.3065:

Because they were going for a witchhunter feel as a high concept. The idea of a zealous pursuit of evil as a twist on the guardians protector image.

Personally I think this ignores the fact that the term dragonhunter carries its own baggage that is incompatible with the high concept they were going for.

“Dergonhunterd iz such low concept change plox”

HoT’s DH lore becomes a complexity of dramatic events where Guardian’s slowly grow hatred for them. Madness through addiction, they hunt them down in a fierce, predator-like aptitude like no other race has seen.

“omg Dragonhunter es ausem moar trepz”.

Because the paragon title already exists, and guardians are paragon + monks to begin with.

Personally, I like the concept of it, because it reminds me of pathfinder’s inquisitor, but I like my guard being a Frontline tank

Because it looks like they spent maybe 30 minutes one day making the Guardian set up and then had one of their developers children name the spec. Then they came up with a nonsensical explanation for the name when everybody got kittened. Anet simply doesn’t care about Guardian right now. “Guardians are in a good place right now” so best to just give us a useless spec and hope we shut up eventually.

teh persun.6517:

Because the paragon title already exists

Reaper is the title you get at r70 in PvP, and it’s also the name of the new necro specialization. So Paragon can happen too.

Paragons were the Sunspears and other ranks that hailed from the Elona region. Guardian is a combo of them, Warriors, monks, and spiritualists. This mix up of professions spread to other races from humans, as the idea of one being a true defender of their faith and beliefs was not unique to humans themselves. I like the idea of a breed of guardian so zealous and lawful good in their belief of dragons and their minions as evil they could be considered morally gray from an outside perspective. There is plenty of lore and current events that back up the name.

Besides, if you really want a “Paragon”, there could be something for a future Elona expansion. (shrugs)

Why didnt Anet gave necromancers name like Dark Guardians, because with specializations they got our 2 best GS skills, BB and WW. GG ! Give them spirit weapons too! They need it we dont xD

Ragnarox.9601:

Why didnt Anet gave necromancers name like Dark Guardians, because with specializations they got our 2 best GS skills, BB and WW. GG ! Give them spirit weapons too! They need it we dont xD

I seem to remember reading this exact post in another thread. While I somewhat agree, stating it multiple times doesn’t make you correct.

Also, if Guardians are Monks+Paragons, the DragonHunter spec seems to abandon the monk side of things (defensive magic, healing, etc). I honestly don’t expect Anet to respond to this issue again, but hopefully if we make enough noise, they’ll think about it before making decisions in the future.

Duckwark.7830:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the GW1 Paragon class (as well as the Monk) were the most influential during development of the Guardian. Now, we get a long-range support specialization (sound familiar?)

The Paragon was a very specific class, with very specific flavor. Characterized as being Destiny-driven, Honor-bound, and Protective, they sought out and fought evil. Just imagine how Paragons would have reacted to the threat of the Elder Dragons. It seems to me like at least a few would have become… Dragon Hunters.

Fast forward to GW2, there’s no spear weapon (at least on land), and the Guardian can already use shields, so I’m happy with longbows being the weapon of choice. I rather like most of the skills/mechanics of the Dragon Hunter, but I have issue with the lore behind it. All characters in GW2 are dragon hunters; I find it equivalent to naming the Elementalist’s Spec simply ‘Mage.’ Frankly, it’s completely redundant. I realize ANet wanted to add some new flavor to the game, loosely based off of medieval witch hunters, but the term ‘Hunting’ is the opposite of ‘Guarding.’ Paragons, on the other hand, are established in the game lore and fit nearly perfectly into the role ANet was trying to create.

I understand many people don’t mind the name, or even care about the lore. These people wouldn’t care either way, but quite a few people actually DO care. I, being one of them.

Because it makes the most sense for Anet to wait to release the expansion that adds land spears to the game to add paragon…

“Dragonbane” — A proposal

“What was that?!” The Priory researcher rubbed her closed eyes, the afterimages of the searing column of light a red blur against the black.
“A secret… and a weapon” The observer from the Order of Whispers offered, already eager to report back to the Chantry.
“It’s what we’ve been waiting for” the massive Charr officer in Vigil armor answered. “Something to make even the elder dragons afraid. A bane to all their schemes.”

What we have now is good, but it could be better. While “Dragonhunter” hits many of the notes it aimed for, I would like to offer a slight modification, a refinement that preserves the work that has already gone into the Guardian’s new Elite specification. To make the name more accessible to the wider audience please consider…

DRAGONBANE

Why Dragon?
The elder dragons are the defining enemies of the age in Guildwars 2. An inescapable threat. This central focus is wound through the Elite spec with draconic imagery appearing in their elite, their armor, their weapon and likely their profession icon. By keeping dragon in the name this work is respected and preserved. The change kept to the bare minimum possible. “Dragon” is simply not the part of “Dragonhunter” that leaves some players confused and irate. Dragonbane keeps this focus firmly in place.

So Why not Hunter?
While ‘hunter’ evokes visions of the bow-using trapper we see, it carries a lot of additional presumed nuance – a figure who does not fight directly and thus is lighter and more mobile than the heavy armor-wearing Guardian (famous as one of the least mobile professions in the game). Using “hunter” here tramples on the territory of the Ranger, a class that has struggled mightily for acceptance and identity since the game’s launch. Dropping it here saves “hunter” for their future evolution where fitting the word to intuitive acceptance will be so much easier.

Switching to Bane
Bane is not a real-world profession: It doesn’t have the same links, expectations, and frankly baggage in the minds of players so it avoids the dissonance when those assumptions prove false. The meaning of “Bane” is unambiguous – it is the implacable enemy. The doom of its foes. There is no confusion that this champion of light might be working for the dragons. Bane has a weight that sets the Dragonbane apart from the many others in Tyria who fight Dragons or hunt their minions.

Also the complete name — Dragonbane — is shorter that the current ‘Dragonhunter’. While this may sound silly, its a simple truth that with fewer syllables it’s more likely to roll off the tongue and ring pleasingly in the ear. The elements joined in a less awkward compound without leaving you wondering if you should separate them with a space or not. Dragon-bane? Dragon Bane? No, definitely Dragonbane.

To the Players
For my fellow players still reading at this point: not too bored I hope . I’m hoping to keep the focus on this one option, picked out after reading hundreds of player-suggestions because its such a clean fit to the draconic skills and FX already in place for the Elite specialization. The goal here is to push for the smallest possible change, triggering the least amount of cascading work. We need to give the Developers at ArenaNet the absolute minimum number of barriers to making a good choice. A cacophony of shouting out random archetypes will NOT help them choose to make a change (as we’ve seen).

If you feel Dragonbane is better than Dragonhunter please say so — even if its not as good as your own super-keen first choice . If you are in the camp that “any name would be better” then please offer a small note of agreement here. Being able to speak with one voice — even for just a few pages — will go a long way towards encouraging the Developers to consider small changes where those changes won’t require extensive reworking of skills and FX already deep in testing.

Thank you for reading. Regardless of the name, I’m looking forward to pitting these skills against all of the Elder Dragon, both now and in the future!

The “hunter” is the most important part. Because if your out hunting something, it means your not sitting around guarding something else

Silhouette.5631:

The “hunter” is the most important part. Because if your out hunting something, it means your not sitting around guarding something else

Honestly, it doesn’t matter if you’re guarding something or ‘hunting’ something, the tasked elite should be capable of both at any given situation. I feel the name Dragonbane captures a snapshot of both the spec and its target, not the dragons as helpless prey being picked off and mercilessly slaughtered…dragons are too powerful to be simply hunted! They actively ‘hunt’ us as well! The Dragonbane moniker’s snapshot is that the spec is a particularly baneful thorn in its side and dragons likely seek to avoid them or be forced to face their full fury if not dealt with.

It’s taking both the elite spec and the dragon very seriously and both are extreme threats to each other.

It’s better. My beef with DH as a name is it’s too specific. DBane is just vague enough to let me imagine a little.

Obtena.7952:

It’s better. My beef with DH as a name is it’s too specific. DBane is just vague enough to let me imagine a little.

There’s still some big inconsistencies in this name.

The main arguments of Dragonhunter

• The name doesn’t pertain to any of the Guardian characteristics like the other specialization’s names.
• It was the conjunction of “Dragon” and “Hunter” that stirred quite a debate. It wasn’t because we were singling out Rangers, rather, everyone thought they were already “dragon hunter”… Regardless of how synchronized the name “hunter” was with the overall specialization.
• The last reason (for some it’s more important) is the sound of the name. People think the name Dragonhunter sounds childish.

Dragonbane may (i don’t like it) gotten the last reason but not any of the others. And since Mesmers got ChronoMancer it makes sense that we would get DragonHunter in our name. If we change the name all together then Mesmers will yet again be the one with the bad name.
(Their name change threads have stopped once the name Dragonhunter was revealed)

If we go for a name change, I rather it be a name that better characterized the Guardian class as a whole. That said, I have no issues with calling myself a DH.

I’m not hung up with inconsistencies; that’s just storytelling and can be tweaked or even left as is. I’m hung up by … lazy and unoriginal. If we get fed another “Paragon/Sentinel/Archon” like name/theme, it will demonstrate that Anet has taken the first step to giving up on bringing us original and unique content.

Any experienced MMO player (and dev) can say “Oh look, sword and board with heavy armor and a bit of magic for protection/heals … that’s a Paladin. You are now Paladins”. I wouldn’t mind seeing what Anet can come up with and giving it a chance before I have to suffer another case of a Game Dev trying to convince me their version of Paladin is more unique and engaging than the last 10 versions I’ve played.

Inconsistency to me means one thing: Anet is committed to doing something new and different that people don’t have a complete understanding of. Sounds refreshing. I also don’t think we can start playing the game where we think other classes have better names, so this one must be bad. That get’s us pretty much no where.

Obtena.7952:

I’m not hung up with inconsistencies; that’s just storytelling. I’m hung up by … lazy and unoriginal. If we get fed another “Paragon/Sentinel/Archon” like name, it will demonstrate that Anet has given up on bringing us original and unique content.

Because Dragonhunter is so original and unique…

Arrk.4102:

Obtena.7952:

I’m not hung up with inconsistencies; that’s just storytelling. I’m hung up by … lazy and unoriginal. If we get fed another “Paragon/Sentinel/Archon” like name, it will demonstrate that Anet has given up on bringing us original and unique content.

Because Dragonhunter is so original and unique…

Are you suggesting it’s not or are you here to pick another fight? Perhaps you want to appear less confrontational and respond to the OP’s idea.

Threads need a dislike option, this is a terrible idea that ignores all the problems that the name Dragon Hunter brings, Dragon Bane is equally as bad.

They need to remove both the word “Dragon” and “Hunter” and go with a single generic name.

Did you not read the page after page of feedback before making this thread?

What about..Dragonslayer?
kitten, guardian has shouts. lets just call it dovahkiin. Fus ro kitten .

Arnath.2319:

Threads need a dislike option, this is a terrible idea that ignores all the problems that the name Dragon Hunter brings, Dragon Bane is equally as bad.

They need to remove both the word “Dragon” and “Hunter” and go with a single generic name.

Did you not read the page after page of feedback before making this thread?

Nike most definitely did read the threads.

I’m still in favor of ‘inquisitor’ as the first choice of a rename, but I appreciate the write-up and effort that Nike went to attempt addressing the ‘dragonhunter name controversy.’

Genesis.8572:

Arnath.2319:

Threads need a dislike option, this is a terrible idea that ignores all the problems that the name Dragon Hunter brings, Dragon Bane is equally as bad.

They need to remove both the word “Dragon” and “Hunter” and go with a single generic name.

Did you not read the page after page of feedback before making this thread?

Nike most definitely did read the threads.

I’m still in favor of ‘inquisitor’ as the first choice of a rename, but I appreciate the write-up and effort that Nike went to attempt addressing the ‘dragonhunter name controversy.’

Genesis, you suggested Dragonbane in one of the other threads so no doubt you’ll be defending Nike. But I’m with Arnath on this one. Dragonbane is equally bad.

The massive 37 page that originated in the guardian forums, and combined with other threads, I’ve read the lot of them. The Nike’s suggestion does not pertain to the main discussion, or discussions, in any of those threads. It’s why Arnath asked that question.

Dragonhunter wasn’t picked because of “Dragon imagery in his skills”. It was picked because of the notion that Guardians are now “witch hunters”. They’re taking it upon themselves to fulfill these daring acts in the name of justice, much like that of a witch hunter’s persona. According to Anet, that concept was picked before the chosen name, and not the other way around.

Dragonhunter is, ironically enough, a higher concept. That is, if you think giving a class a theme constitutes as being “higher concept”. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having a theme associated with the specialization (imo) especially since it can potentially bring more content to the game’s lore.

Dragonhunter and Chronomancer have symmetrical similarities. One name can’t really exist without the other.

Arnath.2319:

Threads need a dislike option, this is a terrible idea that ignores all the problems that the name Dragon Hunter brings, Dragon Bane is equally as bad.

They need to remove both the word “Dragon” and “Hunter” and go with a single generic name.

Did you not read the page after page of feedback before making this thread?

Certainly viable feedback but it might also do well to understand the dev’s point of view in the situation. What if they did do a good amount of writing and set-up in the coming expansion that coincides with the dragon-related name? It’s hard to pitch for a change if it actually ends up requiring more work than they initially budgeted for.

Many people posting do have an issue with dragon being tied to the lore progression of the guardian profession but I feel more people have issues with the hunter part way more (all this is covered in the OP as well).

When it comes down to it, you have to think like an adult. Adults don’t simply dig their heels in the dirt and demand to have things their way (especially if that adult has next to no leverage to utilize to get that demand in action like we do).

Granted, after more though, my first few choices for name changes for the Guardian elite is Exorcist (because d.grayman! dang-it!) and Inquisitor, I definitely would not mind a more vaguely defined name like Draconnier (the French translation of Dragonhunter that doesn’t mean Dragonhunter literally) or Dragonbane (as has been described).

Saiyan.1704:

Genesis, you suggested Dragonbane in one of the other threads so no doubt you’ll be defending Nike. But I’m with Arnath on this one. Dragonbane is equally bad.

No, I’m defending Nike because he has actively sought feedback and compromise on the ‘dragonhunter’ name situation. It’s not his way or the highway. As such, I agree with Leo G’s post.

I like the name Dragonbane, I think Anet should go for it. Then again I didnt really have a problem with the name Dragonhunter in the first place.

honestly I don’t care what they call it, I don’t think anyone will really pay that much attention after 2 weeks or so, it will just be another trait line. Dragonbane makes me think of a plant though, like wolfsbane.

just add dragon infront of all the new class titles

I definitely prefer it over DH, but I think, as others have mentioned that it’s best to lose any reference to dragons.

Just Bane would be ok if hadn’t recently become popularly synonymous with batman.

As a concept I like something like “Nemesis” because of its dictionary definition as an agent or act of divine retributive justice – which fits both the angelic wings and the reason the speciality came into existence ( especially if the speculation about braham/eir are true ). Unfortunately it’s an awkward word that doesn’t roll off the tongue.

To be honest, offering specific names will probably make them less likely to be selected if Anet were to rethink the name in the future because of NIH (not invented here) syndrome – they’ll probably want to put their own spin on it and will avoid anything already suggested.

Tarsius.3170:

I definitely prefer it over DH, but I think, as others have mentioned that it’s best to lose any reference to dragons.

Lets be completely honest: That ship has sailed. There is ‘dragon’ wound all through this classes from icons, to armor/weapons, to skill FX. It’s gonna be “dragonsomething”.

There’s not a lot of point trying to hammer on the topic with mallet when it’s not clear if they are even open to a gentle nudge. This is a nudge. Any name that doesn’t incorporate the draconic influences already designed and implemented is facing a much steeper slope to get Developer acceptance. And I realize I’m probably wasting my time trying to extract some consensus from the cacophony, but this is the ONLY really strong variant on the name I’ve seen after reading hundreds of pages of suggestions because it doesn’t send the art department back to the drawing board.

I think the confusion surrounding the ‘hunter’ aspect can still be nudged. The bow/traps association works for me but I can see benefits to rotating that out for something with a little more narrative give. Dragonbane has a little more flex to it.

I’d prefer Dragonhunter over Dragonbane to be honest. And I despise Dragonhunter with a passion.

Saiyan.1704:

The main arguments of Dragonhunter

• The name doesn’t pertain to any of the Guardian characteristics like the other specialization’s names.

I’m 99% certain the Devs consider that a good thing. If you can offer one trait line and the resulting mixes feel like something completely different from the… not parent profession but the profession that shares some lines with your NEW profession, then the whole point of the exercise is working: You’ve created something NEW by leveraging a library of existing traits.

The elite specs have new icons – they want people grouping with them/targeting them to be able to tell at a glance “this is NOT a Guardian. Expect something different.”

• It was the conjunction of “Dragon” and “Hunter” that stirred quite a debate. It wasn’t because we were singling out Rangers, rather, everyone thought they were already “dragon hunter”… Regardless of how synchronized the name “hunter” was with the overall specialization.

Hence the removal of “hunter” from Dragonbane.

• The last reason (for some it’s more important) is the sound of the name. People think the name Dragonhunter sounds childish.

And again personally I don’t have a problem with it either, but I’m willing to look for alternatives that sooth that discontent.

I think one thing people shouting out names to the rafters miss other than the significance of remaining within the boundaries set by the art they’ve shown is that any change must also allow ArenaNet to save face. A small change and they can call it responding to the players, a totally unrelated name swap and it becomes an admission of failure that they do not need and will not inflict on themselves while they are ramping up to their most important release in 3 years.

Nike.2631:

Saiyan.1704:

The main arguments of Dragonhunter

• The name doesn’t pertain to any of the Guardian characteristics like the other specialization’s names.

I’m 99% certain the Devs consider that a good thing. If you can offer one trait line and the resulting mixes feel like something completely different from the… not parent profession but the profession that shares some lines with your NEW profession, then the whole point of the exercise is working: You’ve created something NEW by leveraging a library of existing traits.

So by this logic The Reaper and The Chronomancer specs are complete failures?