Its inherently wrong because you're so used to seeing those classes in set roles and they've been working pretty much the same since they were introduced into the franchise. You don't have a problem with the concept but with the names.
All I'm saying is that the Gladiator can focus on being a damage dealer or a tank. Then I'm putting a name that people can relate to on top of it. Theres nothing wrong with that - people try to do it now. It could just be "GLA - Tanking Section" and "GLA Damage Section". lol
I'm taking abilities from Gladiator (and every other class) and spreading them out onto the branches. The tank ones would go under the tank section (obsess, phalanx, etc) and the damage ones go under the damage dealer branch (still precision etc). Obviously we add some more that fall in line with the mythos and give bonuses for focusing on one or the other (Tank: 5% passive damage reduction). Gladiator has some WS that can be used between both, and each section has their own unique WS or an enhancement to a current one.
Tank - While charging Rage of Halone you absorb 25% of the damage dealt to you.
Damage Dealer - Idk come up with something and get back to me.
The main point is this... The class is STILL Gladiator. I'm just giving them bonuses, skills/abilities and a new name for focusing on one thing instead of trying to be a "jack of all, master of none". You're not leveling PLD or DRK, you're leveling your GLA and deciding to use the playstyle of one or the other (and switch when you want).
As I said, its the association I made that you have an issue with.
Edit: You're right. They could have used those random names but as was said... they intend on bringing back FF classes. I wouldn't have suggested it like this if Yoshi-P wasn't already considering it. Which is why I like that we talk about changes to the game (on BG) after Yoshi-P has chimed in on what they have in mind for it. Otherwise we'd just be like most of these forums; random suggestions with a lack of direction.