D&D 5E What new classes do you think we need?

[Yunru]

Nah, there was no exaggeration (which hyperbole requires). It's what happens if you take it to the logical extreme.

Except not quite. The logical extreme is that everyone has the exact same system to run off of, which their features and selections defining them. Which is 4e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

LOL. Taking something to the logical extreme which is more or less than what something actually is, IS the definition of exaggeration. Strike 2. This is two times in a row where you've said "No, it's not this, it's what that word is defined as instead." LOL

Besides, if this isn't an exaggeration:

"It'd be the same as saying "Why not just make an Attack cantrip, there's no need for martial classes."

Then it's flat out wrong because what Elfcrusher said is not the same as that. By any means.

 

[Yunru]

LOL. Taking something to the logical extreme which is more or less than what something actually is, IS the definition of exaggeration. Strike 2. This is two times in a row where you've said "No, it's not this, it's what that word is defined as instead." LOL

Besides, if this isn't an exaggeration:

"It'd be the same as saying "Why not just make an Attack cantrip, there's no need for martial classes."

Then it's flat out wrong because what Elfcrusher said is not the same as that. By any means.

Ahem, since you started this:

Hyperbole: Noun - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Exaggeration: Noun - a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

Stating what the logical extreme is, is not representing it as something better or worse.

So that's Strike one, two, and three for you.


As for not being Elf's point, that's true. Again, it's the logical expansion. "If X can be done on the chasis of Y, it should" is the generalisation of the point, which extrapolates to everything having the same chasis, which is what 4e is.

Hell, the 4e Warlord even has powers that fill the roll of cantrips and spells.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ahem, since you started this:

Hyperbole: Noun - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Exaggeration: Noun - a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

Stating what the logical extreme is, is not representing it as something better or worse.

So that's Strike one, two, and three for you.

Sorry dude. You said this:

"It'd be the same as saying "Why not just make an Attack cantrip, there's no need for martial classes."

Which is definitely more than what Elfcrusher said or implied. That makes it an exaggeration, and since I doubt you meant people to take that statement literally, it also makes it hyperbole. And if you DID mean for people to take it literally, well...that's just crazy then.

"Logical extreme" is a fallacy, so if you insist on using that term, then you're admitting to arguing with a fallacy anyway.

Actual definitions of words matter. You can't just go around changing how words are defined to fit your narrative. #alternativedefinitions

 

[Yunru]

Except a logical extreme is not inherently a fallacy, and presenti g it as such is a fallacy.

What is a fallacy is thinking that your actually reaponding with honest intent. After all, the only thing you've made no actual points relevant to the thread.

So yeah, goodbye.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So, me pointing out "Yeah, you are using hyperbole, because that's exactly how it's defined." results in you responding with "you're not honest and it's not relevant to the thread." Congratulations. An ad hominem and a red herring in the same sentence. That's impressive. I wasn't talking about the topic of this thread, I was pointing out how what you were doing was hyperbole, and what you yourself defined yourself as doing was hyperbole.

But hey, shine you crazy diamond.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Except not quite. The logical extreme is that everyone has the exact same system to run off of, which their features and selections defining them. Which is 4e.

That was a feature of 4E, sure, but it was hardly the defining feature of that edition. If anything, that edition was even worse than other editions about making new classes to fulfill similar concepts, because it tried to allow for every combination of role and power source.

You could easily create a game where everyone shared a similar breakdown of at-will, encounter, and daily powers without getting into re-fluff shenanigans.

 

[Yunru]

That was a feature of 4E, sure, but it was hardly the defining feature of that edition. If anything, that edition was even worse than other editions about making new classes to fulfill similar concepts, because it tried to allow for every combination of role and power source.

You could easily create a game where everyone shared a similar breakdown of at-will, encounter, and daily powers without getting into re-fluff shenanigans.

Fair. It tried too hard to be the perfect model and forgot it was a game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Fair. It tried too hard to be the perfect model and forgot it was a game.

I would say the opposite: It tried too hard to be the perfect game, and forgot that it was a model. Minions, for example, make great sense in terms of game-play and zero sense in terms of reflecting a consistent world.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As for not being Elf's point, that's true. Again, it's the logical expansion. "If X can be done on the chasis of Y, it should" is the generalisation of the point, which extrapolates to everything having the same chasis, which is what 4e is.

Except that itself is an exaggeration of my claim. I gave two examples of things that can be done on the chassis of existing classes and don't justify their own classes. Nowhere did I state the general case to be true.* Which is why taking it to a logical extreme is merely a rhetorical stunt.

E.g., "No, you can't have my ice cream." "Oh, so you get to eat whatever you want and I have to starve?" That's also taking something to a logical extreme, and also not useful.

*Neither did I define an appropriate threshold, of course, but that's because I don't think that such a threshold can be precisely defined. Clearly your exaggeration is on one side of such a threshold, and I believe the examples in questions are deep into the opposite side. YMMV.