Also to anyone that cares: Colorless marbles are referred to as Clear.
Clear = Transparent
Opaque (not able to be seen through; not transparent.)
Clear is not the opposite of color its the opposite of opaque.
Remember this:
So while your one of the more interesting posters to read you do have a tendency to get a bit dismissive of posters based on off point arguments like posts.
Yep... your picked an argument that is vague and abstract to get me to agree with something I don't believe then justify your argument on its irrelevance.
My point from the post stands. You have a subclass or you don't have subclass. Trying to say that sorting marbles on a color scale because you don't consider clear a color when in fact a clear red marble would be red with transparency is distraction from the fact that if a class does not have a subclass it does not count as a class with subclass.
From my point of view, a clear marble is a colorless marble. So when I say clear marble and you make a big deal about clear vs colorless I'm viewing that as a big off point argument that served no purpose other than as an attempted dismissal of the post it was replying to.
Sometimes it's a matter of perspective
Not in this case. You are trying to create a tangent argument that is irrelevant to the thread to demonstrate I am not personally valuable enough to have a point....
[MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION] , I give up. When you can’t even admit there are such a thing as clear colorless marbles there’s no hope for our conversation. Hope you have a good day.
...yep. Just as I said, I mentioned this already because I saw this coming based on your past behavior. So I added the full comments to the top for context where you ignore the real statement at the bottom to argue a side argument you brought up to prove a point by making an unequal comparison that you either expected me to buy despite not being an adequate parallel. Then when I didn't you dismiss me as unreasonable for not agreeing with something that is not relevant to the thread and that was never more than an example... a bad example.
As I stated above, You ether have a subclass or you do not. It is an absolute. That being relevant to the conversion and on point the thread, do you have any argument against that?
Secondly, Do you have counter argument to my post response to your questions that you have ignored?
-Reposted here for your conveyance-
It's not an assumption. Subclass Distribution is not a delimeter. But I guess we have at least identified the core of our disagreement.
Okay, so for this specific example: How would you title a graph like there subclass graph but that also included a section for "no subclass"?.
-sniped, place holder text-
I did as requested below, but I go on to explain why I don't think that is the correct direction.
"Class Distribution broken down by subclass when applicable (Active Characters)"
So a Level 2 fighter is just a "Fighter" but a level 3 fighter would be called by subclass like "Eldritch Knight".
However, I don't see the point of looking at this way. Like you said, multi-class characters would be counted twice unless you designate only characters with one class. That said having one for classes then breaking individual classes by subclass on different slides would be more precise. You could then say, Fighters are the most popular class and Champions are the most popular subclass in fighters. If you want to make that more comparable between classes you put a number under the percent. Then you could look at the number of Champions on the Fighter Class chart and compare that to the number of Rogue Thieves if you wanted to make that comparison. Also, you could under the Percent Total # / Non-Multiclass # / Multi-class Number for each listing under fighter and the individual sub classes. That then lets you say, "well yes the standard fighter is on a lot more characters than the champion but is clearly a 2 level dip since they are mostly multi-classes" because the data will be present.
In the End I don't think trying to label one slide with all the classes and subclass is a good idea. Looking at your question, it seems to me you could put more useful information on 1 "Class Distribution(Active Characters) " and 12 "X class Distribution by subclass when applicable (Active Characters) " with Total # / Non-Multiclass # / Multi-class Number # under the name and percent.
