D&D 5E Class Group Traveller

Everything they announce is a major talking point.



That was a mechanical issue however. This isn't. If they classify something different than you like, it has almost no mechanical impact on you. As long as you know how they are classifying it, you can use the organizational benefits. But they've been really clear that the tag has no impact on how they craft the class. So...why do you think this will remain an ongoing issue?

I think this is one of those times where people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I've yet to hear how it harms anyone's game in any way, but I've seen lots of little useful things that come from it.
And I've yet to hear how it benefits the game in any way. There are no organisational benefits - do you think that, for example, Druids and Clerics should have access to the same magic weapons? Where do you categorise Monks or Rangers or Bards? Do you really want to label a Rogue Assassin as a 'Trickster'?

The tag has an impact because it provokes argument. The 'organisational benefits' are non existent.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
And I've yet to hear how it benefits the game in any way. There are no organisational benefits - do you think that, for example, Druids and Clerics should have access to the same magic weapons?

That's not how it works, and they've already explained that's not how it works.

Where do you categorise Monks or Rangers or Bards?

Wherever they categorize them. As long as you can think of two primary categories they could be included in, tagging them with one of those will cause no harm, but will get all the benefits (listed at the end of this post).

Do you really want to label a Rogue Assassin as a 'Trickster'?

I honestly don't care - it's just a helpful tag to say "X is somewhat similar to Y", not color to aid your role playing. Do you think you'd play your Assassin different if it had a Trickster label on it in the index? 3e had lots of prestige classes open to classes outside of the theme of the supplement they were listed in, did anyone get bothered about that?

The tag has an impact because it provokes argument. The 'organisational benefits' are non existent.

Aw come on, people have listed half a dozen explanations for the organizational and other benefits here, you just have not read any of those?

They've explained there will be some rare items where they will include "Mages only" as a restriction. It's not all, it's not most, it's rare, but that's helpful.
They've explained "The King of Thieves only trusts Rogues in his lair" as a shorthand tool for using the class tag. That's helpful.
Several people have explained how the classes can be listed as "Warriors" in the index, with a sub-heading for each warrior sub-class, as a helpful way of organizing the material in the index.
I've explained, at some length, how transitioning from a Basic set with four classes to an Advanced set with many classes is aided by the similarity of tags between the Basic and Advanced editions.
All these benefits carry through to future supplements, and even sub-classes WOTC hasn't even thought of yet, provided they include the class tag on those future classes.

Those are all small but real benefits from this system. There, now you can say you've read them - they exist. You can disagree that they will be helpful for your game, but you can't say nobody will get use out of them. I think I will.
 
Last edited:

That's not how it works, and they've already explained that's not how it works

Wherever they categorize them. As long as you can think of two primary categories they could be included in, tagging them with one of those will cause no harm, but will get all the benefits (listed at the end of this post).
If it causes needless disputes, it causes harm.

I honestly don't care - it's just a helpful tag to say "X is somewhat similar to Y", not color to aid your role playing. Do you think you'd play your Assassin different if it had a Trickster label on it in the index? 3e had lots of prestige classes open to classes outside of the theme of the supplement they were listed in, did anyone get bothered about that?
It's evidently not a helpful tag - and saying 'you don't care' is no answer to that. 3e is not 5e, and supplements will never be as widely read as the core rules.

Aw come on, people have listed half a dozen explanations for the organizational and other benefits here, you just have not read any of those?
Let's go through them now..

They've explained there will be some rare items where they will include "Mages only" as a restriction. It's not all, it's not most, it's rare, but that's helpful.
No it is not. It's just creating a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist. If you want to specify what types of magic items (Staves, Wands, Potions, etc) can readily be used by a Class, you can just include those details in the Class description. If a magic-item can only be exclusively used by one Class, it can be included in the items description. You don't need to create a regimented approach as to which groups of Class can use which item - and if you do, you're just going to end up with a load of exceptions. What if you don't agree that Sorcerers should be able to use a 'Mage only' staff, but just Wizards only? It's not helpful.

They've explained "The King of Thieves only trusts Rogues in his lair" as a shorthand tool for using the class tag. That's helpful.
No it's not. Because now the players and DM are going to have to cypher the meaning of the text to work out whether the writer was using the term 'Rogue' as a shorthand for a Class, a group of Classes that may or may not be appropriate to the classification (Bards?, Monks?), or whether he is just using the term 'Rogue' as a general description, with no mechanical implications. What if a fighter has 'rogue-ish' attitudes? Does that mean the King of Thieves likes him? How would the King of Thieves know who is a Rogue or who isn't? Again, more questions asked than actual benefits. It's not helpful.

Several people have explained how the classes can be listed as "Warriors" in the index, with a sub-heading for each warrior sub-class, as a helpful way of organizing the material in the index.
You are talking about 10-12 Classes in the core book. Why is it significantly more beneficial to list them under subheadings than simply have the Classes listed in alphabetical order? It's not helpful.

I've explained, at some length, how transitioning from a Basic set with four classes to an Advanced set with many classes is aided by the similarity of tags between the Basic and Advanced editions.
And I've explained, along with others, that the idea that any players need guidance of such sort in choosing Classes is simply untrue. If you introduce new Classes, players revel in the new choices offered. I've never come across any group of players, ever, that struggles to choose Classes.

All these benefits carry through to future supplements, and even sub-classes WOTC hasn't even thought of yet, provided they include the class tag on those future classes.

Those are all small but real benefits from this system. There, now you can say you've read them - they exist. You can disagree that they will be helpful for your game, but you can't say nobody will get use out of them. I think I will.
You haven't provided a convincing argument on any of these points. They are not helpful in any real sense to anybody. They are simply providing another tier of 'organisation' for the sake of it - and it creates more problems than it is worth.
 
Last edited:

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
If it causes needless disputes, it causes harm.

It's evidently not a helpful tag - and saying 'you don't care' is no answer to that.

It's helpful as I explained later, I was answering your question as to whether I would care

3e is not 5e, and supplements will never be as widely read as the core rules.

Now THAT is not an answer. 3e is a version of D&D and thus an edition whose experiences we can draw on as clear examples of what things are helpful or harmful in terms of "disputes", which seems to be your biggest beef. And plenty of the kinds of people who complain online about rules read those supplements, and I do not recall one single complaint of the nature you're talking about. Just because a prestige class that was usable by fighters happened to be in, say, the divine-themed supplement, not one person was bent out of shape or confused or bothered by this in the least. And yet you claim it will be a major source of disruption and dispute. How people reacted to similar issues in the past is directly relevant to how they are likely to react in the future - a heck of a lot more relevant than your personal guess.

Let's go through them now..

No it is not. It's just creating a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist.

Only because you think the problem is something different than what it is.

Problem 1: How to save space in the books
Solution: Shorthand
Problem 2: How to organize the books in a manner where people can find the material quicker
Solution: Group some things by broad classifications
Problem 3: How to get people to be more willing to transition from Basic to Advanced D&D
Solution: Add tags to more complex classes that sends the signal that they are similar to the classes found in the Basic book.

See, those are all real problems, and this helps with the solutions. Space-saving, organization, and transitioning people to advanced are all real issues, not fictional ones.

If you want to specify what types of magic items (Staves, Wands, Potions, etc) can readily be used by a Class, you can just include those details in the Class description.

For every single sub-class, including all future ones? Why waste all that space? Why repeat all that stuff?

If a magic-item can only be exclusively used by one Class, it can be included in the items description.

How can it possibly cover classes that have not been released yet, that they might not even know about yet? Also, why would you spell out all the classes, when you can just use the shorthand of a single word that means a bunch of classes (including ones not even thought of yet that will eventually be released)?

You don't need to create a regimented approach as to which groups of Class can use which item - and if you do, you're just going to end up with a load of exceptions.

This ignores the "rare" part for magic items. You won't need any exceptions - it only gets used when they actually mean the whole group.

What if you don't agree that Sorcerers should be able to use a 'Mage only' staff, but just Wizards only? It's not helpful.

What if you don't agree any mage-themed class should use such staffs? That's a house-rule, like any other house-rule. You just said above they should include all the classes in the item itself that it's supposed to apply to, so your "issue" would be just as complicated with your prior solution anyway. Point being, you're not disputing the classification system itself with this issue.

No it's not. Because now the players and DM are going to have to cypher the meaning of the text to work out whether the writer was using the term 'Rogue' as a shorthand for a Class, a group of Classes that may or may not be appropriate to the classification (Bards?, Monks?), or whether he is just using the term 'Rogue' as a general description, with no mechanical implications.

Now I call baloney, and this is an example of creating a problem where there is one. This is like any other rule in the book. You know what AC means, right? You're not confused it means the number attached to the armor, as opposed to the relative weight of it, or the social class of the people who wear it, or the types of classes who wear them, right? They will define the class name (I used Rogue because that is the placeholder currently in use, but others argue it should be Traveler or whatever), and it will be as easy to understand as any other rule, capitalized, probably with brackets, to make it really clear it's a tag next to something.

What if a fighter has 'rogue-ish' attitudes? Does that mean the King of Thieves likes him? How would the King of Thieves know who is a Rogue or who isn't? Again, more questions asked than actual benefits. It's not helpful.

This is a made-up problem. Does the fighter class have [Rogue] tagged next to it? No? Well then they DON'T MEAN HIM. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. It's like plenty of rules you have no problem with at all. Now if you don't like what the author of the adventure intends for that encounter, and you want your fighter to be allowed in for whatever reasons, you will of course do that - JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ADVENTURE. It's purely shorthand. You would not be disputing this if the adventure said "The Thief Kind only permits Thieves, Rangers, and Bards in his hideout", right? You wouldn't be confused then, even though it has the exact same meaning as using the pre-defined shorthand, right?

You are talking about 10-12 Classes in the core book. Why is it significantly more beneficial to list them under subheadings than simply have the Classes listed in alphabetical order? It's not helpful.

I explained, and you ignored, why it is helpful. I will summarize it again: to say that some classes are somewhat similar to other classes. Which is what organization means. Movement in combat is not identical to movement overland which is not identical to movement on a boat, but all three are in the broad Movement section of the book. Fighters and Barbarians are not identical, but both are in the broad Warrior section of the book.

And I've explained, along with others, that the idea that any players need guidance of such sort in choosing Classes is simply untrue.

Let me be real clear here: you're insulting me when you say that. You're calling me a liar. I already said repeatedly it's helpful for me, and I gave an example of when it would have been helpful in another edition. Two other people in this forum have said it would be helpful for them. I explained the theory for new players transitioning from Basic to Advanced edition, and how I encountered those kinds of issues long ago when I made that transition. This isn't some mythical issue that you can just handwaive away. You cannot pretend nobody finds it helpful WHEN MULTIPLE PEOPLE TELL YOU THEY FIND IT HELPFUL. So please, cut that out. This isn't just about you and your preferences and what you find helpful. It's your opinion it's not helpful for you, but you don't get to speak for everyone on this issue.

If you introduce new Classes, players revel in the new choices offered. I've never come across any group of players, ever, that struggles to choose Classes.

I have, repeatedly. It tends to happen when you have a group of older adults who are all married with children and tough jobs and they don't have the time to spend reading through it all. They find the quantity of choices difficult to work with in the short time they have, and could use some shorthand guidelines that help direct them to the things they need faster. X is like Y is one of those types of guidelines that are helpful, just like Movement Overland and Movement in a Dungeon are helpfully found in the same section of the book under the tag "Movement".

You haven't provided a convincing argument on any of these points. They are not helpful in any real sense to anybody. They are simply providing another tier of 'organisation' for the sake of it - and it creates more problems than it is worth.

Yeah, all this means is you're being dismissive of other people's opinions, telling them in a backhanded way they're just lying when they say it's helpful for their groups, and hand-waiving the issues. I have not convinced YOU, but you don't speak for everybody, and you just claimed you did.
 

OK, I'm not going to quote back things to you as the posts are getting too long. I'll list main points instead:

1) Comparing 3e to 5e is only relevant when you make a fair comparison. Comparing supplements to the core rules of a line that has even been born yet is not a reasonable comparison. Moreover, it's a red herring of an argument.

2) The designers have already indicated that there would be examples of exceptions being made - even at this stage. If you know the game is going to be littered with exceptions, including house rules, then it's a good indication you shouldn't be making the rule in the first place.

3) There is no real evidence that the 'saving space' argument is any more valid than your overall 'organisation' argument. Organising the book with a detailed Index based on the alphabet is a lot more effective than any arbitrary categorisation. Class Groups have no real organisational benefit.

4) The whole 'Rogue' problem was your example - you made up the problem. I just gave you the questions that people will naturally ask.

5) Stop being so precious - there is no evidence whatsoever that new players need guidance in choosing Classes. That's not me "calling you a liar" - that is saying the whole argument you have used, in my experience, is bogus. We aren't getting multiple people telling me otherwise - we just have you having a shouting fit to assert this point. Shouting louder doesn't win the argument, and your anecdotes do not ring true to my experiences.

The bottom line is this: They have tried making additional organisational tiers in previous editions that have ultimately not been well recieved. The current creators acknowledged this in their original statement that promoted the idea - trying to argue that this time it would be more gentle and subtly introduced. I just say what is the point of introducing them, if the creators know that they could be divisive and the so-called 'advantages' are as negligible as they clearly are?
 
Last edited:

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
OK, I'm not going to quote back things to you as the posts are getting too long. I'll list main points instead:

1) Comparing 3e to 5e is only relevant when you make a fair comparison. Comparing supplements to the core rules of a line that has even been born yet is not a reasonable comparison. Moreover, it's a red herring of an argument.

It's not a red herring. Prestige classes in 3e were a form of sub-class, and we're talking about how to place sub-classes in 5e, and reactions from the same exact population (D&D players). They were frequently cross-placed in books during 3e, so you'd find an arcane magic class sometimes in a divine book, a rogue class in a fighter book, etc.., and nobody complained. Now while there is a difference between a supplement and a core book, the difference is only a matter of quantity of people exposed to the book in this instance. When you get zero people complaining, it follows that being in the Core book doesn't drastically increase the complaints. If you disagree, you're going to have to make an argument that's more well-supported than "it's not applicable, and is a red herring". At least try and explain why you think those things, in reply to what I said?

2) The designers have already indicated that there would be examples of exceptions being made - even at this stage. If you know the game is going to be littered with exceptions, including house rules, then it's a good indication you shouldn't be making the rule in the first place.

I have not seen the designers claim there will be exceptions, just that it will be rarely used and can be combined. What are you referring to?

3) There is no real evidence that the 'saving space' argument is any more valid than your overall 'organisation' argument. Organising the book with a detailed Index based on the alphabet is a lot more effective than any arbitrary categorisation. Class Groups have no real organisational benefit.

You're doing this thing where you simply declare something to be true, without offering anything to back it up. I explained why the space saving and organization are helpful, with detailed examples. Your reply amounts to "nuh uh". Come on...if you have a reply, make it. Don't just repeat "no" to me without anything more. If I write: "Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock" instead of "Mage", I've used more space to say the same thing. That's proof of saving space using shorthand. You simply saying "no it's not" isn't a response. Anyone can see I saved characters there. As for alphabetical being easier, why? If I know I want to look up an arcane class, wouldn't it be better if all the arcane classes are grouped together? Why would having Bard next to Barbarian instead of next to Thief make more sense to you?

4) The whole 'Rogue' problem was your example - you made up the problem. I just gave you the questions that people will naturally ask.

I didn't make any problem, because there is no problem. WOTC is currently using that tag, but maybe they will change it. Regardless, YOU knew what I meant in this context, so cut the crap as you know the only point was to communicate to you.

5) Stop being so precious

Stop insulting people.

- there is no evidence whatsoever that new players need guidance in choosing Classes.

When I tell you I have encountered this repeatedly myself, and you tell me there is no evidence whatsoever, you're calling me a liar. You're saying my experiences are not evidence of anything at all. You're saying essentially that eyewitness testimony is not evidence.

That's not me "calling you a liar" - that is saying the whole argument you have used, in my experience, is bogus.

You understand the word bogus means fake, right? That that is, in fake, calling me a liar? You're saying my experiences are fake. That's saying liar. How else am I to interpret that. You claim in your experience it hasn't happened, but then you make it clear you're not reserving your statement to just your experiences, you're saying there is no evidence AT ALL, ANYWHERE, that it's happened. How else would anyone take that?

We aren't getting multiple people telling me otherwise - we just have you having a shouting fit to assert this point. Shouting louder doesn't win the argument, and your anecdotes do not ring true to my experiences.

Nobody is shouting, and nobody is having a fit. We did have two other people tell you they thought it would be helpful. You just ignored their comments as well. I am the only one willing to engage you further on this topic. Oh, and "your anecdotes do not ring true" is yet another time you're calling me a liar, this time directly.

The bottom line is this: They have tried making additional organisational tiers in previous editions that have ultimately not been well recieved. The current creators acknowledged this in their original statement that promoted the idea - trying to argue that this time it would be more gentle and subtly introduced. I just say what is the point of introducing them, if the creators know that they could be divisive and the so-called 'advantages' are as negligible as they clearly are?

What are you referring to?
 

It's not a red herring. Prestige classes in 3e were a form of sub-class, and we're talking about how to place sub-classes in 5e, and reactions from the same exact population (D&D players). They were frequently cross-placed in books during 3e, so you'd find an arcane magic class sometimes in a divine book, a rogue class in a fighter book, etc.., and nobody complained. Now while there is a difference between a supplement and a core book, the difference is only a matter of quantity of people exposed to the book in this instance. When you get zero people complaining, it follows that being in the Core book doesn't drastically increase the complaints. If you disagree, you're going to have to make an argument that's more well-supported than "it's not applicable, and is a red herring". At least try and explain why you think those things, in reply to what I said?
It's a red herring because we don't know what is going to be in any 5e supplements as of yet - they may choose to only provide new sub-classes, for example. How people choose to organise splat books in the future is a seperate issue to how Classes will be organised in the Core book. Some gamers - indeed possibly the majority - never go further than buying the core rules of any game.

I have not seen the designers claim there will be exceptions, just that it will be rarely used and can be combined. What are you referring to?
I'm referring to the Q&A sessions with the D&DNext designers where they stated there would be exceptions.

You're doing this thing where you simply declare something to be true, without offering anything to back it up. I explained why the space saving and organization are helpful, with detailed examples. Your reply amounts to "nuh uh". Come on...if you have a reply, make it. Don't just repeat "no" to me without anything more. If I write: "Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock" instead of "Mage", I've used more space to say the same thing. That's proof of saving space using shorthand. You simply saying "no it's not" isn't a response. Anyone can see I saved characters there. As for alphabetical being easier, why? If I know I want to look up an arcane class, wouldn't it be better if all the arcane classes are grouped together? Why would having Bard next to Barbarian instead of next to Thief make more sense to you?
What you are doing is getting frustrated with the answers I am giving which are simple - there are no organisational benefits from grouping the classes this way, that couldn't be better handled with traditional methods of organisation. Alphabetical lists of Classes in a robust index, for example. The 'space-saving' you cite is negligible because it assumes that you cannot communicate these ideas in any other way - in the Class descriptions for example.

I didn't make any problem, because there is no problem. WOTC is currently using that tag, but maybe they will change it. Regardless, YOU knew what I meant in this context, so cut the crap as you know the only point was to communicate to you.
I asked questions of your example and you didn't like it because it was counter to your argument.

Stop insulting people.
I haven't actually insulted anybody, and this is why you are being precious. I've simply argued my points - you are the one so intent on personalising all this.

When I tell you I have encountered this repeatedly myself, and you tell me there is no evidence whatsoever, you're calling me a liar. You're saying my experiences are not evidence of anything at all. You're saying essentially that eyewitness testimony is not evidence.
I'm saying your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't ring true to my experience. I'm not the only person on this thread that has said that either. Whether or not what you say is honest is regardless of the fact that you are still just asserting your own perspective. You say that you needed to guide adults who apparently didn't understand how to choose a Class. I'm saying what would have happened had you not done that? - because I suspect that the whole game session would not have collapsed, and gamers would have enjoyed making their choices on their own.

Moreover, if it was such a pressing concern of being able to help newbie players choose Classes, why didn't they use Class groupings in the play test? The only time they came close was grouping Mages all together and that was rejected. The answer is that truly, it really makes no difference to new players if you group them or not.

You understand the word bogus means fake, right? That that is, in fake, calling me a liar? You're saying my experiences are fake. That's saying liar. How else am I to interpret that. You claim in your experience it hasn't happened, but then you make it clear you're not reserving your statement to just your experiences, you're saying there is no evidence AT ALL, ANYWHERE, that it's happened. How else would anyone take that?
It's a bogus argument. It's anecdotal, and doesn't ring true to my experiences. Personalising the argument is a strawman.

Nobody is shouting, and nobody is having a fit. We did have two other people tell you they thought it would be helpful. You just ignored their comments as well. I am the only one willing to engage you further on this topic. Oh, and "your anecdotes do not ring true" is yet another time you're calling me a liar, this time directly.
When you use CAPSLOCK on your messages, you are figuratively shouting when online. When you choose to personalise a debate, you are figuratively having a fit. Other people may have other opinions to myself on this thread, but you are the only one choosing to be aggressive about it.

What are you referring to?
Previous editions that tried to categrorise Classes led to a lot of criticism.
 
Last edited:



Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It's a red herring because we don't know what is going to be in any 5e supplements as of yet - they may choose to only provide new sub-classes, for example. How people choose to organise splat books in the future is a seperate issue to how Classes will be organised in the Core book. Some gamers - indeed possibly the majority - never go further than buying the core rules of any game.

Uh, TrippyHippy, the designers already said in one of the columns that is part of the intent behind the class system they're using, and they they absolutely plan to use the same sets of tags in future supplements.

You seem to be missing my point (three times now). My point is that, of the population of people who did buy supplements for 3e, nobody complained about this issue. That's telling. You keep repeating that supplements are not core, but that retort has nothing at all to do with the point I am making. It's not relevant. If the core is bought by 100,000 people and the supplement is only bought by 1000 people, and none of those people complained about this issue, that 1000 people is a very large sample (relative to modern polling samples) of the total to indicate to a very high probability we're talking about something people don't have a problem with.

Please don't make me repeat that point again. If you have a response to it - to the point I am making - then please make it. But stop saying "supplements = different" without actually speaking to the point I made. Of course they are different, but FOR THE PURPOSES OF POLLING A POPULATION OF GAMERS FOR THEIR REACTIONS TO A CERTAIN TYPE OF ISSUE, they are the same. Do you get it now? Do you see where I am coming from?

I'm referring to the Q&A sessions with the D&DNext designers where they stated there would be exceptions.

I've read them all, and I have not seen that quote. Please quote it.

What you are doing is getting frustrated with the answers I am giving which are simple - there are no organisational benefits from grouping the classes this way, that couldn't be better handled with traditional methods of organisation. Alphabetical lists of Classes in a robust index, for example. The 'space-saving' you cite is negligible because it assumes that you cannot communicate these ideas in any other way - in the Class descriptions for example.

OK so we've gone from "no" space saving to "negligible" space saving, so we are making progress.

You cannot do it in the class description, because the class description cannot know what future things will come out that could refer back to that class. So, we know it cannot be there.

It cannot be in the future things, because now you're asking for those future things to list allllllll the sub-classes they mean, each time. And, those future things cannot account for even more future sub-classes not contemplated at the time of their publication. So, you we're back to the same problem.

The only way to account for future sub-classes and future magic items / adventures / whatever that would refer to a large classification of sub-classes, is to use some sort of short-hand that applies to that large classification of sub-classes. That's it - it's the only organizational method proposed that can do that. None of your counter-proposals can accomplish that goal of including future publications.

[
I asked questions of your example and you didn't like it because it was counter to your argument.

It wasn't counter to anything. You seemed to think it meant something different than I meant by it, and not by some regular confusion, but because you made mistaken inferences purely, as you say to "counter" it. You admitted you understood what I meant...which was the only point of me writing it.

I haven't actually insulted anybody, and this is why you are being precious. I've simply argued my points - you are the one so intent on personalising all this.

Look, when you tell me that there is zero benefit to it and nobody in the world gets a benefit from it, and I tell you it benefits me, and you repeat the claim, you are personalizing it to me. You're not saying "in my experience" at that point, because you're including things well beyond your experience. You're saying everyone, which of course includes me, which implies I am lying. Is this really too difficult a concept?

I'm saying your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't ring true to my experience.

Yes of course it is anecdotal, but an anecdote of 1 disproves any claim of "everyone". So when you continue to make claims that you speak for "everyone", you're making a claim already disproven.

I'm not the only person on this thread that has said that either. Whether or not what you say is honest is regardless of the fact that you are still just asserting your own perspective. You say that you needed to guide adults who apparently didn't understand how to choose a Class. I'm saying what would have happened had you not done that? - because I suspect that the whole game session would not have collapsed, and gamers would have enjoyed making their choices on their own.

I can tell you what happened, they asked to play Old School Hack instead. It's not a hypothetical example TrippyHippy, it actually happened. It does not matter if that doesn't match your experience, it actually happened, so stop speaking for the entire population of D&D players and speak for yourself alone.

Moreover, if it was such a pressing concern of being able to help newbie players choose Classes, why didn't they use Class groupings in the play test? The only time they came close was grouping Mages all together and that was rejected. The answer is that truly, it really makes no difference to new players if you group them or not.

Because almost zero new players are playing a playtest of course - it was an invite to existing registered players of prior editions of the game. By new players, I mean people who have never played D&D (in any version).

It's a bogus argument. It's anecdotal, and doesn't ring true to my experiences. Personalising the argument is a strawman.

It's not a strawman. Here, it's simple math, maybe if I put it that way it will get through to you:

A = The entire population of all D&D players
B = People who have no problem dealing with a larger array of classes when transitioning from a smaller set of classes.

You made a claim that A = B
I proved that one member of A /=B
Therefore, the claim that A = B is false.

That's it. It's simple. No strawman, as I am directly answering the assertion you made, and not changing the assertion you made in any way. It's not false (bogus) as I proved your claim cannot be true.

So, please stop making that claim. You don't speak for the population of D&D players, your experiences are not universal, and some portion of D&D players will find this tool useful. Now how many is up for debate, but what is not up for debate is that none find it helpful.

When you use CAPSLOCK on your messages, you are figuratively shouting when online.

Are you seriously lecturing a 44 year old who has been online since the BBS days of the early 1980s about netiquette? When I tell you I am not shouting, I am not shouting. When I tell you I am not having a fit, I am not having a fit. Accept my word at face value. I am using the capslock for emphasis, not as shouting. I could use the bold function, but that takes more time and these replies are already pretty time-intensive. Think of capslock as shorthand - something I know you appreciate :)

When you choose to personalise a debate, you are figuratively having a fit.

As I demonstrated above, the only logical meaning for what you said is that you did not believe I had the experience I said I had. That's you personalizing it. When you add name-calling (having a fit), you make it personal again. Please stop.

Other people may have other opinions to myself on this thread, but you are the only one choosing to be aggressive about it.

Not being aggressive. You're making another false inference. How about you stop inferring what you think my mood is, and just respond to what I say rather than what you think I am feeling?

Previous editions that tried to categrorise Classes led to a lot of criticism.

What previous editions did this, and what criticism are you referring to? Man, it's like pulling teeth over here...
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top