Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6199071" data-attributes="member: 2525">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've read them all, and I have not seen that quote.  Please quote it.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.[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.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?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 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.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 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 playersB = 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 = BI proved that one member of A /=BTherefore, 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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.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?What previous editions did this, and what criticism are you referring to? Man, it's like pulling teeth over here...</blockquote>

Verification