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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6785095" data-attributes="member: 6799649">This really is an excellent breakdown, so well done. <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=":)" />The 'for me' side shows what my point is. You can only have (say) paladins whose membership must be exclusively made up of D&D class paladins AND every single D&D class paladin must belong to that in game group if the DM artificially makes it so!But it is absurd. I'm not using the word 'absurd' as some random insult, but specifically to point out that the game mechanics of 'class' cannot be known to the creatures in game, and any attempt to artificially impose that knowledge is just as unrealistic as knowledge of their own hit point total, or even the concept of 'hit points'.They simply cannot equate the things they can observe to match the D&D classes. No sage in the world could observe what people can do and then write the D&D class system as the only possible way to describe what he observed! We know that ourselves, because D&D has been through more than five iterations already.If the sage did make those observations and write a treatise explaining it, we absolutely could not be certain that he would unfailingly, unknowingly be copying the crunch of the 'Class' chapter of the 5E PHB. A thousand sages could write a thousand treatises, and no two would be alike. If 'class' really was knowable in game, then every sage would write an identical treatise.</blockquote>

Verification