i09 picks on D&D's 24 most ridiculous names, fails at basic reading

[Remathilis]

http://io9.com/the-24-most-embarras...utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I'll let you read it and then when you're doing raging, see me below...







Where do I begin?


1.) Half of them are kits, designed to flesh out classes rather than replace them. A peasant hero is just a fighter with some certain skills and outlook. A thug is a martial thief. Additionally, some of them are variants of other classes or racial variants.


2.) He put two in from Masque of the Red Death, a D&D setting set in 1890's LONDON.


3.) He get the facts wrong on some of them: Anchorites are specialty priest of Ezra and have none of the traits he describes.


4.) It really seems what the author did was look over a list on Wikipedia and made fun of the names.


Its seriously the most unfunny, misinformed articles I've read.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Lighten up, Francis.

Gawker has a history of "not quite right" articles. The D&D worlds will continue to turn. Besides, a lot of those *are* pretty goofy.

 

[Raith5]

Ah it is good to have a laugh. But they missed the Jester class from an early Dragon magazine. I remember having one in an AD&D campaign and the Jester was such an annoying character: everyone wanted him to die a horrible death.

 

[Halivar]

I don't think the article was written with a whole lot of seriousness in mind. It's a joke, and actually pretty funny IMHO.

 

[Ichneumon]

Meet the Fetishist, who everyone wants to be left on watch with.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, not really seeing the problem here. These are pretty goofy character concepts.

But, hey, if I've learned something from the past few years, any criticism, no matter how tongue in cheek, is automatically a massive insult to some gamer somewhere.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, not really seeing the problem here. These are pretty goofy character concepts.

But, hey, if I've learned something from the past few years, any criticism, no matter how tongue in cheek, is automatically a massive insult to some gamer somewhere.

The problem with it is many of his criticisms are based on inaccurate descriptions of the classes and kits. He claims the anchorite was ridiculous because they lose their powers when they move 100 feet from an anchor point. But this isn't a feature of the class at all. Anchorites only lose their powers if they leave ravenloft. There were other examples like that in the list.

Now, is this worth getting mad over? No. There is no point getting upset over someone's rediculist. But it was reposted all over Facebook so lots of gamers took an interest and commented. i think it is fair to point out that many of the claims about the classes in the list are plain wrong or highly misleading.

 

[M.L. Martin]

For the anchorite, it looks like the author Googled "dungeons dragons anchorite" and just used the first result that came up--which is a homebrew Prestige Class.

 

[Erik Mona]

Forget the Jester, the Dragon Magazine class most conspicuously missing from the article was issue #72's "Jock" class. Wow, was that dumb.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Its seriously the most unfunny, misinformed articles I've read.

Welcome to the Internet.