Agreed. If you think having classes with the same name is confusing, by all means say so! I don't agree, but that's just like, my opinion, man.
If there was no confusion, there would be no need to a 5 second conversation (multiplied by the 1000s of times that conversation would need to be repeated) to aleviate it, would there? And of course you are assuming that the conversation always happens when required, which is by no means a given. In fact, it cannot happen since in general the confusion will arise from written text.
You'd really have to explain it to me how that conversation happens thousands of times.
Well, let's say it only happens once per 4 groups (very conservative estimate IMNSHO), and 8000 groups use it, that is 2000 instances of that conversation. I dunno how many EN Publishing are expecting to sell, but I doubt 8000 is too far out there.
Because rules element need to refer to other rules elements, preferably without ambiguity. I am astonished this is in any way confusing or contraversial.
I was speaking on a per-group basis, not overall for every one who ever plays the game.
I guess because referencing my actual class never actually comes up during play. The rules material in LU will obviously refer to material in LU, so it's not like it would be confusing while reading the book.
If I'm not mistaken there is the intent of having enough 5 comptability to play [hb 5e stuff in A5e & the A5e classes will be pretty different. When the GM of an A5e asks the table & gets two people who say "fighter" "wizard" or whatever they still don't know the answer if the A5e classes use the same names instead of different names. If one of those players says "Dreadnought" "Mage" or whatever the GM instantly knows the capabilities of his group at the table.
What kind of DM doesn't know the classes of the PCs at the table before the game starts, outside of a convention game?
One running a semiopen game at a flgs & says room for x start time is Y after describing the game on somethig like the flgs's gaming facebook group? One who knows his players & says to bring a level x. One who has a player say "I want to start playing something else, can I switch to a fighter". There are literally an endless list of good & valid reasons why a GM might not know what players. When the argument against using different names is so weak that there seems to be little more than "no it's not confusing & I can't see any way it could be" you should probably switch to why using the same names is good once people start giving reasons why different names are actually good rather than maligning GMs who might encounter confusion.
