Category talk:5e Class Variant

Unnecessary

Similar to my mashup category statements: If a class has a category that doesn't match its article title, then obviously it is variant (by your definitions). What is the purpose for creating extra/redundant categories. Red Leg Leo (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2020 (MST)

I see your point, none-the-less, I have been using the '5e variant class' category for building filters. Let's wait on removing this category for a while. I also have a hunch that there may be other reasons to keep it. Arquebus (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2020 (MST)

I want to keep this so that subclasses can also be included as variants. Arquebus (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2020 (MST)

You want to include subclasses under a class category? Red Leg Leo (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2020 (MST)

Yeah, in my opinion this seems kinda pointless. Do we really need a category for class variants? Maybe if it's for variants of first party stuff, sure, but I highly doubt those are numerous enough to warrant not just being under their own category. If it isn't for first party variants, why bother? --SwankyPants (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2021 (MST)

How about this for thought; class variant says nothing about the tag. For all these mashup and variant tags to be worth while, it would need a descriptor i.e. fighter variant, wizard variant. If you have more than one tag, obviously it would be a mashup then. (conversation on the mashup page.) Red Leg Leo (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2021 (MST)