Talk:Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mreynolds12 (article contribs).

NPC classes

What about the five NPC classes? — Daniel 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Added --Laxrulz777 18:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Side Bar

How do you edit the sidebar so that the Tome of Battle classes can be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxrulz777 (talk • contribs)

Figured it out... For anyone interested it's a template to be edited. The {{}} give it away and you edit it by putting template: in front of it in the URL. --Laxrulz777 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Further Additions

It'd be great if we could get some blurbs about the remaining core classes as well as somebody archiving the prestige classes.

Also, I'm trying to seek clarification on the naming convention. For right now I'm tacking (Dungeons & Dragons) onto the end of these pages. I understand that that may not be acceptable but it's easier in the short term. If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to goto the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and chime in.

--Laxrulz777 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add the common 3-letter acronyms to the class list. This doesn't seem to be in any of the D&D books, though it's often used on a class-by-class basis. If it is used, perhaps a reference to the publication could be included instead, as it is obviously hard to find.

--Misfit815 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Noble and Mystic Deletion

Sorry for deleting those but I'm not familiar what 3.5 edition book they're from. To the best of my knowledge Mystic is from basic D&D master edition and noble is the same as the NPC class aristocrat... am I missing something? --Laxrulz777 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dragonlance Campaign Setting --Starman IX

Actual Class Details?

For the classes that are considered to be open content, should we add their information to the pages? Or should this remain a description and nothing more? Gundato

i think the reason there is so little information on this page is because there're so many classes listed here. If we were to give information for all of them, we would 1. have a very long article. 2. repeat what is already been said in all the pages which the template links to. Yaksha 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the individual pages, I just felt it would be easier to suggest it here. Stuff like their BAB and saving throw progressions (when it isn't copyrighted). Gundato

ahh...i see what you mean. Do you mean information as in the stuff that was removed in this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Barbarian_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29&diff=75536121&oldid=74501964) of the Barbarian page?

If it is open content, then i don't see why it couldn't be on there. The person who removed it says "SRD content must be prefaced with the appropriate licenses". HOwever, it was prefaced with "This material is Open Game Content, and is licensed for public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a.". So i'm not sure what the person meant. You could try asking on the person's talk page, but since that person is editing without an accout, i doubt you would get a reply. Perhaps you should just leave a note on the specific talk page (and say on your edit summary to refer to the talk page) if you decide to restore it.

However, i've always found all that information for the classes distracting and not very useful. I think someone needs to summarize all that information and write it in an encyclopedia form, instead of simply copying and pasting it. For example, that list of "Level Base Attack Bonus Fort Save Ref Save Will Save Special" is utterly meaningless to anyone who is not very familiar with the D&D system.

also, stuff like "Trap Sense (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a barbarian gains a +1 bonus on Reflex saves made to avoid traps and a +1 dodge bonus to AC against attacks made by traps. These bonuses rise by +1 every three barbarian levels thereafter (6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th level). Trap sense bonuses gained from multiple classes stack." is also meaningless to someone not familiar with D&D. In my opinion, someone needs to re-write that as "a barbarian gains a special ability "trap sense" at the 3rd level. This ability means the barbarian is advantaged in avoiding traps and will take less damage from traps. This ability gets better as the barbarian levels...etc"

the information also doesn't always apply --> games that use the D&D system which also use its classes make sometimes makes slight changes to the classes, or the gamemaster himself can decide to make changes. So the information isn't all that useful to anyone.

although that's just my opinion. but i believe we are supposed to try and make information sound 'encyclopedic' instead of just writing out raw facts and information. Yaksha 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Note about gender pronouns

Just a note about the use of gender pronouns on character class articles.

I've gone and changed any gender-specific pronouns, as well as any "his/her" or "he/she" into either the plural pronoun or it (when it's just talking about the class and not about the characters in it).

The classes refer to general groups of characters anyway, so plural works fine. And it completely avoids the issue of what gender pronouns to use. Since i've noticed these articles are rather inconsistent with it, as well as with when to use plural and when to use singular. Better to just have the whole lot the same. --Yaksha 10:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles are inconsistent, I think, because the latest source material is. Wizards started using mixed-gender pronouns in 3.5 of Dungeons and Dragons, probably to get more girls to play the game (or to acknowledge that girls do play the game). Some classes and races are hes, some are shes. If memory serves, Paladin was a she. -Mance 11:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

just because they do that, it doesn't really mean we have to do it. I don't have anything against it. I just think that being a wiki, lots of people are editing these pages, it'll be really easy for the whole thing to turn into a mess. People will argue, and some people clearly do care about this, just take a look at the edit summary on this edit. All it takes is one other person who wants all the pronouns female...and boom...we have a bonfire.

I admit turning the whole lot into plurals is more of a way around the problem than truely solving it. But at least it's a fix until someone dedicated enough can come and comb through all these pages and fix it. As long as using the mixed gender pronouns is intentional, i think it can look just as 'good' as having all the articles with the same pronoun. It's just right now, it seems to be a matter of one person deciding they'll mix one way and another person deciding they'll mix in another way (and a lot of article also refer to the classes as "it"...don't quite understand why, but i'm not going to leave them as is.) --Yaksha 11:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with your decision, and wasn't suggesting we should emulate the Players' Handbook, I was merely posting my idea on why the article had the gender waffling. To be honest, I think Wizards' decision wasn't a good one, because using "her" to refer to a general idea (like a character class) is quite distracting, because traditionally "he" would be used unless it was -absolutely- a female subject. -Mance 15:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll support this decision. I'm going through and doing the prestige classes, so I'll give them a quick run through now. Morgrim 01:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i find using the traditional "he" for everything is fine too. But the fact is, other than being traditional, it isn't justified. So it becomes a problem with people start to care. --Yaksha 07:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When you change the pronouns in a sentence, make sure the rest of the sentence makes sense. The Samurai (Dungeons & Dragons) article is a grammatical mess right now: "samurais who loses their station" is incorrect both grammatically, and in the manner of pluralization. As far as I know, japanese words in english do not receive pluralization, number is determined based on context. Such is the manner in which the Samurai article is written, so I would assume that consistency demands the same of the article for the character class. Lucky number 49 17:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

uhh...yeah...sorry about that. I tried to watch the rest of the sense when changing the pronouns, but i wasn't too sure whether all the class names could be plural-ized by adding a "s" on the end. I know Japanese words don't normally use the added "s" at the end to show plural, but even if the classes are named with japanese words...all the class names should just be treated as english names shouldn't they? Anyhow, i wasn't too sure about it. Anyhow, it's easy to fix anyway, if you can tell me which class names shouldn't have a "s" on the end for plural. --Yaksha 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger

WP:NOT — Wikipedia articles are not: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files

• 3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

• 4. Instruction manuals

Placing every last class as its own article jsut because the WotC SRD allows it doesn't mean they are all needed.

WP:NN — Articles on subjects with borderline notability that still meet Wikipedia's other content policies may be merged into list articles, or into an article on a related subject

shadzar|Talk|contribs 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Percy Snoodle 15:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Partial Oppose There is no way the base character classes should be merged, although quite possibly some of the others should. Morgrim 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - i agree the base classes shouldn't be merged. The barbarian, for example, is clearly a step up in notability from something like a Shugenja. Further more, i don't think merging everything into this article is such a good idea. We don't want to end up with a huge "Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)". I think 10-15 classes per article would be a more sensible number. It would mean we can get some decent-lengthed articles for the alternate base classes, but the articles won't be so huge that it will discourage people from expanding sections on individual bases. --`/aksha 02:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Expand and elaborate each different class, D&D is a notable enough game to warrent each character class having its own page. Marcsin 01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment—D&D may be notable, but is every character/prestige class? notable within the game, but what about to those not familiar with the game? Maybe I am misunderstanding WP poclicies. shadzar|Talk|contribs 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think lumping all the D&D classes together when saying "each character class having its own page" is in itself wrong. The notability of something like Bard or Wizard is completely different from the notability of something like a Totemist, which is again nothing like the notability of Vigilante, Shining Blade of Heironeous or Dweomerkeeper (the last three all being wierd prestige classes). Let's see how discussions on the rpg project proceeds. And IIRC, there is actually a place for people to go to make contraversial merges proposals. Forget where though... --`/aksha 10:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Bard or Wizard deserve different entries as general terms, not as specific AD&D classes. The ammount of detailed information about the game is absurd, given the apparent purpose of Wikipedia. The entry on character classes doesn't need to list every single class, and there certainly don't need to be multiple entries for character classes.

Standardization

I've looked at the various character class articles and each and everyone is formatted differently. Some give details on changes of the classes from 1st to 3rd edition while others do not, wizard gives class skills for no explicable reason when others do not. I suggest we come up with a standard format that all the classes follow, it would make things more professional in my opinion. What does everyone think? It would be a bit of an undertaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.206.237.220 (talk • contribs)

Paragon Paths

There was a minor incorrect claim about paragon paths being class-specific. This is true in the PHB, but not true in general. In a Dragon article called "Playing Warforged" (issue #364)[1] a paragon path was introduced for Warforged. It is not class-specific (although it is race-specific).

The section in the wiki article originally stated, "Paragon paths are class-specific. . ." and I simply changed it to "Paragon paths are often (though not always) class-specific. . . ." 75.15.167.122 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

4e role descriptions

I've rephrased the role summaries, Rangers are not able to excel at both ranged and melee combat simultaneously due to MAD, and, as of March 2009, every published Defender class including Swordmage is focused on melee combat. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

4th edition and "core classes"

Could someone should rewrite the 4th edition section to avoid the term "core class"? The term is problematic, because, within the context of D&D, "core" could either mean "not campaign-specific", or could refer specifically to the core rulebooks. Wizards of the Coast doesn't even use the term consistantly, the PHB2 says "roleplaying game core rules" on its' cover, however in the online D&D product catalog, it's grouped with accessories instead of core products, and is listed as part of the "D&D Rules Supplement" series. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Class tables

I think we should only include tables for the classes in the main rulebooks. The rest are already listed in list of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - this page should be about the core classes. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Immortals

No noticed that the most powerful character class, the Immortals, have not been mentioned in the article? Is someone going to add the entry in the article, or should I? MPA 12:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Is that really a character class? 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Assassin, warlord

Those 2 classes are exactly as "core" as each other - each is in a single core book as a class, and as something playable in more than 1 edition. If anything, the pedigree of the assassin is greater. So, are both "principal" or neither? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.163.198 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, you're right. After all, there was a standalone Assassin in Dragon for 4th edition. For now I've removed both and listed them as being the classes that have appeared in the core books of multiple editions, which seems to be a simple enough criteria to ensure these are classes that have had significant long-term impact. I don't think it would take much to convince me to add any class that has been in a PHB (not the PHB2s or so on, though, as those are accessories, not core, despite what WotC marketing said during 4th edition.) oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative vs Alternate

Per WP:COMMONALITY, we should use "alternative" over "alternate" where appropriate. I made that change, but the edit was promptly reverted with the explanation that "alternate class" is a technical term used in the game. Is there a source to verify that? List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes would seem to disagree. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea myself, but that may not be the best example; that article originally was at List of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes until someone moved it on "commonality" grounds. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_alternative_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_classes&diff=399326866&oldid=397407608 ) "Alternate" sounds better to me but I don't really care too much either way. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking more closely, it appears that "someone" was you, so that really doesn't apply much of a precedent! I mean, they're basically synonyms so I prefer inertia which is keeping it at "alternate", but it seems we only have one editor on record as preferring alternative, not two, then. Is this form of "alternate" really so unclear in a British English context? If so, fine, let's change it, but if it's merely non-standard, it's probably better kept as is. SnowFire (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it might have been me who moved it. But since it hasn't been contested, it would still seem to support my point. The commonality guideline exists for a reason: outside of the US, the adjective alternate only refers to things that are alternating; it's not a synonym of alternative. So there needs to be a good reason if we're not going to follow the guideline. I can't find any sources to suggest that "alternate class" is a technical term. I can also find sources that use "alternative class". If the phrase is ever used in official D&D material, it sounds like it would be plain English rather than jargon, meaning there's no need to use exactly the same wording. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: What do you think? SnowFire (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

All I know is the books themselves use "Alternate Classes", complete with the capitals, which are typically used to indicate a term that has a particular in-game meaning. Mind you, that was two editions ago, as the 4th edition didn't treat anything as an alternate ("everything is core" was the supposed mentality) and 5th thus far hasn't added any new cmasses beyond the Player's Handbook, just additional subclasses, which are pretty much just a set of options for the existing class, though ones with strong effects. Pathfinder, which is a continuation of the 3.x line, however, does use the caps as well. oknazevad (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering the change in terminology in the most recent editions, and the fact that what the article is referring to as "alternate classes" is not just the "Alternate Classes" mentioned in some editions, perhaps using "alternative classes" as a catch-all term for all such class (alternate classes, prestige classes, etc.) would be better. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930061516/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Falumni%2F20060602a to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Falumni%2F20060602a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518030309/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4ex%2F20080423a to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4ex%2F20080423a
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4ex%2F20080512a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bard optional in AD&D

Bards are an optional class in AD&D not a base class and appear only in the Appendix. Vassili73 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Vassili73 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassili73 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Vassili73 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, like half the stuff in D&D is technically "optional." Yes, but so what. Secondly, 1st edition Bard's restrictions are covered later. It's still a class in the 1st edition PHB, even if it was one that couldn't be accessed at 1st level. SnowFire (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Asnwerin that "half the stuff in D&D is technically optional is a nonsens. In fact 100% of the rules are optional if you want to go on this ground. But saying that is obviously bad faith in this discussion. Bard is not a base class or sub class of AD&D. It's an optional class that appear in Appendix. It is not a core class in the same way as the barbarian or the acrobat thief who are appeared in the Unearthed Arcana. So if Bard is presented as a Base class in this page why not the Cavalier ? the Barbarian ? the acrobat thief ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassili73 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is "Character class", not "base Character Classes that can be accessed at level 1." It does cover classes accessed in other styles. It's just that in other editions, this list is long enough that it's spun-out, and these classes were generally not considered "notable" enough to be put in the PHB itself. Bard was considered notable enough to be put in the 1st edition PHB. SnowFire (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Races don't exist in OD&D

Races don't exist in OD&D.

Dwarves, Elves and Halflings are called "character type" instead of "race" and include a class imposed on them.

Dwarves : Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class.

Elves : Elves can begin as either Fighting-Men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose, from adventure to adventure

Halflings: Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting-Men class as a halfing.

When one has only one choice is it still a choice?

So since each "character type" has no class choice, it is that these character types are classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassili73 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"OD&D" also included the supplements, beginning with Supplement I: Greyhawk, which explicitly also allows those races to play as thieves. Taking the edition as a whole, races and classes are separate, not one thing. oknazevad (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Vassili73, I agree with oknazevad on this one. "Character type" is just confusing the issue. Also, are you sure you aren't confusing this with the "Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set" which really did have just vanilla "Elf" and the like? SnowFire (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oknazevad, Supplement I: Greyhawk is not part of the core rules of OD&D. It gives rules related to Greyhawk. So Rogue class and calling non-humans races are optionnal systems relevant to Greyhawk only. And the Character class wikipedia page is about class in core books. For optional classes and rules about optional classes go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternative_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_classes. So in the core rules of OD&D dwarves, elves and halflings are classes called character types. The races as a class thus come from OD&D originally and not from Basic D&D which only took over what already existed in OD&D regarding "races" that is to say the class types.

Snowfire, "Character type" is how elves, dwarves and halflings are called in OD&D core rules. Whether confusing or not change nothing. Are we talking about what we want to see in the rules of OD&D because we do not find it confusing or are we talking about the real OD&D rules on the wikipedia page? Because if we put what we want to read some will be able to write that the Earth is flat and that spontaneous generation and perpetual motion exist on wikipedia. So no I don't makes confusion and I have before me the OD&D rules of several different impressions. So it's more probably you who makes confusions.Vassili73 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

As SnowFire mentioned above, the articlenis about character classes, and lists all classes in an edition. It is not just about core character classes. And don't call good faith editors vandals, or you will not be able to edit for very long. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC) PS, despite its title, Supplement I: Greyhawk was not just about the Greyhawk setting, but a general rules expansion for the game as a whole.

This section organisation doesn't work

There is no section about OD&D before AD&D.

There is only one section about all the different Basic D&D editions.

The Basic D&D edition appear after AD&D section while the first D&D Basic edition, that of Holmes, was published before AD&D.

I reorganized the sections in a more logical order several times but vandals continue to put them in the wrong order every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassili73 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The people reverting you are volunteers, not vandals. If you can't express disagreement productively, you're going to have a bad time here. SnowFire (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Plus Holmes' version of the Basic Set wasn't intended as a separate game, unlike the later versions.

AD&D was not intended as a full break from the original game, just a reconsolidation of it in light of the rapid expansion in those first few years. The original Basic Set was fully part of that plan. It was intended to be like the 5e Starter Set, presenting the game but limited to only the most popula and options, but it was written using the OD&D rules (mostly the boxed set and first supplement), and the AD&D rules weren't fully pinned down. Holmes' Basic Rules still has a strong do-it-yourself aspect to it, like the original set.

A big part of the reason the original Monster Manual was released first is that one can fully use it with the original Basic Set as well as OD&D. It wasn't until the original DMG came out that Gygax really started saying AD&D was a separate game, and that was really prompted by not wanting to pay Arneson royalties as much as anything. That the Basic Set was revised in 1981 was prompted by that as well; as long as they kept selling a game called Dungeons & Dragons without the Advanced in the title they could claim the Arneson was entitles to royalties from that alone, meaning it was intended as a separate game.

This was in addition to the desire of some players to stick to the simpler game, which prompted the intentional simplifications by Tom Moldvay in the 1981 Basic Set, which is where race-as-class really comes from; OD&D does have race and class as two separate aspects, but has strict limits on the class choices on non-human races, and Modlvay's changes streamlined those while still keeping the same idea, whereas AD&D had loosened those limits. So it was really with the 1981 Basic Set that Basic D&D became a distinct edition, not Holmes' 1977 version. That's why it's listed after AD&D here. oknazevad (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) → Character classes in Dungeons & Dragons – The article does not redefine the meaning of character class as defined in that article, but rather extends it to Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore, the use of a parenthetical disambiguation would technically be incorrect, as the topic is the same. Other possibilities are Dungeons & Dragons character classes and List of Dungeons & Dragons character classes. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, tentatively. I'm a big fan of throwing out needless parenthetical disambiguation, but the proposed title sounds more like a list than a general-concept overview article. I also don't really follow the rationale - parenthetical disambiguation is definitely used for "offshoot" topics related to the main meaning, when appropriate, e.g. Health (gaming) is related to health, but it's still referred to as just health / HP / stamina/ etc. in context. (Also, as a minor point of clarification on "extends it to Dungeons & Dragons" - pretty sure the D&D character class "came first" and the rest of gaming later adopted it, not that the order particularly matters here.) SnowFire (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Health (gaming) is a different, much more abstract thing than actual health of a person. Character class is literally the same, but in a more narrow context. Even if one inspired the other, the fact that the scope is more narrow makes it sensible to make it a subtopic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per SnowFire. oknazevad (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.