10
\$\begingroup\$

What the is about? Is it relevant? Should we burninate it?

If not, can we do a tag wiki on it?

\$\endgroup\$
19
\$\begingroup\$

: the tag has been merged (but not synonymed) with .


Draconic Bloodline is like a subclass of sorcerer in Pathfinder and D&D 5e. Having a tag for this is kind of like having the tags [archfey-pact], [the-fiend-pact], and [the-great-old-one-pact] for the different kinds of core D&D 5e warlock subclasses — which is to say, it's a little bit odd for this tag to exist.

I don't think it's a good or useful tag; of the questions currently bearing it…

  • one is (mis)using the tag for an unrelated concept.
  • two are using this tag instead of the tag they should be using as well as (or instead of) .
  • one is using it to label a part of the question that is merely background* for the actual problem about bonus stacking.
  • only one is even actually worthy of the tag (assuming the tag merits existence), since that question is actually directly about a draconic bloodline's mechanics.

I don't think past usage demonstrates any value to the tag, and looking at analogies to parallel D&D/PF concepts shows that we simply don't have tags for that sort of thing — such as the various D&D 5e Warlock Pacts, or the Eldritch Knight subclass, or whatever.

All these questions could be tagged just fine.

I think should just be merged with . That would make all questions currently using the tag get a sorcerer-related tag relevant to all five questions, and eliminate a tag that's pretty useless. (And by merging with mod tools, we'd avoid question-bumping edits.) And by merging them without also synonymising them, the tag stays possible to re-create if it should ever actually be useful. As doppelgreener pointed out, the current minimal usage suggest a redirection isn't needed to help people find the tag.


* Labelling background info is nearly always a harmful use for a tag, since it pollutes the search results with irrelevant questions.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ I don’t really like synonym in this case. Maybe if re-creation keeps being a problem, but it’s just so easy to imagine game systems having something called “draconic bloodline” having nothing to do with anything called “sorcerer,” which could make this synonym awkward. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Dec 6 '17 at 4:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan That could happen, but in current practice it's = “sorcerer” and would be useful now. We don't usually worry about hypotheticals until they're non-hypothetical or there are extenuating circumstances; in this case the fix would be trivial if it that ever happens. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 6 '17 at 4:48
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 to merge, but no to synonym. I agree with KRyan, and since it's minimal effort difference to choose not to create a synonym in the first place, we don't need to close that door nor create that meta work, nor does the current minimal usage suggest a redirection is needed. But I agree we don't need it right now as its own tag. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Dec 6 '17 at 9:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppel Ah! "…nor does the current minimal usage suggest a redirection is needed." That is an excellent point about needs-based action. Enough that I'll revise the answer. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 6 '17 at 16:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie This move has sat in high support for about a week now -- want to do the honours? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Dec 13 '17 at 10:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener With pleasure! \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Dec 13 '17 at 15:29
-6
\$\begingroup\$

5 questions about a class feature that is endemic to D&D is not much, but it is a rather complicated and wide spectum one. while it is not necessary much, we do have (166 questions) - thus I vote to stay for the time...

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .