It appears that Jeremy Crawford confirmed in an interview that they are not moving forward with this UA.
Strixhaven will introduce the Owlin race (Owlfolk from the Feywild UA,) new feats, spells, and magic items. But no new subclasses.
Understandable. A system like this seems like it would have been an absolute nightmare to try and balance by the time the book got released. Hopefully they will recycle some of the ideas they had for other subclasses in the future.
It appears that Jeremy Crawford confirmed in an interview that they are not moving forward with this UA.
Strixhaven will introduce the Owlin race (Owlfolk from the Feywild UA,) new feats, spells, and magic items. But no new subclasses.
Understandable. A system like this seems like it would have been an absolute nightmare to try and balance by the time the book got released. Hopefully they will recycle some of the ideas they had for other subclasses in the future.
That and an adventure/setting book with nothing for non casters, alienates some players as nope not for you. So instead they are adding feats so all classes have something they can get and use.
It appears that Jeremy Crawford confirmed in an interview that they are not moving forward with this UA.
Strixhaven will introduce the Owlin race (Owlfolk from the Feywild UA,) new feats, spells, and magic items. But no new subclasses.
Understandable. A system like this seems like it would have been an absolute nightmare to try and balance by the time the book got released. Hopefully they will recycle some of the ideas they had for other subclasses in the future.
That and an adventure/setting book with nothing for non casters, alienates some players as nope not for you. So instead they are adding feats so all classes have something they can get and use.
That's a rationale I...don't really get? The only subclass options in Van Richten were Bard and Warlock, both of which are full-casters (okay pact magic is weird but you know what i mean) and nobody cried foul on that. It had races/lineages, sure, but so did Strixhaven with the Owlin. It just feels like a lot of people inferring things on Strixhaven that they wouldn't and didn't on other UAs for specific books...why? Because it was M:tG? Or the Harry Potter vibes were strong enough they viewed it differently?
It appears that Jeremy Crawford confirmed in an interview that they are not moving forward with this UA.
Strixhaven will introduce the Owlin race (Owlfolk from the Feywild UA,) new feats, spells, and magic items. But no new subclasses.
Understandable. A system like this seems like it would have been an absolute nightmare to try and balance by the time the book got released. Hopefully they will recycle some of the ideas they had for other subclasses in the future.
That and an adventure/setting book with nothing for non casters, alienates some players as nope not for you. So instead they are adding feats so all classes have something they can get and use.
That's a rationale I...don't really get? The only subclass options in Van Richten were Bard and Warlock, both of which are full-casters (okay pact magic is weird but you know what i mean) and nobody cried foul on that. It had races/lineages, sure, but so did Strixhaven with the Owlin. It just feels like a lot of people inferring things on Strixhaven that they wouldn't and didn't on other UAs for specific books...why? Because it was M:tG? Or the Harry Potter vibes were strong enough they viewed it differently?
More so the setting itself almost entirely focused on casters offering like 8 new subclasses (albeit this was like 3 actual subclasses but shared by more then one class) but none of them were for martial characters.
There's already a bias for casters and this would have been one setting where playing a martial was an actual detriment.
That's still an assumption made after inferring based on what people know of the M:tG setting and Harry Potter and all that. Nothing in the UA everyone hated so much implied that there would be "nothing" in the whole book for martial classes or half-casters. Not any more than other UA that contain a couple subclasses only for full casters (undeadlock/spirits bard). Or what about the (what turned out to be) Fizban UA, which was two subclasses, only for martials and half casters (dragon monk/ranger)? It's just reading a UA and somehow deciding that UA was the only thing that would be in the book. I genuinely don't understand it. The same logic has not been applied to any other UA I've seen come out.
(I mean heck, the modern magic UA was 100% caster stuff and it was way bigger than the Strixhaven one)
That's still an assumption made after inferring based on what people know of the M:tG setting and Harry Potter and all that. Nothing in the UA everyone hated so much implied that there would be "nothing" in the whole book for martial classes or half-casters. Not any more than other UA that contain a couple subclasses only for full casters (undeadlock/spirits bard). Or what about the (what turned out to be) Fizban UA, which was two subclasses, only for martials and half casters (dragon monk/ranger)? It's just reading a UA and somehow deciding that UA was the only thing that would be in the book. I genuinely don't understand it. The same logic has not been applied to any other UA I've seen come out.
(I mean heck, the modern magic UA was 100% caster stuff and it was way bigger than the Strixhaven one)
There was literally nothing for martials....no feats/magic items...hell even no spells for Ranger/Paladin.
And Modern Magic never made it to prime time either so that is an apt comparison sure.
That's still an assumption made after inferring based on what people know of the M:tG setting and Harry Potter and all that. Nothing in the UA everyone hated so much implied that there would be "nothing" in the whole book for martial classes or half-casters. Not any more than other UA that contain a couple subclasses only for full casters (undeadlock/spirits bard). Or what about the (what turned out to be) Fizban UA, which was two subclasses, only for martials and half casters (dragon monk/ranger)? It's just reading a UA and somehow deciding that UA was the only thing that would be in the book. I genuinely don't understand it. The same logic has not been applied to any other UA I've seen come out.
(I mean heck, the modern magic UA was 100% caster stuff and it was way bigger than the Strixhaven one)
There was literally nothing for martials....no feats/magic items...hell even no spells for Ranger/Paladin.
And Modern Magic never made it to prime time either so that is an apt comparison sure.
Did they ever explicitly state that? We only saw the Sub classes and the race(s?)?
That's still an assumption made after inferring based on what people know of the M:tG setting and Harry Potter and all that. Nothing in the UA everyone hated so much implied that there would be "nothing" in the whole book for martial classes or half-casters. Not any more than other UA that contain a couple subclasses only for full casters (undeadlock/spirits bard). Or what about the (what turned out to be) Fizban UA, which was two subclasses, only for martials and half casters (dragon monk/ranger)? It's just reading a UA and somehow deciding that UA was the only thing that would be in the book. I genuinely don't understand it. The same logic has not been applied to any other UA I've seen come out.
(I mean heck, the modern magic UA was 100% caster stuff and it was way bigger than the Strixhaven one)
There was literally nothing for martials....no feats/magic items...hell even no spells for Ranger/Paladin.
And Modern Magic never made it to prime time either so that is an apt comparison sure.
Did they ever explicitly state that? We only saw the Sub classes and the race(s?)?
I guess its a fair assumption to say that because they had literally 0 new paladin or ranger subclasses that they would also not include ranger or paladin spells? To not include any subclasses but then just add a spell to the base ranger/paladin class is....odd. I guess they could do that but I honestly do not see it.
The magic items is a fair point though....but to me magic items are not a given in any campaign but player options in a setting specific book (including spells) one would assume would be on the table if you are playing in said setting.
Overall they would still be ignoring Rogue, Fighter, Monk, Barbarian which would have been in a hole already as casters would have a whole new list of spells/subclasses to play around with.
I am glad they removed the subclasses as they were just poorly thought out in general and they gave themselves almost no lead time with feedback.
That's still an assumption made after inferring based on what people know of the M:tG setting and Harry Potter and all that. Nothing in the UA everyone hated so much implied that there would be "nothing" in the whole book for martial classes or half-casters. Not any more than other UA that contain a couple subclasses only for full casters (undeadlock/spirits bard). Or what about the (what turned out to be) Fizban UA, which was two subclasses, only for martials and half casters (dragon monk/ranger)? It's just reading a UA and somehow deciding that UA was the only thing that would be in the book. I genuinely don't understand it. The same logic has not been applied to any other UA I've seen come out.
(I mean heck, the modern magic UA was 100% caster stuff and it was way bigger than the Strixhaven one)
There was literally nothing for martials....no feats/magic items...hell even no spells for Ranger/Paladin.
And Modern Magic never made it to prime time either so that is an apt comparison sure.
That's a false equivalency. It was a UA of specifically only subclasses. The book isn't out for a month and a half. Nobody has any idea what else would've been in it before the entire community threw an ill-advised, short-sighted tantrum over the UA. Again, nobody went this hard on the undeadlock/spirits bard UA, which was specifically two subclasses just for full casters. A point you conveniently skipped over.
I feel like the only real difference with the Strixhaven UA is that the title gave away the game. Everyone knew exactly what book it was for, so they started making assumptions about the whole book instead of evaluating the UA.
That's still an assumption made after inferring based on what people know of the M:tG setting and Harry Potter and all that. Nothing in the UA everyone hated so much implied that there would be "nothing" in the whole book for martial classes or half-casters. Not any more than other UA that contain a couple subclasses only for full casters (undeadlock/spirits bard). Or what about the (what turned out to be) Fizban UA, which was two subclasses, only for martials and half casters (dragon monk/ranger)? It's just reading a UA and somehow deciding that UA was the only thing that would be in the book. I genuinely don't understand it. The same logic has not been applied to any other UA I've seen come out.
(I mean heck, the modern magic UA was 100% caster stuff and it was way bigger than the Strixhaven one)
There was literally nothing for martials....no feats/magic items...hell even no spells for Ranger/Paladin.
And Modern Magic never made it to prime time either so that is an apt comparison sure.
Did they ever explicitly state that? We only saw the Sub classes and the race(s?)?
The Owlin race was in a different UA. It was in the Folk of the Feywild racial UA as "Owlfolk." No one knew it was for Strixhaven at all. For that matter, stuff that's ending up in Fizban's was in two separate UA, the one with the ascendant dragon monk/drakewarden ranger, then another one with the draconic races/feats/spells. And everyone assumed that was gonna be a Dragonlance book, so they were fine with it because it's something old that they know. A lot of UA suffers from community assumption. And I think the Strixhaven book is going to be a lot less exciting than it could've been because of it.
That's still an assumption made after inferring based on what people know of the M:tG setting and Harry Potter and all that. Nothing in the UA everyone hated so much implied that there would be "nothing" in the whole book for martial classes or half-casters. Not any more than other UA that contain a couple subclasses only for full casters (undeadlock/spirits bard). Or what about the (what turned out to be) Fizban UA, which was two subclasses, only for martials and half casters (dragon monk/ranger)? It's just reading a UA and somehow deciding that UA was the only thing that would be in the book. I genuinely don't understand it. The same logic has not been applied to any other UA I've seen come out.
(I mean heck, the modern magic UA was 100% caster stuff and it was way bigger than the Strixhaven one)
There was literally nothing for martials....no feats/magic items...hell even no spells for Ranger/Paladin.
And Modern Magic never made it to prime time either so that is an apt comparison sure.
That's a false equivalency. It was a UA of specifically only subclasses. The book isn't out for a month and a half. Nobody has any idea what else would've been in it before the entire community threw an ill-advised, short-sighted tantrum over the UA. Again, nobody went this hard on the undeadlock/spirits bard UA, which was specifically two subclasses just for full casters. A point you conveniently skipped over.
I feel like the only real difference with the Strixhaven UA is that the title gave away the game. Everyone knew exactly what book it was for, so they started making assumptions about the whole book instead of evaluating the UA.
Well they ended up not using 90% of it so feels samesy to me....
Overall that UA was a mess anyway. Interesting concept that was pretty much ruined by releasing it far too late. I would love for them to revisit that idea as I was hoping for more free flow between classes in the next edition, however, the way they introduced it in this UA was really bad in terms of turnaround time and how far from completion a lot of it felt.
Like a LOT of work needed to be done to make it work and they had a really short window to do it in. I do hope they try it again but maybe give more time for community feedback.
I'll definitely agree the short turnaround time was a huge hindrance, but maintain that a lot of what killed the UA was just community expectation and assumption. The fact that it was so publicly deprecated is indicative of the fact that a lot of people just went around yelling "YO THIS IS STUPID" both publicly and on surveys instead of saying anything like "hey this is in interesting idea, but the implementation needs to be tweaked to make it as successful as it can be."
But a lot of that's just my declining faith in people, which was never high even at my most optimistic and naive.
I'll definitely agree the short turnaround time was a huge hindrance, but maintain that a lot of what killed the UA was just community expectation and assumption. The fact that it was so publicly deprecated is indicative of the fact that a lot of people just went around yelling "YO THIS IS STUPID" both publicly and on surveys instead of saying anything like "hey this is in interesting idea, but the implementation needs to be tweaked to make it as successful as it can be."
But a lot of that's just my declining faith in people, which was never high even at my most optimistic and naive.
I do think some of that occurred but a more polished product or even a smaller introduction into the topic might have lead to better community engagement.
It came out of left field with a LOT of stuff that felt bad mostly because you could tell not a lot of effort had been put in place to ensure it balanced/worked correctly with the established classes.
I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and in this case the prevention would be introducing the idea in a timely way so that people could wrap their heads around it more.
I do think there was knee jerk reactions to it as there always are but there is no possible way to give good formative feedback on something in the short window they offer the UA and when the survey comes out.
I'll definitely agree the short turnaround time was a huge hindrance, but maintain that a lot of what killed the UA was just community expectation and assumption. The fact that it was so publicly deprecated is indicative of the fact that a lot of people just went around yelling "YO THIS IS STUPID" both publicly and on surveys instead of saying anything like "hey this is in interesting idea, but the implementation needs to be tweaked to make it as successful as it can be."
But a lot of that's just my declining faith in people, which was never high even at my most optimistic and naive.
I do think some of that occurred but a more polished product or even a smaller introduction into the topic might have lead to better community engagement.
It came out of left field with a LOT of stuff that felt bad mostly because you could tell not a lot of effort had been put in place to ensure it balanced/worked correctly with the established classes.
I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and in this case the prevention would be introducing the idea in a timely way so that people could wrap their heads around it more.
I do think there was knee jerk reactions to it as there always are but there is no possible way to give good formative feedback on something in the short window they offer the UA and when the survey comes out.
The UA that was released and showing all this cool and Interesting ideas showed everyone that unless your a full caster or warlock you get nothing in a setting/adventure book the fighter gets nothing, ranger gets nothing, paladin gets nothing, and barbarian gets nothing. So what during the adventure does the martial do to keep stuff off squishy casters. Oh wait nothing in the adventure for them so no one wants to play one.
I'll definitely agree the short turnaround time was a huge hindrance, but maintain that a lot of what killed the UA was just community expectation and assumption. The fact that it was so publicly deprecated is indicative of the fact that a lot of people just went around yelling "YO THIS IS STUPID" both publicly and on surveys instead of saying anything like "hey this is in interesting idea, but the implementation needs to be tweaked to make it as successful as it can be."
But a lot of that's just my declining faith in people, which was never high even at my most optimistic and naive.
I do think some of that occurred but a more polished product or even a smaller introduction into the topic might have lead to better community engagement.
It came out of left field with a LOT of stuff that felt bad mostly because you could tell not a lot of effort had been put in place to ensure it balanced/worked correctly with the established classes.
I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and in this case the prevention would be introducing the idea in a timely way so that people could wrap their heads around it more.
I do think there was knee jerk reactions to it as there always are but there is no possible way to give good formative feedback on something in the short window they offer the UA and when the survey comes out.
The UA that was released and showing all this cool and Interesting ideas showed everyone that unless your a full caster or warlock you get nothing in a setting/adventure book the fighter gets nothing, ranger gets nothing, paladin gets nothing, and barbarian gets nothing. So what during the adventure does the martial do to keep stuff off squishy casters. Oh wait nothing in the adventure for them so no one wants to play one.
What happened now is that WoTC saw that the player base doesn't want specialised sourcebooks and will be hesitant to follow up with books focusing on classes. So no Complete Monk handbook, no Complete Wizard handbook, you get my drift. We will now get scattered tidbits strewn out so not to offend. Because Moradin forbid, someone maybe would have to wait before their favourite class gets a sourcebook.
I'll definitely agree the short turnaround time was a huge hindrance, but maintain that a lot of what killed the UA was just community expectation and assumption. The fact that it was so publicly deprecated is indicative of the fact that a lot of people just went around yelling "YO THIS IS STUPID" both publicly and on surveys instead of saying anything like "hey this is in interesting idea, but the implementation needs to be tweaked to make it as successful as it can be."
But a lot of that's just my declining faith in people, which was never high even at my most optimistic and naive.
I do think some of that occurred but a more polished product or even a smaller introduction into the topic might have lead to better community engagement.
It came out of left field with a LOT of stuff that felt bad mostly because you could tell not a lot of effort had been put in place to ensure it balanced/worked correctly with the established classes.
I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and in this case the prevention would be introducing the idea in a timely way so that people could wrap their heads around it more.
I do think there was knee jerk reactions to it as there always are but there is no possible way to give good formative feedback on something in the short window they offer the UA and when the survey comes out.
The UA that was released and showing all this cool and Interesting ideas showed everyone that unless your a full caster or warlock you get nothing in a setting/adventure book the fighter gets nothing, ranger gets nothing, paladin gets nothing, and barbarian gets nothing. So what during the adventure does the martial do to keep stuff off squishy casters. Oh wait nothing in the adventure for them so no one wants to play one.
What happened now is that WoTC saw that the player base doesn't want specialised sourcebooks and will be hesitant to follow up with books focusing on classes. So no Complete Monk handbook, no Complete Wizard handbook, you get my drift. We will now get scattered tidbits strewn out so not to offend. Because Moradin forbid, someone maybe would have to wait before their favourite class gets a sourcebook.
To be fair, Strixhaven isn't a sourcebook, it is a complete setting and a setting that is extremely niche.
What happened now is that WoTC saw that the player base doesn't want specialised sourcebooks and will be hesitant to follow up with books focusing on classes. So no Complete Monk handbook, no Complete Wizard handbook, you get my drift. We will now get scattered tidbits strewn out so not to offend. Because Moradin forbid, someone maybe would have to wait before their favourite class gets a sourcebook.
Right? I just don't understand the need to having the other classes in a setting designed for a group of arcane casters (like hogwarts). Likewise I wouldn't be complaining about a setting designed for Divine characters, martial fighters, thieves, dragonkin or otherwise. If the only class you want to play in your next game isn't included maybe it's not the content for you but something else will be.
I won't speak to the balance issue people have with this UA as I never tested out a group of them. If the PCs were strong as a group I would just adjust as I do most games as no party has really been balanced the same.
I'm just thinking that they are changing the game to be inclusive to everyone, with the changing of alignments for humanoid races and the dropping of elves only for the Bladesinger class. That if they put out a setting that players that only play martial classes cannot enjoy, doesn't seem to be inclusive does it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's a pity, they remove what I was interested in and leave in the race I'm completely not interested in.
Understandable. A system like this seems like it would have been an absolute nightmare to try and balance by the time the book got released. Hopefully they will recycle some of the ideas they had for other subclasses in the future.
That and an adventure/setting book with nothing for non casters, alienates some players as nope not for you. So instead they are adding feats so all classes have something they can get and use.
That's a rationale I...don't really get? The only subclass options in Van Richten were Bard and Warlock, both of which are full-casters (okay pact magic is weird but you know what i mean) and nobody cried foul on that. It had races/lineages, sure, but so did Strixhaven with the Owlin. It just feels like a lot of people inferring things on Strixhaven that they wouldn't and didn't on other UAs for specific books...why? Because it was M:tG? Or the Harry Potter vibes were strong enough they viewed it differently?
More so the setting itself almost entirely focused on casters offering like 8 new subclasses (albeit this was like 3 actual subclasses but shared by more then one class) but none of them were for martial characters.
There's already a bias for casters and this would have been one setting where playing a martial was an actual detriment.
That's still an assumption made after inferring based on what people know of the M:tG setting and Harry Potter and all that. Nothing in the UA everyone hated so much implied that there would be "nothing" in the whole book for martial classes or half-casters. Not any more than other UA that contain a couple subclasses only for full casters (undeadlock/spirits bard). Or what about the (what turned out to be) Fizban UA, which was two subclasses, only for martials and half casters (dragon monk/ranger)? It's just reading a UA and somehow deciding that UA was the only thing that would be in the book. I genuinely don't understand it. The same logic has not been applied to any other UA I've seen come out.
(I mean heck, the modern magic UA was 100% caster stuff and it was way bigger than the Strixhaven one)
There was literally nothing for martials....no feats/magic items...hell even no spells for Ranger/Paladin.
And Modern Magic never made it to prime time either so that is an apt comparison sure.
Did they ever explicitly state that? We only saw the Sub classes and the race(s?)?
I guess its a fair assumption to say that because they had literally 0 new paladin or ranger subclasses that they would also not include ranger or paladin spells? To not include any subclasses but then just add a spell to the base ranger/paladin class is....odd. I guess they could do that but I honestly do not see it.
The magic items is a fair point though....but to me magic items are not a given in any campaign but player options in a setting specific book (including spells) one would assume would be on the table if you are playing in said setting.
Overall they would still be ignoring Rogue, Fighter, Monk, Barbarian which would have been in a hole already as casters would have a whole new list of spells/subclasses to play around with.
I am glad they removed the subclasses as they were just poorly thought out in general and they gave themselves almost no lead time with feedback.
That's a false equivalency. It was a UA of specifically only subclasses. The book isn't out for a month and a half. Nobody has any idea what else would've been in it before the entire community threw an ill-advised, short-sighted tantrum over the UA. Again, nobody went this hard on the undeadlock/spirits bard UA, which was specifically two subclasses just for full casters. A point you conveniently skipped over.
I feel like the only real difference with the Strixhaven UA is that the title gave away the game. Everyone knew exactly what book it was for, so they started making assumptions about the whole book instead of evaluating the UA.
The Owlin race was in a different UA. It was in the Folk of the Feywild racial UA as "Owlfolk." No one knew it was for Strixhaven at all. For that matter, stuff that's ending up in Fizban's was in two separate UA, the one with the ascendant dragon monk/drakewarden ranger, then another one with the draconic races/feats/spells. And everyone assumed that was gonna be a Dragonlance book, so they were fine with it because it's something old that they know. A lot of UA suffers from community assumption. And I think the Strixhaven book is going to be a lot less exciting than it could've been because of it.
Well they ended up not using 90% of it so feels samesy to me....
Overall that UA was a mess anyway. Interesting concept that was pretty much ruined by releasing it far too late. I would love for them to revisit that idea as I was hoping for more free flow between classes in the next edition, however, the way they introduced it in this UA was really bad in terms of turnaround time and how far from completion a lot of it felt.
Like a LOT of work needed to be done to make it work and they had a really short window to do it in. I do hope they try it again but maybe give more time for community feedback.
I'll definitely agree the short turnaround time was a huge hindrance, but maintain that a lot of what killed the UA was just community expectation and assumption. The fact that it was so publicly deprecated is indicative of the fact that a lot of people just went around yelling "YO THIS IS STUPID" both publicly and on surveys instead of saying anything like "hey this is in interesting idea, but the implementation needs to be tweaked to make it as successful as it can be."
But a lot of that's just my declining faith in people, which was never high even at my most optimistic and naive.
I do think some of that occurred but a more polished product or even a smaller introduction into the topic might have lead to better community engagement.
It came out of left field with a LOT of stuff that felt bad mostly because you could tell not a lot of effort had been put in place to ensure it balanced/worked correctly with the established classes.
I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and in this case the prevention would be introducing the idea in a timely way so that people could wrap their heads around it more.
I do think there was knee jerk reactions to it as there always are but there is no possible way to give good formative feedback on something in the short window they offer the UA and when the survey comes out.
The UA that was released and showing all this cool and Interesting ideas showed everyone that unless your a full caster or warlock you get nothing in a setting/adventure book the fighter gets nothing, ranger gets nothing, paladin gets nothing, and barbarian gets nothing. So what during the adventure does the martial do to keep stuff off squishy casters. Oh wait nothing in the adventure for them so no one wants to play one.
eyeroll.gif
What happened now is that WoTC saw that the player base doesn't want specialised sourcebooks and will be hesitant to follow up with books focusing on classes. So no Complete Monk handbook, no Complete Wizard handbook, you get my drift. We will now get scattered tidbits strewn out so not to offend. Because Moradin forbid, someone maybe would have to wait before their favourite class gets a sourcebook.
To be fair, Strixhaven isn't a sourcebook, it is a complete setting and a setting that is extremely niche.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Right? I just don't understand the need to having the other classes in a setting designed for a group of arcane casters (like hogwarts). Likewise I wouldn't be complaining about a setting designed for Divine characters, martial fighters, thieves, dragonkin or otherwise. If the only class you want to play in your next game isn't included maybe it's not the content for you but something else will be.
I won't speak to the balance issue people have with this UA as I never tested out a group of them. If the PCs were strong as a group I would just adjust as I do most games as no party has really been balanced the same.
I'm just thinking that they are changing the game to be inclusive to everyone, with the changing of alignments for humanoid races and the dropping of elves only for the Bladesinger class. That if they put out a setting that players that only play martial classes cannot enjoy, doesn't seem to be inclusive does it?