Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 6762317" data-attributes="member: 29398">Depends.Wizard-types usually self-identify as what they are...it's an ego thing.Clerics (War, Normal and Nature) often have little or no choice: the holy symbol and specific deity colours are often a dead giveaway.Bards also often self-identify, and self-promote!Thieves and Assassins will often try to masquerade as other classes. (side note: I did away with Thieves' Cant 20+ years ago)&nbsp; That said, someone sneaking around in a city and climbing over rooftops is probably one of these classes.Paladins and Cavaliers may or may not self-identify but it's usually pretty obvious on sight you're dealing with one or the other, and after it's spoken about three sentences (assuming it can coherently string that many together; these classes are not traditionally known for their smarts around here) you'll know which one you've got by the presence or lack of holiness.Monks are an odd duck, as always: they don't necessarily self-identify as Monks but they tend to look and dress a bit different thus anyone who knows what to look for can probably pull one.Rangers...hard to notice among the crowd unless one wants to be noticed.And Fighters can be anything, but some would self-identify as &quot;fighter&quot; or &quot;warrior&quot;.&nbsp; Barbarian's a race in my game, not a class, and usually pretty obvious.While it's often pretty easy to know what someone is to begin with, it's almost never known at first sight how good they are at it.&nbsp; A 3rd-level Necromancer might look just like a 14th-level Necromancer; how can you tell the difference?We haven't talked about a single magic-user class since 0e, or have you forgotten the Illusionist subclass.&nbsp; And in 2e what looked like a single MU class was really 8 classes in one - each school was pretty much its own subclass just like the 1e Illusionist.&nbsp; But I actually like the Fighter being as broad-based as it is, it gives more flexibility.Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 6762317, member: 29398"] Depends. Wizard-types usually self-identify as what they are...it's an ego thing. Clerics (War, Normal and Nature) often have little or no choice: the holy symbol and specific deity colours are often a dead giveaway. Bards also often self-identify, and self-promote! Thieves and Assassins will often try to masquerade as other classes. (side note: I did away with Thieves' Cant 20+ years ago) That said, someone sneaking around in a city and climbing over rooftops is probably one of these classes. Paladins and Cavaliers may or may not self-identify but it's usually pretty obvious on sight you're dealing with one or the other, and after it's spoken about three sentences (assuming it can coherently string that many together; these classes are not traditionally known for their smarts around here) you'll know which one you've got by the presence or lack of holiness. Monks are an odd duck, as always: they don't necessarily self-identify as Monks but they tend to look and dress a bit different thus anyone who knows what to look for can probably pull one. Rangers...hard to notice among the crowd unless one wants to be noticed. And Fighters can be anything, but some would self-identify as "fighter" or "warrior". Barbarian's a race in my game, not a class, and usually pretty obvious. While it's often pretty easy to know what someone is to begin with, it's almost never known at first sight how good they are at it. A 3rd-level Necromancer might look just like a 14th-level Necromancer; how can you tell the difference? We haven't talked about a single magic-user class since 0e, or have you forgotten the Illusionist subclass. And in 2e what looked like a single MU class was really 8 classes in one - each school was pretty much its own subclass just like the 1e Illusionist. But I actually like the Fighter being as broad-based as it is, it gives more flexibility. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification