Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
...why does the name of the class matter in game?
Ankh-Morpork Guard said:...why does the name of the class matter in game?
DonTadow said:I think when we start to take that approach we start playing outside the rules of the game. Sure, you could do all of the following, but it takes away the point of having rules for classes. A fighter whom steals is just a fighter whom steals things. The rogue class defines thief. It's the rule of the game. Why change rules and rearrange the game.
When you read through the classes you understand why a thief needs rogue classes.
Why a barbarian needs barbarian classes.
When you pick these classes it is assumed that you have training in these arts. If you're stealingand acting roguish, as a dm I expect you to have some rogue skills.
iwatt said:Who's changing the rules. Why is calling a thief a thief breaking the rules. Is a fighter with good climb skills, and cross class ranks in hide and move silently that bad a thief?
He needs rogue classes only if the player wants them. He could stil be a thief (in the sense that he could steal) without rogue levels.
Why exactly. Can't he be a fighter? a rogue? or even a bard? He can still be a barbarian.
What is acting roguish? Do all rogues in your games have maxed out Search, Disable Device, Open Locks, Spot and Listen?
And you can expect all you want, that doesn't mean that my thief has to have disable device and open locks.
DonTadow said:What you're asking is, why do the rules do this why can't we just do what we want to do. And by all means if its your game and if you want to put the chance money under free parking then you can do whatever you wish. But, if you play by the rules hten you got to follow the rules and understand why the rules are there and written.
.... but when you start questioning the very basic stuff like base classes, you're probably playing the wrong system.
iwatt said:you can be a thief without being a rogue.
iwatt said:I think we're having a problem communicating here.![]()
Were exactly did I say that I've changed the rules?
All I've said is that:
you can be a thief without being a rogue.
you can be a "Wild warrior from the Frozen Tundra" (i.e someone from a "barbarian" tribe) without taking the barbarian class.
You can even be known as a "warrior" without taking the lame NPC class.
You can say you're a Noble without taking the aristocrat NPC class.
You can even say you're a Hammer of Moradin, and all you have to be is a cleric/monk/paladin/ranger from Citadel Adbar, legitimately enrolled in the order. Youd don't have to be able to throw returning warhammers.
There's a difference between labels that define abilities (i.e. class names) and a character concept.
Once again you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not questioning base classes. I'm questioning blind adherence to "labeling" that leads some DMs and players to multiclass or take prestige classes just beacuse of their name.
EDIT POST: I'm not going to add any new responses for a while because I've just attained a powerful post count number...... see ya tomorrow
DonTadow said:My strict interpretation says you want to be a thief, be a rogue.
YOu want to be a monk, be a monk.
Crothian said:I'm making up a new character after my dwarf fighter died. I'm looking into an elf Wizard and I've noticed that I either go for a prestige class and spend resources on stupid things that don't fit the character to gain something that does (the prestige class), or I go straight wizard and actually be able to build the character I envision.
So, do other people see prestige classes as making too many player choices for you?