Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2290532" data-attributes="member: 4937">Strictly by the book, eh?Ok, this is what my book says about rogues:&quot;Rogues share little in common with each other.&nbsp; Some are stealthy thieves.&nbsp; Others are silver-tongued tricksters.&nbsp; Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs.&nbsp; What they share is versatility, adaptability, and resourcefulness.&quot;Not all rogues are thieves.&nbsp; Not all thieves are rogues.&nbsp; That's been true since at least the 2nd edition thieves handbook.What in the world do you mean by 'traits'?&nbsp; Do you mean having 'flurry of blows'?&nbsp; If by 'traits' you mean 'class abilities', then yeah anyone with the class abilities of a class should probably be a class.&nbsp; If by traits you mean hermit who has focused on honing his body and mind, then we are talking about something that is external to the rules.Since you made reference to constitutional law earlier, I'm going to take a stab at an analogy that might make sense to you.&nbsp; You've claimed that I haven't been strict enough in my interpretation of the text.&nbsp; I claim that you have failed the Madison standard of literalism, and that you are in fact trying to claim that the Preamble has the force of law when in fact it doesn't.&nbsp; The above quote that I made about Rogues is preamble.&nbsp; It is not 'the rules'.&nbsp; You can't claim rule authority based on the discussion, any more than you can claim constitutional authority based on the Preamble.&nbsp; Fluff is not crunch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 2290532, member: 4937"] Strictly by the book, eh? Ok, this is what my book says about rogues: "Rogues share little in common with each other. Some are stealthy thieves. Others are silver-tongued tricksters. Still others are scouts, infiltrators, spies, diplomats, or thugs. What they share is versatility, adaptability, and resourcefulness." Not all rogues are thieves. Not all thieves are rogues. That's been true since at least the 2nd edition thieves handbook. What in the world do you mean by 'traits'? Do you mean having 'flurry of blows'? If by 'traits' you mean 'class abilities', then yeah anyone with the class abilities of a class should probably be a class. If by traits you mean hermit who has focused on honing his body and mind, then we are talking about something that is external to the rules. Since you made reference to constitutional law earlier, I'm going to take a stab at an analogy that might make sense to you. You've claimed that I haven't been strict enough in my interpretation of the text. I claim that you have failed the Madison standard of literalism, and that you are in fact trying to claim that the Preamble has the force of law when in fact it doesn't. The above quote that I made about Rogues is preamble. It is not 'the rules'. You can't claim rule authority based on the discussion, any more than you can claim constitutional authority based on the Preamble. Fluff is not crunch. [/QUOTE]

Verification