Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8121809" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, but even in the old days we had the questions which came up "why can't my fighter pick up a magic wand and say the command word and make it work?" If it was a fiction book, that probably WOULD work (maybe not, we can invent magic to be any way we want, but still). So it was a legitimate question, and you could see that rule as being one that tended to support reifying class.  It doesn't help that the obvious reason which would be given (and was surely EGG's reason for this rule) is a completely gamist one "because it is part of magic user's niche in the game." That may explain the purpose of the reification, but it is still weird, awkward, and kind of bizarre. It is amusing how many of the 'classic' versions of classes, like Ranger, literally have specific class feature 'loopholes' that allow them to emulate specific fictional characters (the famous example being rangers and crystal balls). As for why the two classes (or sub-classes in this case) aren't combined... Each one has a range of ways it can be played. In OD&D you COULD have played a leather-clad fighter who was high dex and did a lot of scouting and such. He wouldn't have had the special abilities of a Greyhawk thief, and he would fight a good bit better than one, but the same questions could arise! I'm not really against the strong thematics of classic D&D classes though. I think it is an aid to RP and makes the game easier to play, mostly. OTOH I'm not too sad that they can be bent in newer editions. In fact my 5e Battlemaster calls his maneuvers 'magic' and that makes things even more blurry! but it works. I think classic D&D was often a bit far in the other direction.</blockquote>

Verification