Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5435594" data-attributes="member: 80487">False on the first count, I think. I don't recall any indication that ability-score prerequisites for taking classes apply at any time other than first taking the class. So, you might have a character who formerly had strength and intelligence scores high enough to take both classes, but -- due to age or other effects -- has since received lower scores. The second count of course is just a semantic trick, treating the vernacular &quot;mage&quot; as exclusively synonymous with the game-jargon &quot;magic-user&quot;. By that estimate, there are no dwarven, gnome or halfling &quot;mages&quot; in the PHB either -- just clerics, illusionists and druids. (Some of those, however, are indicated as &quot;NPC only&quot;.)By the same measure, one could not play &quot;a human fighter who cast spells without a second class&quot; even with the addition of the thief and the ranger and the original and revised bards and the revised paladin. After all, they were not the &quot;fighter&quot; class, eh?No. I think what I have written: that some of your claims are factually false, and that others go out of the way to create &quot;problems&quot; where they would not otherwise be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5435594, member: 80487"] False on the first count, I think. I don't recall any indication that ability-score prerequisites for taking classes apply at any time other than first taking the class. So, you might have a character who [I]formerly[/I] had strength and intelligence scores high enough to take both classes, but -- due to age or other effects -- has since received lower scores. The second count of course is just a semantic trick, treating the vernacular "mage" as exclusively synonymous with the game-jargon "magic-user". By that estimate, there are no dwarven, gnome or halfling "mages" in the PHB either -- just [I]clerics[/I], [I]illusionists[/I] and [I]druids[/I]. (Some of those, however, are indicated as "NPC only".) By the same measure, one could not play "a human fighter who cast spells without a second class" even with the addition of the thief [I]and[/I] the ranger [I]and[/I] the original and revised bards [I]and[/I] the revised paladin. After all, they were not the "fighter" class, eh? No. I think what I have written: that some of your claims are factually false, and that others go out of the way to create "problems" where they would not otherwise be. [/QUOTE]

Verification