Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jimlock" data-source="post: 5590724" data-attributes="member: 6674931">In 2nd e, each class was under a generic group. (Perhaps even in 1st e... don't remember)Warrior: Fighter, Paladin, RangerWizard: Mage, Illusionist, ...all specialists...Priest: Cleric, DruidRogue: Thief, Bard...which is to say that Rogue, Wizard and Warrior did not make their appearance in 3e as names...I don't think that it really makes a difference, because we've all got to know what each one means,even if the titles swing from one to the other.As far as personal tastes go, I certainly prefer Wizard over Mage, (a Wizard is a Wizard... damn!),...even though a &quot;Mage&quot; has the ability to &quot;fit&quot; in more than one cultures. A Wizard is more western civilization oriented (Merlin).As for the thief, ...you are right. I prefer Rogue as well... Even though a Rogue is pretty limiting as well.A Rogue can be anything: spy, scout, infiltrators, thugs, diplomats... which means that he isn't necessarily a &quot;rogue&quot; in the real meaning of the word.Having said that, I would never stray from Thief or Rogue as a &quot;title&quot; ...I just love it that way!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Warrior and fighter do not make much of a difference... the way &quot;I&quot; see it anyway, even though ppl seem to thinkthat Warrior is more &quot;generic&quot;, ergo more &quot;fitting&quot; for the title...As for Cleric/Priest... I prefer Cleric better... Its certainly more &quot;Medieval-ish&quot;... A priest brings to mind actual modern priests... and I don't like that at all...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jimlock, post: 5590724, member: 6674931"] In 2nd e, each class was under a generic group. (Perhaps even in 1st e... don't remember) Warrior: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger Wizard: Mage, Illusionist, ...all specialists... Priest: Cleric, Druid Rogue: Thief, Bard ...which is to say that Rogue, Wizard and Warrior did not make their appearance in 3e as names... I don't think that it really makes a difference, because we've all got to know what each one means, even if the titles swing from one to the other. As far as personal tastes go, I certainly prefer Wizard over Mage, (a Wizard is a Wizard... damn!), ...even though a "Mage" has the ability to "fit" in more than one cultures. A Wizard is more western civilization oriented (Merlin). As for the thief, ...you are right. I prefer Rogue as well... Even though a Rogue is pretty limiting as well. A Rogue can be anything: spy, scout, infiltrators, thugs, diplomats... which means that he isn't necessarily a "rogue" in the real meaning of the word. Having said that, I would never stray from Thief or Rogue as a "title" ...I just love it that way!:) Warrior and fighter do not make much of a difference... the way "I" see it anyway, even though ppl seem to think that Warrior is more "generic", ergo more "fitting" for the title... As for Cleric/Priest... I prefer Cleric better... Its certainly more "Medieval-ish"... A priest brings to mind actual modern priests... and I don't like that at all... [/QUOTE]

Verification