Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior classes?
Would hackers and trappers count as rogue subclasses if we were to expand beyond fantasy genre?
What other non-hybrid rogues aren't physically adept?
Is physical adeptness singular to rogues and warriors? If we're talking about the 4 base classes clerics, mages, rogues, warriors.
If not, is there anything that is singular to rogues and warriors and common to both?
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Looking at your internet history, you seem to do the same thing on other forums.
To quote vizzle of MMO Champ:
Quote:
See, the problem with all of your threads is that you're constantly mixing roles in both a philosophical sense of how the fantasy genre is dictated and roles in the in-game sense. When someone comes at you from one end, you just back away to the other, making the arguments confusing for everyone. You do this purely to keep your argument going, and I really think you don't even realize that you're doing it. Role and archetype are interchangeable unless you define what context you're using it in, and you keep that definition constant throughout your argument (which you have not), which is why your arguments get confusing.
It has gotten to a point where you don't even remember your original question. You want someone to explain to you what colors you have to mix to get pink, but when someone answers with red and white, you start talking about how pink isn't even a real wavelength (this is a fact, by the way). Both of the statements are valid, but they are unrelated. This is the problem with your entire thinking considering roles and archetypes.
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
this is my only question now.
I just want to know if being physically trained is singular to non-hybrid rogues and warriors?
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Quote:
See, the problem with all of your threads is that you're constantly mixing roles in both a philosophical sense of how the fantasy genre is dictated and roles in the in-game sense. When someone comes at you from one end, you just back away to the other, making the arguments confusing for everyone. You do this purely to keep your argument going, and I really think you don't even realize that you're doing it. Role and archetype are interchangeable unless you define what context you're using it in, and you keep that definition constant throughout your argument (which you have not), which is why your arguments get confusing.
It has gotten to a point where you don't even remember your original question. You want someone to explain to you what colors you have to mix to get pink, but when someone answers with red and white, you start talking about how pink isn't even a real wavelength (this is a fact, by the way). Both of the statements are valid, but they are unrelated. This is the problem with your entire thinking considering roles and archetypes.
I would like to debate with the person that wrote this...they are a very intelligent person...
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Monolith
I would like to debate with the person that wrote this...they are a very intelligent person...
I think he or she will have you beat in about 1 sec flat.
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
1) What are the fundamental similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers?
2) Are there actually any real similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers? Is non-magic and physical adeptness/traits/attributes the closest things? I wouldn't say physical damage since rogues could be pure thieves that don't go into combat at all.
3) Are there any rogue/warrior/ranger subclasses that don't necessarily have to be physically trained? If we extend this to other genres, would hackers count as a rogue subclass?
4) Would physics also be a common factor? I mean rogues/warriors/rangers generally obey the laws of physics while magic doesn't right? What would be the mage equivalent in a scifi genre?
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Dude..these things do not exist....they are just games...let it go...
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GohanSSJ
I think he or she will have you beat in about 1 sec flat.
they
[th ey] Show IPA
plural pronoun, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she ): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tokyodrift
they
[th ey] Show IPA
plural pronoun, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.
2. people in general: They say he's rich.
3. (used with an indefinite singular antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she ): Whoever is of voting age, whether they are interested in politics or not, should vote.
Your point?
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Monolith
Your point?
You used 'they' correctly and Gohan going all grammar police was incorrect.
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
I just added they simply because I didn't know if they were a he or a she :) So I see now Tokyo was backing me up lol...sorry fell behind there a little...
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Just to clarify, so the closest thing to a fundamental similarity among all warriors/rogues/rangers (not just a specific type like dexterity-oriented warrior) is physical training/adeptness? Even a pure utility thief that doesn't fight would need physical training right?
Are there any examples of pure rogue subclasses that don't need any physical training at all? All warrior subclasses probably need it as well as rangers.
Lol, thinking about it, it is kinda hard to compare between different genres. I mean, I usually think of the rogue/hunter class as the sniper. There are a lot of things to compare that one class from another genre can be similar to two different classes based on roles, combat style, utility skills, etc.
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
To clarify what? No one is even speaking of the matter in which you are....
I'm beginning to think this is some kind of bot....lets throw it a few curve balls...
Warrior testicles armor.
Rogue breasts dagger of penile strength.
Thief buttocks steal.
Would love to see his face when he translates these :)
Re: Quick question about common similarities between general rogues and warrior class
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Monolith
To clarify what? No one is even speaking of the matter in which you are....
I'm beginning to think this is some kind of bot....lets throw it a few curve balls...
Warrior testicles armor.
Rogue breasts dagger of penile strength.
Thief buttocks steal.
Would love to see his face when he translates these :)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's either a bot or some sort of shit troll.
