Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537687Yeah, and all of those are legends.  Or are we only using your own personal definition of legends?  Are we shifting the goalposts now?



I'm not just talking about Arthur from the D&D description of him.  Most of the stories about Arthur were that he was just a great warrior without any godlike abilities.

No the D&D description of him came from the ledgends. La Moret D'arthur, TE Whites hte once and future King... etc etc

Here are some legends
Beowulf - finghts a gian Sea serpent in the sea with a dagger
Hercules - holds up the sky on his shoulders as well as numerous other tasks
Cuchlain - can not be killed unless he eats dog meat
Karna -  in the Mahabarata can fight hundreds or shoot arrows out of the sky with his bow

Quote from: jibbajibba;537697No the D&D description of him came from the ledgends. La Moret D'arthur, TE Whites hte once and future King... etc etc

And there are a ton of other stories about him just being a great warrior who fought back the Romans.

QuoteHere are some legends
Beowulf - finghts a gian Sea serpent in the sea with a dagger
Hercules - holds up the sky on his shoulders as well as numerous other tasks
Cuchlain - can not be killed unless he eats dog meat
Karna -  in the Mahabarata can fight hundreds or shoot arrows out of the sky with his bow

A legend is not the same thing as a myth.  A legend is largely based on some sort of historical account.  Don't believe me, go look up the word in the dictionary.  So all of those "legendary" heroes from reality are just that: legends.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537689I don't have a problem with multiple thieves, because that's the role of the class.  I don't even have a problem with a MU memorizing thief like spells if there is no thief in the group.  I have a problem with a player who chooses to bring a MU into the group that may already have a thief, and ignore 80% of his spell repertoire because he insists on memorizing spells that replicate the thief's skills.

Bolded part by me...

Thank you as that clarifies it for me.

I'm with you here then as well.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537698And there are a ton of other stories about him just being a great warrior who fought back the Romans.


A legend is not the same thing as a myth.  A legend is largely based on some sort of historical account.  Don't believe me, go look up the word in the dictionary.  So all of those "legendary" heroes from reality are just that: legends.

oh dear... sematic weasle words at their very worst.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537709oh dear... sematic weasle words at their very worst.

Say what now?  I'm using the common definition of the word used.  There's nothing semantic or pedantic about it.  HJ's the one (and you now) that is trying to say that a "legend' is only actually someone from mythology, which is a very tight and limited sample of what the word actually means and encompasses since it ignores the vast majority people who are literally defined as legendary.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537709oh dear... sematic weasle words at their very worst.

No dog in this hunt really, but the difference between the words Legend, Fable, and Myth isn't important?  Seriously?  Saying someone who actually existed isn't a Legend is like saying a Terrier isn't a dog.  Historical existence, or the possibility of such is what separates a Legend from a Myth in the first place.  It's the friggin' definition.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537716Say what now?  I'm using the common definition of the word used.  There's nothing semantic or pedantic about it.  HJ's the one (and you now) that is trying to say that a "legend' is only actually someone from mythology, which is a very tight and limited sample of what the word actually means and encompasses since it ignores the vast majority people who are literally defined as legendary.

No I'm not. I'm saying "myth and legend," which includes both myth and legend. (Thanks, logic!) Because we were originally talking about "myth and legend" before you butted in, tried to shift the goalposts, and then accused me of shifting the goalposts.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537698A legend is not the same thing as a myth.  A legend is largely based on some sort of historical account.  Don't believe me, go look up the word in the dictionary.

Quoteleg·end [lej-uhnd]
noun
1.
a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.
2.
the body of stories of this kind, especially as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan: the winning of the West in American legend.

You've just been hoist by your own petard, sir. Legends are necessarily from sources who believed the account to be historical, but which can include miracles or obviously unreal deeds and situations. There's also a qualitative difference between a character whose "legendary" like King Arthur, and may or may not have existed, and Alexander and Leonidas, who definitely existed but have had tall tales attached to them. That's also true of Bruce Lee and professional wrestlers, and everyone knows we're not talking about them when we say "legend."

How about introducing some sort of "mastery" component to the Rogue class that adds in to particular skill areas whether or not "skills" are used.  Say the Rogue can pick a small number of areas of expertise and add their class level to all rolls to do stuff in that area.

people playing without skills could still have Rogues doing Roguey stuff, and people using skills, the Rogues are better in a subset that they have specialised in while everyone else still reaching the "competent" point in all their skills, including the Rogue in all skills outside their core mastery.

Quote from: Psychman;537753How about introducing some sort of "mastery" component to the Rogue class that adds in to particular skill areas whether or not "skills" are used.  Say the Rogue can pick a small number of areas of expertise and add their class level to all rolls to do stuff in that area.

people playing without skills could still have Rogues doing Roguey stuff, and people using skills, the Rogues are better in a subset that they have specialised in while everyone else still reaching the "competent" point in all their skills, including the Rogue in all skills outside their core mastery.

That's a very good idea, especially with scaling task difficulty.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537752No I'm not. I'm saying "myth and legend," which includes both myth and legend.

And I gave a list of legends.  Something you just reiterated that you were looking for an example of

Quote(Thanks, logic!) Because we were originally talking about "myth and legend" before you butted in, tried to shift the goalposts, and then accused me of shifting the goalposts.

When you say you're including legends, and I give examples, and you shift the definition of what a legend is to exclude the people I just listed, that's shifting the goalposts

Good lord...

QuoteYou've just been hoist by your own petard, sir. .

Man what? You must be trolling, because you seriously can't be this stupid

Oh, and if you're gonna quote the online dictionary, might as well quote all of it:

QuoteLegend,  originally denoting a story concerning the life of a saint, is applied to any fictitious story, sometimes involving the supernatural, and usually concerned with a real person, place, or other subject:

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537660That's because in later editions, especially 4e, almost all of your time was spent in combat.  So in order to make the thief relevant, they had to boost up combat damage.

Really bad design, IMO, any time you ignore a huge chuck of what D&D is (exploration).

I have seen people play 1E and 4E equally hack and slash. I blame people more than the version of the game.

I am biased toward roleplay over combat though.

basic/1E/2E are my favorite, but I don't mind 4E.

3E/3.5/Pathfinder I am starting to dislike.

Technically, if all the players love hack annd slash I can't really say they are doing it wrong.

Quote from: Psychman;537753How about introducing some sort of "mastery" component to the Rogue class that adds in to particular skill areas whether or not "skills" are used.  Say the Rogue can pick a small number of areas of expertise and add their class level to all rolls to do stuff in that area.

people playing without skills could still have Rogues doing Roguey stuff, and people using skills, the Rogues are better in a subset that they have specialised in while everyone else still reaching the "competent" point in all their skills, including the Rogue in all skills outside their core mastery.

Sounds similar to what 3e/Pathfinder does. Gives Rogues "knacks" sometimes tangentially based off skills or not to do things beyond mere skill use. Worked in those games and it works for me.

Quote from: Bill;537756I have seen people play 1E and 4E equally hack and slash. I blame people more than the version of the game.
.

Certainly you could do that in 1e, and some people have.  But the ways the rules are written, it takes a lot more time to do the same thing in 4e as it does in 1e in the context of the combat encounter.  I am pretty sure if you took a poll, the vast majority would agree that in 4e, much more time of the gaming session is spent on tactical combat than in 1e.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537755When you say you're including legends, and I give examples, and you shift the definition of what a legend is to exclude the people I just listed, that's shifting the goalposts

No, no. All the people you listed count as legends. I just find it curious that you listed only roughly historical characters and no mythical characters. You included Davy Crockett and didn't mention, say, Beowulf. As if you were trying to exclude more immediate and obvious examples that might strengthen my argument.

QuoteOh, and if you're gonna quote the online dictionary, might as well quote all of it:

Clearly you looked up a different one.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537767No, no. All the people you listed count as legends. I just find it curious that you listed only roughly historical characters and no mythical characters. .

When you asked for examples that didn't conform to your preconceived opinion, I provided them.  Why would I give you examples that supported your (incorrect) assumptions when that wasn't what you asked for.

Seriously, it isn't that hard to follow.

QuoteClearly you looked up a different one.

It had the same two points as yours.  So OK, what link did you use for your definition.  Easy enough to check.