Talk:Rogue (Dungeons & Dragons)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons This article is part of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which collaborates on Dungeons & Dragons-related articles. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. |
||||||
|
|||||||
Fleshed out the sections on party role and multiclassing, and rearranged items for clarity.
- I removed the multi-classing stuff. We can't just reprint the rules of D&D. - Peregrine Fisher 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given that nothing was taken verbatim from the SRD or other official documents, nor was this by any stretch a comprehensive list of related class features, I fail to see your point. If you think better clarity or conciseness is called for, then whittle the material down a bit, but don't just delete the whole shebang. It's a valid topic.
- Well, that section shouldn't be included for two reasons. First, it's original reasearch to say anything like "A great strength of Rogues," "can be used to cheaply round out skill selections," and "A careful selection of Feats can make Rogues a wily and dangerous foe in melee." Maybe the source books say "A careful selection of Feats can make Rogues a wily and dangerous foe in melee." If they do, then you need to cite them. If you're good at wikipedia, use the Wikipedia:Footnotes style for citing, else say something like "The Players Handbook ed. 3.5 says that " careful selection of Feats can make Rogues a wily and dangerous foe in melee." Wikipedia:Manual of Style_(writing about fiction)#Prose examples has some examples that may help you. Basically, if you want to write a multi class section, don't make it a list of each type, but provide an overview of the concept with a few examples. We are allowed to talk about game mechanics stuff only so far as fair use allows us. The deciding factor is that using it cannot harm the copyright holder, and giving away which ability score goes with which feat is going slightly too far. You combine that with the OGL stats and you almost don't have to buy the books. - Peregrine Fisher 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm reasonably sure that the source books do say something about Rogues having plenty of useful skills and skill points, just as I am sure that they mention the existence of clerical domains, spontaneous casting, and wisdom requirements for spellcasting, but that hasn't stopped anyone listing such items on the Cleric page. If you feel citations are called for, then add them, but as far as I can tell this would be considered 'general knowledge' for anyone familiar with the game and class mechanics. It's utterly bloody obvious that rogues can be used to 'cheaply round out skill selections' for a character, since they get 8 skill points per level and have a very broad skill set. Likewise, it's obvious that a Monk's unarmed strikes, being treated as both natural and manufactured weapons, combined with all natural weapons' classification as light weapons and the Weapon Finesse Feat's application to light weapons, entitles Monks to apply Weapon Finesse to their unarmed strikes ...strike that last example. But that's not the point.
- I did provide an overview of the concept with examples, but the examples won't be very useful or convincing unless you give some specifics. Finally, 'writing about fiction' guidelines don't apply here, since although the Role-Playing universe within the game is a fantasy, there's nothing fictional about the rules applied in play. (And yes, I imagine that if you read up on the SRD in detail, you very nearly DON'T have to buy the books. After all, the only critical information lacking is a point buy/stat roll system for character creation.)
- IN any case, the appropriate response would be to make some attempt to amalgamate or summarise the points made while culling anything a little too revealing copyright-wise. An outright deletion of the entire subject strikes me as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
- Well, that section shouldn't be included for two reasons. First, it's original reasearch to say anything like "A great strength of Rogues," "can be used to cheaply round out skill selections," and "A careful selection of Feats can make Rogues a wily and dangerous foe in melee." Maybe the source books say "A careful selection of Feats can make Rogues a wily and dangerous foe in melee." If they do, then you need to cite them. If you're good at wikipedia, use the Wikipedia:Footnotes style for citing, else say something like "The Players Handbook ed. 3.5 says that " careful selection of Feats can make Rogues a wily and dangerous foe in melee." Wikipedia:Manual of Style_(writing about fiction)#Prose examples has some examples that may help you. Basically, if you want to write a multi class section, don't make it a list of each type, but provide an overview of the concept with a few examples. We are allowed to talk about game mechanics stuff only so far as fair use allows us. The deciding factor is that using it cannot harm the copyright holder, and giving away which ability score goes with which feat is going slightly too far. You combine that with the OGL stats and you almost don't have to buy the books. - Peregrine Fisher 17:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given that nothing was taken verbatim from the SRD or other official documents, nor was this by any stretch a comprehensive list of related class features, I fail to see your point. If you think better clarity or conciseness is called for, then whittle the material down a bit, but don't just delete the whole shebang. It's a valid topic.
