Capital is on page 174 under Knowledges.
Ah, there it is. Thanks for pointing that out for me. I hadn't thought to look there because Knowledges are so very rarely put into the skill tables.
Regarding the application of DMs, see pp 23 & 24 for some guidance about when it's OK to add or ignore a DM.
Ok, I just read it. I saw the part about Revisions, when a DM is noticed only after a roll is made, then indeed it is allowed to be added in if it would help a roll to become a success from a failure. However, I couldn't find anything about ignoring DMs there. If I missed something could someone please point it out to me?
Further, see p77 under Duplicate Benefits. It says there that if you get something twice and don't want it, roll again. If all you can get is the max result on the table and you already have that benefit then I think you should pick something you want from the table. This may offend some, but I think it's consistent with the spirit of the rules. It's a game. You're supposed to have fun playing it. To do that you have to make judgement calls from time to time.
Yup, I'm aware of the rolling again rule, but what you think should be done is not the rules, and it is certainly not in their "spirit" if it goes against what it specifically says to do, unless it is an errata, in which case it should be changed. If it is not an errata, then that is what the game designer(s) specifically wanted. Either way, that's the rule. Sure, it's not the way I do it in my games either, because it doesn't make sense. I have a whole list of house rules I've already made for this game, so yeah, I get the whole "judgement call" thing, and we certainly have plenty of fun with them. But when talking with people outside of any gaming group I am playing with, I can't discuss the rules under the assumption that other people are using my house rules, because most likely they are not. I say this because that is why I said what I did about the rules and what they say about the availability of those skills. I wasn't complaining that the strict interpretation of the rules was ruining the game for me or anything.
The point is that Rogues do have access to Fighter and Stealth, which is what a lot of people seem to be hung up on.
And what I am saying is that I think that they have insufficient access to those skills, given what I consider their importance to the role. If Marc really wants his rogues to be able to fight or sneak that little, then fine, I'll house rule it (in fact I already have), but I don't know that, it might have simply been an oversight. That is why I wrote my original post in the form of a question: I try not to make assumptions about what are mistakes and what is intentional, and thus ask for clarification. If I see something that seems out of sorts, I don't see the problem with asking.
Whatever limits you ascribe to this game are your own, Murdoc.
What?!? Aren't rules themselves limits? Yes, I know I can house rule them, and I do, as I've said, but sometimes the "problems" I see are not intentional, and others actually tend to appreciate when they are pointed out so that they can be fixed. I am both an experienced play-tester and proofreader.
Why choose to be confrontational with someone who's trying to help? You asked questions in a public forum. If you don't like my answers, make up your own or keep checking back until you find one you do like.
Please tell me how I was being confrontational. Was it because I didn't agree with you completely? So far I've thanked you when you've shown me where in the rules would answer my questions. I've offered logical counterpoints to help clarify what I was saying, and offered my own opinion after you offered yours, again, to clarify my position. So where was I confrontational?
