For example, I take differentiability, analyticity, and algebraicity(of a function). All(more or less) imply continuity. So when we define a differentiable function on $\mathbb R^n$ or an analytic function on $\mathbb C^n$, or a regular map on an affine space, we do not explicitly require that the functions are continuous. It follows automatically from the stronger condition.

But, when I look at the definitions in books of a global structure using sheaf theory, it is almost always a global picture, ie define a differentiable manifold or an analytic space, or an abstract algebraic variety, the definition of a morphism requires a priori that the map be continuous, and then one requires that there is additionally a morphism of sheaves of algebras(of the suitable type of structure sheaves, depending on the local model used).

Why is this so? Is it something done for fancy, or is there a real need for the extra continuity assumption? I mean could things go wrong if this assumption is dropped?

For example, I take differentiability, analyticity, and algebraicity(of a function). All(more or less) imply continuity. So when we define a differentiable function on $\mathbb R^n$ or an analytic function on $\mathbb C^n$, or a regular map on an affine space, we do not explicitly require that the functions are continuous. It follows automatically from the stronger condition.

But, when I look at the definitions in books of a global structure using sheaf theory, for a global definition of a morphism, ie on a differentiable manifold or an analytic space, or an abstract algebraic variety, the definition of a morphism requires a priori that the map be continuous, and then one requires that there is additionally a morphism of sheaves of algebras(of the suitable type of structure sheaves, depending on the local model used).

Why is this so? Is it something done for fancy, or is there a real need for the extra continuity assumption? I mean could things go wrong if this assumption is dropped?