Originally Posted by thaX wrote:
I'm confident that if the assassain is the shadow striker (as so many have postulated) that WotC will do a good job differentiating it from the rogue. The rest is all personal problems. The warlock is a similarly dark anti-hero, but people play them and are gaga over them and I've never heard anyone claim that the warlock divided the party. In-fighting is something any mature players should know how to avoid, you have to understand that not everyone is going to play the character you want them to play, but don't make them squander their fun because it's something you're not used to.
Hell assassains could even be good guys, just because the archetypal assassain kills for money doesn't mean yours has to. You could respond to a higher calling making it your duty to kill corrupt evil rulers (and hey picking up some pay isn't bad either). You could be an assassain who specializes in killing savage races, goblins, orcs, lizardmen, minotaurs, etc. Don't feel pigeon holed because of the classes name. It's just a name, they could have just as easily called it then ninja but then we'ed be hearing this same thing just replace assassain with ninja and in-fighting with anime hate.
And techincally, nothing is really needed as far as classes go. Just wanted. And people want assassains. If you don't, fine, don't use it, but don't make the rest of us suffer for it.
One has a background of noble kingdoms that has fallen and are a race without a home. Meanwhile the other resulted from the continuing war between the human/society and the Orcs as the monsters raided towns and took anything they wanted and are a race without a home.
Yeah, Almost the same.
Also, how do you figure it will be munchkin?
I think that Munchkins want it, not that the class itself in this new edition will be like the overpowered Assassins in the past.
Most good players realize that they don't need a full class for the Assassin. I saw the Dragonborn for what it was, a replacement for the Half Orc. Then Wizards went ahead and had the Half Orc in the second book anyways. Yes, they are basically the same thing.
One has a background of noble kingdoms that has fallen and are a race without a home. Meanwhile the other resulted from the continuing war between the human/society and the Orcs as the monsters raided towns and took anything they wanted and are a race without a home.
Yeah, Almost the same.
....... How is anything other than "race without a home," which you know just kinda sorta describes more than half the races, in any way, shape, or form similar in what you just said?
And most "good" players probably don't need any classes or roles or anything.
I think the Shadow Striker is gonna be the Ninja.
There can be more than one shadow striker. There's more than one martial striker, and more than one arcane striker.
indeed, but the Assassin as a Shadow Striker is not needed. It will be a Ninja, a class that has a broader concept and better appeal. It is still dark, but can be heroic, unlike the Assassin.
Instead of bashing a class that hasn't even been released and comparing two classes (one of which might not even exist), why don't you wait and see how the assassain turns out? You might end up liking it and eating your words.
Past editions are no indicator of this edition, especially considering everything before 3rd ed wasn't even done by WotC.
indeed, but the Assassin as a Shadow Striker is not needed. It will be a Ninja, a class that has a broader concept and better appeal. It is still dark, but can be heroic, unlike the Assassin.
Ninja is far too eastern for my tastes, personally. I think the term Assassin can relate similarly to espionage, political murder, and profit murder without a cultural leaning.
They should never ever, ever... put ninja in books. Good players don't use ninja.
indeed, but the Assassin as a Shadow Striker is not needed. It will be a Ninja, a class that has a broader concept and better appeal. It is still dark, but can be heroic, unlike the Assassin.
James Bond and Jason Bourne are assassins. They're heroic. Try again.
At best the ninja will probably be an Assassin build option, or PP.
The Assassin is just as legitimate of a character as a Paladin, Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, etc. It is a very broad character concept with numerous characters in fiction from characters like Jason Bourne, Artemis (him, Jarlaxle and Calimport being the best things to come out of FR), and Altair to name a few.
The term Assassin is a evocative but broad term as well perfect for a character class. Something like Ninja is very setting-specific, a Ninja is a Assassin but not all Assassins are Ninjas. Nor is a Shadowdancer describable to any but those who know it from past D&D.
Mechanics wise too, if it does take on the aspects of the True Assassin blurb it will have lots of interesting and unique traits. That will distinguish it from a Rogue.
Alignment wise, WoTC has already shown they view the Assassin as just as flexible as any other class. As well as seeing how it can work well in groups (the Dragon article has many feats that are only benefitted from being in groups).
Perhaps they will go away from the actual Assassin if that is true, and the class is Assassin only by name, and is an Mercenary instead.
Besides the fact that an assassain usually kills one important target and a mercenary is a sword for hire, what is the difference? Really by definition almost all adventurers are mercenaries.
1) Neither should warlocks be allowed because they make pacts with shadowy entities for the promise of more power
2) Neither should Avengers be allowed because they are part of fringe cults that kill others out of religious fervor and we don't need crusaders or jihadists in or groups
3) Neither should rogues exist because they also live outside of the norms of society and are thieves and thugs and there is no way a petty criminal could help advance the cause of good.
4) Neither should sorcerers exist because they have not studied to gain their power and are often times full of themselves and there is no way an egomaniac can be fun at a table.
5) Tieflings should never be played because they are hellish
6) Half-Orcs are have evil orc parents and thus can't under no circumstances be good.
7) Shifters are the great grandsons of murderous were-people and thus should be killed on sight
8) Same thing goes for drow
9) And since some Genasi still revere primordials, they can't be played either.
10) And Invokers don't form part of the religious establishment so they are inherently evil as well
If the assassin should not be allowed in the game because it steps in the Rogues toes then:
1) Tempest fighters and Battleragers should be forbidden in all games because they are the same as Rangers and Barbarians.
2) Tieflings and Gnomes are the same: because they are both good feylocks and have Cha/Int
3) Gnomes and Halflings are the same: Because they both have CHA and are small and difficult to hit.
4) Elves and Eladrin are the same because they are both fey
6) Eladrin and Devas are the same because they both look good
7) Half-orcs and Dragonborn are the same because they are strong
8) Half-orcs, dragonborn and Goliath are the same as well for the same reasons
9) Devas and Tieflings are the same because they have lineage to the Astral Sea
10) Genasi and Tieflings are the same because of fire.
11) A bard is unecessary because you have the warlock or the Feylock or the Wizard
12) The shaman steps on the Beastranger's toe
13) The Invoker is just another priest and the Avenger another paladin
14) The Sorcerer = Wizard
16) Illusionist wizard = Feylock = Bard
And so on, and so on till you realize you are spewing nonesense thaX, an assassin can be a compelling character in a heroic saga (and not necessarily and evil character).
James Bond and Jason Bourne are assassins. They're heroic. Try again.
At best the ninja will probably be an Assassin build option, or PP.
OK, I can see that with Bond and Bourne. Who could be rogues too.
Which brings me to my point: I'm just concerned how different rogue and assassin will actually be. That's a lot of the natural reaction we're seeing.
There needs to enough differentiation, and right now, it's not clear because we only have flavor for both (and even then one of them we only have prior edition flavor for) and mechanics to look at for only one.
6) Half-Orcs are have evil orc parents and thus can't under no circumstances be good.
7) Half-orcs and Dragonborn are the same because they are strong
He already believes these are true ....
He already believes these are true ....
I know, but the stupidity of that claim amazes me. It's like saying that since 154 and 54 are divisible by 2 they are inherently the same.
OK, I can see that with Bond and Bourne. Who could be rogues too.
Which brings me to my point: I'm just concerned how different rogue and assassin will actually be. That's a lot of the natural reaction we're seeing.
There needs to enough differentiation, and right now, it's not clear because we only have flavor for both (and even then one of them we only have prior edition flavor for) and mechanics to look at for only one.
Complete Adventurers had 1-20 ninja. The assassin was a prestige class. They both had flavor. I think there were also several prestige classes that mimicked both.
I have always said the Warlock was to dark as it is written, and I didn't particularly like the Pact fluff or that it is the class that is tied mostly to it's paths when it comes to choosing powers more than the other classes. It is nothing like the class that was in the previous edition, and the only thing to tie the two together is the name. The additional material that is in the other books should have been a part of the PHB, not separated into different products. That it stopped short of having the "Patrons" be an intricate part of the class and have a mechanical effect on the class much like a god to a cleric just barely makes the class playable.
Now, I know, your pointing out stupid parallels to make me look like a raving lunatic.
The Assassin has always been a class with baggage, one that gives players choices that tend to work against party harmony and gives DM's a game that ends up with a break up of the party or worse, a dead character by the Assassin's hand.
Any character can be an assassin, it isn't hard. Get paid. Kill Target. Done. The class will either break this new edition's balance mode, or disappoint everyone that wanted it in the first place. It isn't needed.
Saying "It is unneeded" or "It is needed" is, to be honest, pretty premature on both sides of the equation.
Ok,
I have always said the Warlock was to dark as it is written, and I didn't particularly like the Pact fluff or that it is the class that is tied mostly to it's paths when it comes to choosing powers more than the other classes. It is nothing like the class that was in the previous edition, and the only thing to tie the two together is the name. The additional material that is in the other books should have been a part of the PHB, not separated into different products. That it stopped short of having the "Patrons" be an intricate part of the class and have a mechanical effect on the class much like a god to a cleric just barely makes the class playable.
Now, I know, your pointing out stupid parallels to make me look like a raving lunatic.
The Assassin has always been a class with baggage, one that gives players choices that tend to work against party harmony and gives DM's a game that ends up with a break up of the party or worse, a dead character by the Assassin's hand.
Any character can be an assassin, it isn't hard. Get paid. Kill Target. Done. The class will either break this new edition's balance mode, or disappoint everyone that wanted it in the first place. It isn't needed in my game.
Fixed it for you.
I would just like to point out that so far, all we know is that there will be an assassin class. We don't know the role it will take, we don't know the power source it will have. (We do know that it is going to be a new power source). We don't know any of the powers or class features it will have.
Saying "It is unneeded" or "It is needed" is, to be honest, pretty premature on both sides of the equation.
Oh come on mudbunny, we know what it will do.:P
It is clearly the "true assassin" talked about a few issues ago. So we know it can walk through walls, change appearance, and kill things using just shadows. I think there were a few other things listed, but I forgot them. I'd personally say that that is distinct enough to warrant a new class. Now then saying it is "needed" might be a bit extreme, but it is certainly viable.
Ok,
I have always said the Warlock was to dark as it is written, and I didn't particularly like the Pact fluff or that it is the class that is tied mostly to it's paths when it comes to choosing powers more than the other classes. It is nothing like the class that was in the previous edition, and the only thing to tie the two together is the name. The additional material that is in the other books should have been a part of the PHB, not separated into different products. That it stopped short of having the "Patrons" be an intricate part of the class and have a mechanical effect on the class much like a god to a cleric just barely makes the class playable.
Now, I know, your pointing out stupid parallels to make me look like a raving lunatic.
The Assassin has always been a class with baggage, one that gives players choices that tend to work against party harmony and gives DM's a game that ends up with a break up of the party or worse, a dead character by the Assassin's hand.
Any character can be an assassin, it isn't hard. Get paid. Kill Target. Done. The class will either break this new edition's balance mode, or disappoint everyone that wanted it in the first place. It isn't needed.
3.5 made people who wanted to play paladin's fight with the rest of the group over the alignments that they were ABLE to choose from.
The idea with 4.0 is represented best by the epic destiny Prince of Hell, which states "You don't need to be evil to be the prince of hell".
Not every adventurer fights for the cause of good, but also out of necessity, or fame... or power. Why can't I play an Assassin, ThaX?
You don't have to allow them or even play them, but why on earth can't I?
Oh come on mudbunny, we know what it will do.:P
It is clearly the "true assassin" talked about a few issues ago. So we know it can walk through walls, change appearance, and kill things using just shadows. I think there were a few other things listed, but I forgot them. I'd personally say that that is distinct enough to warrant a new class. Now then saying it is "needed" might be a bit extreme, but it is certainly viable.
Sounds like a Ninja
@dave: good retort.
however, the way i see the classes, an assassin has no place. this is mainly due to me imagining the way towards heroics - someone who likely killed many people before he started adventuring, creates a lot of storyline plotholes. supposed to have killed many men, the fearless assassin moves on to fight a lonely lvl 1 kobold - and has a good chance to miss, even with total cover before the attack... yay, lest start speaking of immersion...
the whole concept of "assassin" reeks of experience. experience a lvl 1 character just does NOT have. and that's why this concept would be better suited at paragon. but, again, we'll see if they took a new approach to this concept. avenger, druid, warden - they all are already contrary to how you might imagine them, and maybe they'll find something for that as well.
i know if i was newer to the game and saw an assassin class, i'd be hard pressed to not believe it to be overpowered and broken - just due to the fact that it implies superior skills in stealth and killing. (which makes me fear that it might lead to munchkinizing, as well)
Similar to some of thaX's previous points, this is based on a woefully limited use of imagination. Not saying you lack it, just that you're refusing to use it, because you like seeing the Assassin as something you don't like. That's fine. But note that "assassin" doesn't reek of experience any more than "fighter" or "wizard". In fact, a wizard reeks of far more experience in what he should be good at, what with the years of studying and musty tomes. Really, any point either of you or thaX have made about assassins can be made even harder for at least one, if not many core classes.
Similar to some of thaX's previous points, this is based on a woefully limited use of imagination. Not saying you lack it, just that you're refusing to use it, because you like seeing the Assassin as something you don't like. That's fine. But note that "assassin" doesn't reek of experience any more than "fighter" or "wizard". In fact, a wizard reeks of far more experience in what he should be good at, what with the years of studying and musty tomes. Really, any point either of you or thaX have made about assassins can be made even harder for at least one, if not many core classes.
I am eager to agree with that assessment. But this is looking more and more like a loop argument, where neither side is willing to say "yeah, I guess you're right to some extent."
Also, its filled with lame assumptions on one end...
I am eager to agree with that assessment. But this is looking more and more like a loop argument, where neither side is willing to say "yeah, I guess you're right to some extent."
Also, its filled with lame assumptions on one end...
The problem is, the only extent to which they are right is the extent to which they are limiting themselves, which has nothing to do with the inherent nature of the class. And if they're right about the points where they aren't limiting themselves, then pretty much every other class is out for being bigger violators of their precepts of what makes a "bad class".
Whats it matter anyway, Thax? I thought you didn't get DDI and didn't consider it core in your games.
That doesn't invalidate his argument. His argument, as a logical construct, is separate from whether or not he has DDi or considers it canon.
What invalidates his arguments are his arguments.
the whole concept of "assassin" reeks of experience. experience a lvl 1 character just does NOT have.
That's a product of your baggage, not the class. Every D&D character has experience and training before they get to the table at first level. Do wizards in your games just wake up knowing how to melt people one day? Every master mage and dangerous assassin started out as a first level newbie.
)Besides all that, D&D's just a game. Hate to say it.
Excited for the assassin though. I can see it being similar to the rogue, but not having to rely on friends for combat advantage. Sort of like the avenger? I'm not sure. That's why I'm not D&D designers.
UGH. NO. A Ninja class is unbelievably cheesy and unnecessary. No one I've ever talked to wants a ninja class for D&D and all of them dislike the idea vehemently. (I personally throw up a little.
Besides all that, D&D's just a game. Hate to say it.
Excited for the assassin though. I can see it being similar to the rogue, but not having to rely on friends for combat advantage. Sort of like the avenger? I'm not sure. That's why I'm not D&D designers.
My favourite part of 4e is that if you want to make a locale-based class, like an Asian Fighter or Assassin, you can just make a Samurai or Ninja class feature similar to the Battlerager, Artful Dodger, etc, etc options and plop it on an existing class. Modularity that leads to an immense amount of creativity and character creation freedom.
My favourite part of 4e is that if you want to make a locale-based class, like an Asian Fighter or Assassin, you can just make a Samurai or Ninja class feature similar to the Battlerager, Artful Dodger, etc, etc options and plop it on an existing class. Modularity that leads to an immense amount of creativity and character creation freedom.
4th edition has really just shown me the power of reflavoring.
Now, I know, your pointing out stupid parallels to make me look like a raving lunatic.
Look like?
Any character can be an assassin, it isn't hard. Get paid. Kill Target. Done. The class will either break this new edition's balance mode, or disappoint everyone that wanted it in the first place. It isn't needed.
Also, I can't believe no one has taken issue with your most ludicrous notion of all: Your insistence of correlating alignment with power. You insist "Oh teh assassin is evil and can't be good because eh kills people and also is evil also" and then go on to draw the conclusion that "this will break the game."
The wrongfulness of this claim is fully evidenced by the Assassin PrC in 3.5 Edition being mediocre. Like, seriously. It was so mediocre that it was surpassed in both suckiness and power by pretty much everything that followed.
But, it is coming and no matter how much you complain, deny and bemoan it; there are people that do want it and WotC feels that there are more people that do than don't.
Bel
Look like?
Also, I can't believe no one has taken issue with your most ludicrous notion of all: Your insistence of correlating alignment with power. You insist "Oh teh assassin is evil and can't be good because eh kills people and also is evil also" and then go on to draw the conclusion that "this will break the game."
The wrongfulness of this claim is fully evidenced by the Assassin PrC in 3.5 Edition being mediocre. Like, seriously. It was so mediocre that it was surpassed in both suckiness and power by pretty much everything that followed.
I don't think the simple fact that the class is evil by nature itself is the breaking the game one. Killing targets for money is not a mechanical set, but rather the lack of a moral center for the character.
What will break the game is mechanics that will introduce instant kills (something this new edition tries to avoid) or relay on heavy one hit wonders damage that will make so the Assassin will supplant the Rogue class altogether. Not only that, but if it doesn't do this, then all those clamoring for this class will look at it and say that it isn't really an Assassin.
Hence, why I said that the class will either break this new edition's balance mode, or disappoint everyone that wanted it in the first place. It isn't needed.
I don't think the simple fact that the class is evil by nature itself is the breaking the game one. Killing targets for money is not a mechanical set, but rather the lack of a moral center for the character.
What will break the game is mechanics that will introduce instant kills (something this new edition tries to avoid) or relay on heavy one hit wonders damage that will make so the Assassin will supplant the Rogue class altogether. Not only that, but if it doesn't do this, then all those clamoring for this class will look at it and say that it isn't really an Assassin.
Hence, why I said that the class will either break this new edition's balance mode, or disappoint everyone that wanted it in the first place. It isn't needed.
Because you know for a fact that it will either be one or the other, right?
OH WAIT. No, you don't. At all. NO ONE in any assassin thread is clamoring for an instant kill ability, or anything like that. AT ALL. As usual, you're talking out your backside.
What will break the game is mechanics that will introduce instant kills (something this new edition tries to avoid) or relay on heavy one hit wonders damage that will make so the Assassin will supplant the Rogue class altogether. Not only that, but if it doesn't do this, then all those clamoring for this class will look at it and say that it isn't really an Assassin.
So without even seeing *anything* about the assassin other than the name and that it will use a new power source, you have already judged it and found it wanting.
You will forgive me if I wait until I see the class before I make any judgements.
Whenever you accept an adventure to go into the cave and clear out the goblins you're killing for money. You seem to know the class already before it's released... Wait for September before you start whining about imbalance.
Well, an reward would be nice, of course, but really I am looking into the trouble this goblins have caused and why they broke the terms of the treaty with Bratham.
The class seems to be the same everytime it is written up for this brand. It also has a history within the fantasy trope.
So without even seeing *anything* about the assassin other than the name and that it will use a new power source, you have already judged it and found it wanting.
You will forgive me if I wait until I see the class before I make any judgements.
Doesn't take a genius. It is the nature of this particular class.
So without even seeing *anything* about the assassin other than the name and that it will use a new power source, you have already judged it and found it wanting.
You will forgive me if I wait until I see the class before I make any judgements.
It's what nearly everyone has been saying in response to his arguments from the start: they simply aren't valid based on the limited information he has access to, or are valid inasmuch as they apply even moreso to other classes (incidentally, he has since avoided those arguments, without actually conceding that they made no sense).
The entire thread is a giant, subjective troll on an upcoming class which will, ironically, only serve to make his voice on the class when it does come out seem unduly biased. So the one thing he wants, which is some objective truth about the assassin class to illuminate the minds of forumgoers from his pulpit, is actually harmed by his pre-release efforts.
Doesn't take a genius. It is the nature of this particular class.
One hit kills are not in the "nature" of the class, that's mechanics, and mechanics that no longer exist in 4e.
The class seems to be the same everytime it is written up for this brand. It also has a history within the fantasy trope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
One hit kills are not in the "nature" of the class, that's mechanics, and mechanics that no longer exist in 4e.
I hope that your right on this point. The Assassin write ups tend to ignore such balance issues in the previous editions.
I hope that your right on this point. The Assassin write ups tend to ignore such balance issues in the previous editions.
Don't need to hope. Designers talked about it before 4e came out, and have talked about it since: one-hit kills are mechanically unsound, and not a part of 4e's design philosophy.
Well, the PrC in this previous edition was basically an NPC class, so no, it isn't gonna be like that.
Maybe they will temper the old basic class with the PrC, thereby making a new class or come up with something entirely new free of the old molds.
Bel
I think that spy/assasin/shadow striker could be a cool idea, and right now I hope this is what we will get.
In a fight, you have to be careful not to break the little bones in your hand on someone's face. That's why I like bathrooms: Lots of hard surfaces.
Need to go some place you're not wanted? Any uniform store will sell you a messenger outfit, and any messenger can get past a security desk.
I never run around in the bushes in a ski mask when I'm breaking in some place. Somebody catches you, what are you gonna say? You wanna look like a legitimate visiter until the very last minute. If you can't look legit, confused works almost as well. Maybe you get a soda from the fridge or a yogurt. If you're caught, you just act confused and apologize like crazy for taking the yogurt, nothing could be more innocent.
When you work solo it's about prepping the ground. Home court advantage counts for a lot. You never know what's going to happen. You prepare for everything. Most bad guys expect you to just sit there and wait for them like those are the rules or something.
As a spy, it doesn't matter if you're helping rebel forces fight off a dictator, or giving combat tips to a third-grader. There's nothing like helping the little guy kick some bully's ass.
The first thing a spy learns to give up is fair fights, you aren't trained with honnor, or stanidng up to someone, your trained to win
Maybe they will temper the old basic class with the PrC, thereby making a new class or come up with something entirely new free of the old molds.
Bel
I hope this is what they do; break the mold and come up with something new. By the same token, I'm concerned.
If it were a martial power source I wouldn't be (I'd see a specialized rogue, for instance). With a new power source however (prolly shadow), I keep seeing 'ninja' (that's not bad per se, but it's not what I'm hoping for).
This prolly isn't the best thread to discuss my hope for the assassin class ;) but Belorin's quote was perfect to 'bounce off' of.
after all, we need at least 4 clases for each powersource... my guess is that probably all ddi only stuff is likely to come from the same powersource... that way, it's easy for them to forgo the stuff from the printed books, or if they want, offer a printed book especially useful for those who pay for ddi.
btw: this is something i would not have any problems with - if they printed books just usable by DDI subscribers. My fears relate more towards the direction that they might include features in upcoming sourcebooks where you'd need a subscription to know what they are about.
well, the ninja could be a shadow controller, then.
after all, we need at least 4 clases for each powersource... my guess is that probably all ddi only stuff is likely to come from the same powersource... that way, it's easy for them to forgo the stuff from the printed books, or if they want, offer a printed book especially useful for those who pay for ddi.
btw: this is something i would not have any problems with - if they printed books just usable by DDI subscribers. My fears relate more towards the direction that they might include features in upcoming sourcebooks where you'd need a subscription to know what they are about.
I hope DDi never becomes that exclusive. Even as a subscriber, a printed book that only applies to Insider would be too much I think.
The assassin and the revenant are merely the start of exclusive content for Insider; there's gonna be more. This stuff will need some support. I say keep support limited to the pages of the magazines and the compendium. At least until the time comes (inevitably) when it is printed in a D&D hardcover. Then it's time to start support for the stuff in hardcover. As someone mentioned, I see 'DDi exclusive' having the same impact as the words 'Only in Theaters' (yeah, until the DVD shows up ;)).
As long as exclusives appear only as part of Insider and is supported within its pages, I see no worry for non-subscribers. Someone who is curious enough can always subscribe for a month or two (see what it is they're missing ;)), or wait for the inevitable hardcover release (whichever comes first). Also, stuff that is exclusive to Insider will prolly be niche stuff like the assassin and the revenant, not big stuff like psions and their brethren, so I see no cause for worry there.
Exclusives may not be limited to races or classes; I can imagine 'mini-campaign' settings, like the Dark Sun v.3.5 revamp that appeared in Dragon #320 and Dungeon #110. How about a revamp of the 'Known World' (Mystara) for 4e as an Insider exclusive? Since controversy can't be avoided, I say have fun, despite it all ;).
As long as exclusives are of niche interest (at most) and stay within the pages of Insider (for the time being at least), there should be no worry. Anyone can subscribe at any time, after all. I mean even a Forgotten Realms player can pick up an Eberron hardcover at any time; it's all about finding a compelling reason to.
That should be the focus of an Insider exclusive, to get people interested enough to subscribe, to see what they're missing. I think the assassin and the revenant are a great way to start off and achieve this objective ;).
by common definition:
an assassin is just someone who kills for selfish reasons. (money or spiritual reasons alike)
an assassination is a murder in public, or murder of someone publicly known.
This is incorrect.
Assassins do not murder for money. The word you are looking for is "hitman" or "contract killer". Assassins kill public figures, typically for ideological, political, or military reasons. Using the word "assassin" to refer to someone who kills for money is a misuse of the word. Financial gain may be a motivation, but it is hardly required by definition.
By definition, an assassin is simply someone who kills high priority targets. In modern usage, this could include military snipers, special forces teams, and intelligence departments. Historically, it can be applied to any number of killings from the murder of Caesar to the execution of French royals in the French Revolution to the targeted attack of Yamamoto in World War II.
Bottom line is, assassin's are only 'evil' if they assassinate someone you care about. If they work for your cause or your nation, they are typically called revolutionaries or snipers or heroes or whatever else.
Not that I expect that the D&D version of the class will be any more 'accurate' historically speaking, but if your entire argument against the class rests on your own misunderstanding of the class's name... well... it doesn't help the credibility of your arguments. By definition, any and all Strikers in 4e make excellent "assassins". Any class that adheres strictly to the striker role and fits our modern cultural expectations (slightly amoral or hardhearted, stealthy, skilled with weapons, etc) will likely be a success.
This is incorrect.
Assassins do not murder for money. The word you are looking for is "hitman" or "contract killer". Assassins kill strictly for political reasons.
Using the word "assassin" to refer to someone who kills for money is a misuse of the word.
Not entirely correct. As per the Random house dictionary definition:
a murderer, esp. one who kills a politically prominent person for fanatical or monetary reasons.
Not entirely correct. As per the Random house dictionary definition:
a murderer, esp. one who kills a politically prominent person for fanatical or monetary reasons.
Yup. Random House is pretty much the only dictionary who adds monetary reasons. The reason for this is that Random House bases their definitions off of the way the word is currently used, which fails to take into account that half of Americans have double digit IQs.
Just for fun... find a real life "assassin" that killed strictly for money. You won't find one. If you think you've found one, ask yourself which of the following fits better: "assassin" or "contract killer". The two words are not synonymous, and you can be one without the other. Money may exchange hands, but that doesn't make one an assassin: it makes one a contract killer. It is quite possible, and often is the case, for assassins to be completely unpaid. The only thing that defines an assassin is that the target be a prominent or strategically important figure. Money doesn't matter one bit.
Just because pop-culture says it's true, doesn't make it so. Historically and etymologically speaking, Random House is incorrect.
(I half-expect that the Random House definition for ninja is "Dudes in masks that could walk on walls and brutally kill with one hit from their laser swords!!!1!11!" :P )
What will break the game is mechanics that will introduce instant kills (something this new edition tries to avoid) or relay on heavy one hit wonders damage that will make so the Assassin will supplant the Rogue class altogether. Not only that, but if it doesn't do this, then all those clamoring for this class will look at it and say that it isn't really an Assassin.
Hence, why I said that the class will either break this new edition's balance mode, or disappoint everyone that wanted it in the first place. It isn't needed.
Okay, so based on an assumption we know to be false and a notion only you carry, you draw the conclusion that it is either overpowered or unwanted. Gotcha.
Am I the only one who actually considers thaX to be a worse person for posting this thread (trying to deprive others of something they might enjoy because he isn't convinced of the merit of the idea)?
There is no doubt that Ninja has some Assassin skills, if not all of them really. It is, however, a more fleshed out concept than the narrow Assassin, and can use the Shadow Dancer powers also.
Awesome Dude, I started this thread.
Not unwanted, but doomed for disappointment for what is expected. Everyone is expecting something that is different than the Rogue somehow. I expect a renamed Rogue with Renamed powers and an added damage striker power that doesn't count on flanking/Combat Advantage in place of Sneak Attack.
1) It didn't work in previous editions so it won't work now
2) the idea of an assassin can be done with a rogue.
and
3) Assassins are evil and evil is evil.
Did I miss anything? Because these are pretty lame arguments in my mind. First of all, Paladin didn't work in previous editions in many people's minds. It works a lot better for them now. Wizards were extremely over-powered in previous editions (as were clerics and druids). They have been toned down now. Should we have worried about Wizard or Sorcerer because in previous editions they had one-shot kill powers? I think the developers have proven that they are moving away from that design philosophy and I, for one, have learned to trust them until they prove otherwise.
Secondly, even if we assumed some of the same mechanical or flavor features of a rogue, whey is that a terrible thing. As long as classes are balanced and not the exact same why is this so terrible? Let players play what they want not what you feel they should. Of course this is assuming a lot. Why should we assume Assassins will be like Rogues. Why not like Avengers? Because Assassin's stick to the shadows? Mechanically, WotC has shown that strikers are very different from one another and again I expect that this will continue.
As for Assassins being evil and evil is evil, I think that this has pretty well been covered.
There is the Shadow Assassin PP, but that isn't good enough for people. The Avenger has an Assassin PP, but still, well. The Rogue can certainly be a good Assassin, for those that want that sort of thing. I don't see why this would be disputed.
Evil isn't the whole argument, the fact that they have no moral center is the root of why they are so reviled.
To be fair, I talk of a typical assassin here, not the fanatics on a grassy knoll, or political hotheads. When playing a fantasy game, the modern assassin has no real place as a class. The Assassin I talk of is the slimey, arrogant, selfish people that you see in the Discworld novels, or the short cameos of those that attempt to kill main characters, before they end up being dead assassins.
Who says they have no moral center? YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE CLASS YET! An assassin can be bound by a code of honor (which won't happen in 4e from a mechanical standpoint). My god man. They have yet to disappoint. Throw them a bone.
Realize, in the previous edition the Wizard and the Sorcerer were the same class with slightly different mechanics. They even use the same spells with the same effects.
I have said before, any class can be an assassin. It isn't hard. Kill. Get paid. Done.
Evil isn't the whole argument, the fact that they have no moral center is the root of why they are so reviled.
To be fair, I talk of a typical assassin here, not the fanatics on a grassy knoll, or political hotheads. When playing a fantasy game, the modern assassin has no real place as a class. The Assassin I talk of is the slimey, arrogant, selfish people that you see in the Discworld novels, or the short cameos of those that attempt to kill main characters, before they end up being dead assassins.
You may as well say all rogues steal and con people.
Assassin does not need to be some selfish class unless that's how you want to make it. My character could easily have been an assassin trained by the kings army to take out enemy leadership to take out the armies while leaving the main army intact and still alive. I could be an assassin trained by the disciples of the Raven Queen. While I have no divine power (or maybe I do and can MC) I have been blessed with shadow and use it to take out the undead that threaten the countryside.
You are hating a class, without seeing it, because you have preconceived notions on the name. You can argue about whether the Altair from Assassin's Creed is evil or not if you want, but the general idea seemed to me that he was a good person who was tricked. Not that he was a slimy, arrogant (well he was at first, but that's part of the story and how he changes), selfish person.
They have disappointed me. They are making an Assassin class. One that is not needed.
Realize, in the previous edition the Wizard and the Sorcerer were the same class with slightly different mechanics. They even use the same spells with the same effects.
I have said before, any class can be an assassin. It isn't hard. Kill. Get paid. Done.
Any class can be a rogue. Live on the fringes of society, don't follow conventional rules. Done.
Any class can be a Barbarian. Live in the wilderness and be uncivilized. Done.
Any class can be a warlord. Lead people. Done.
You said the sorceror and wizard were the same in 3e. That's true.. in 4e.. they're completely different. You see? Developers can evolve. No class is "needed". They will continue to release them though. The class is "wanted". Not by you maybe, but you're definitely not the majority. I want the assassin. Why shouldn't I get it?
Who says they get paid? An assassin can have his/her own agenda. As mentioned before... you've confused assassin with hitman. They are not one in the same.
You said the sorceror and wizard were the same in 3e. That's true.. in 4e.. they're completely different. You see? Developers can evolve. No class is "needed". They will continue to release them though. The class is "wanted". Not by you maybe, but you're definitely not the majority. I want the assassin. Why shouldn't I get it?
No you're wrong. No class i needed beyond Fighting-Man, Mage and Priest. MMaybe we can add Thief later or maybe just make elves and dwarves there own classes, but that's it. :P
since most wizards played their character as the swiss army knife of the group, controller seemed a logical choice. the limitation of sorcerers in 3e lead them towards strikery behaviour, thus again, it's an obvious choice. it is not so much that they made them up that differently - they were played a lot differently, usually. wotc just dropped the options to do otherwise.
the main reason for the division of certain classes into different aspects, is to seperate once and for all the "i do it all alone" classes.
since most wizards played their character as the swiss army knife of the group, controller seemed a logical choice. the limitation of sorcerers in 3e lead them towards strikery behaviour, thus again, it's an obvious choice. it is not so much that they made them up that differently - they were played a lot differently, usually. wotc just dropped the options to do otherwise.
Good points, all. I think that is one of the aspects of the Assassin I don't like. It is a "I do it all alone" class.
Good points, all. I think that is one of the aspects of the Assassin I don't like. It is a "I do it all alone" class.
Based on you preconceived notions of the name. Not on any actual data or information.
No you're wrong. No class i needed beyond Fighting-Man, Mage and Priest. MMaybe we can add Thief later or maybe just make elves and dwarves there own classes, but that's it. :P
Just eliminate classes and races and just stare at each other drooling while holding a Mountain Dew?
Just eliminate classes and races and just stare at each other drooling while holding a Mountain Dew?
Mountain Dew isn't needed if you already have Diet Coke. I mean sure its a different brand and a different type of soda, but its still soda. Besides Mountain Dew's name implies that there will be mountains or maybe dew involved.
Mountain Dew isn't needed if you already have Diet Coke. I mean sure its a different brand and a different type of soda, but its still soda. Besides Mountain Dew's name implies that there will be mountains or maybe dew involved.
No... we gamers are the reason Mountain Dew has persisted so strong
The only (non-mechanical processes) things I need in D&D for me to feel like I am playing D&D are:
* Fighter, Cleric, Wizard/Magic-User, and Rogue/Thief
* Human, Elf, Dwarf and Halfling
As long as those core components are present, it'll feel like D&D.
Everything else is an add on.
Regardless, who cares if the assassin is 'necessary'? We don't even know what the assassin really is, yet. How can we assess anything about whether it makes a reasonable addition to the game.
No... we gamers are the reason Mountain Dew has persisted so strong
:P
Not to hijack the thread too much further, but I actually don't like generic Mountain Dew. I do however, like the Voltage and LiveWire. Also why don't they sell Baja Blast in cans and bottles? Why does Taco Bell get all the love?
:P
Mountain Dew throwback rules.
Not unwanted, but doomed for disappointment for what is expected.
BY WHOM? Seriously dude, you keep saying that people are expecting things from an assassin (like one-hit kills, an anti-party loner, etc), but no one but imaginary people you think exist want these things.
Everyone is expecting something that is different than the Rogue somehow. I expect a renamed Rogue with Renamed powers and an added damage striker power that doesn't count on flanking/Combat Advantage in place of Sneak Attack.
I don't. I'd put 200 bucks that it won't be a renamed Rogue with renamed powers. You game? I'm guessing not, since no logical person could actually think what you just said about WotC putting out a new class (i.e. rehashing an old one).
We have very little information on the assasin class (name and that it will be a new power source) so all we are forced to go on is our personal feelings and opinions. We view what will come in the future based on our experiences with what has come in the past.
There are some people who are quite pessimistic about the assassin class and the place it will occupy within 4E. There are others who are optimisitic, while there are still others who are taking a wait-and-see approach to this whole thing. I would ask everybody involved in this to take a step back. If you disagree with other people, please do so politely.
*takes his payment of 500 gold and sneaks into the thread and eliminated his target. Sneaking away before he can be seen to go back to his solitary lair deep in the Swamp of Despair where he puts pins in dolls of all the different races*
By default, no class has a personality attached to it.
...
Classes do not have basic, underlying philosophies beyond things like their role and powers. It is up to the player to determine whether or not his character is heroic or not.
Exactly, I was going to post the same thing but was having difficulty deciding where to begin.
When it comes down to it the name of a D&D class is just a name. It's just a name for a role, a collection of powers and some skills and abilities that promote a general style of combat. All the rest - such as the character's motivation or attitude towards the world (and the party) - is all added by the player. Some players may use this as an excuse to be a jerk but it's not the fault of the class; it's the player.
After all, anyone can take the Thievery skill now but just having the skill doesn't mean you have to steal. Similarly any group can decide to assassinate someone for a variety of reasons. When a group plans a way to kill the evil necromancer tyrant who's been attacking the peaceful kingdom they're planning an assassination. Their motivations may differ hugely; they may be doing so because they're noble heroes endangering themselves to protect the innocent or because they're in the line of fire and have no real choice or because they're amoral blades for hire or... well, the possibilities are endless. All this is regardless of class.
The biggest backstab one of my parties ever suffered was from a wizard who sold us out for promises of power back in 2e but we just don't do that sort of stuff anymore, it's not fun and there's no reason why a party would continue to tolerate someone who was working against them (and Insight should give you a heads up on someone who was intending on betraying the party).
If Rogues can be good heroes or trained agents who selflessly work to protect people then why can't someone whose class entry says "Assassin" also be?
Perhaps this new DDi version will be tempered down, and it will only be Assassin in name.
The Assassin is more readily abused by Munchkin players than any other class. It gives a player the tools to be more disruptive and go outside of what the DM has prepared.
Perhaps this new DDi version will be tempered down, and it will only be Assassin in name.
You seem to be missing the point that myself and a few others are trying to make; any class can be abused; munchy-kins are more an issue than any class ;).
The few 1st edition games I ever played, 'thieves' were the problem (not assassins), turkeys who steal from other PCs. Not fun, but that doesn't mean that rogues have no place in our games.
The guy playing the assassin considered his PC a 'bad ass mo-fo' and pretty much let the rest of us be ;). I didn't have a problem with that guy but the first guy drove me nuts. I was a bit less mature as a teen, but even then, I would rather take a hike than have a fist-fight over a game. It was definitely a player, not a class problem; the problem being: He read too much into a simple name. A short time later, the same damn thing happened again (with another group) and I walked on that game as well (never went back to 1st edition after those few games).
If all else fails, overlook the class completely; should be easy enough, especially for non-subscribers; assassin is a niche class if there ever was one. Or is that not an option? If so, why not?
The Assassin is more readily abused by Munchkin players than any other class. It gives a player the tools to be more disruptive and go outside of what the DM has prepared.
Perhaps this new DDi version will be tempered down, and it will only be Assassin in name.
Give me one example of how the Assassin Prc in 3.5 is true to that statement (it gives a player the tools to be more disruptive and go outside of what the DM has prepared). I will stop arguing if you can convince me, and I promise I will seriously think it through.
The Assassin I talk of is the slimey, arrogant, selfish people that you see in the Discworld novels.
Have you actually read any of the Discworld novels all the way through? Lord Vetinari was trained by the Assassin's Guild, was instrumental in overthrowing evil Lord Winder (the man died of fright when Vetinari drew his rapier to kill him), singlehandedly saved the life of Commander Vimes, and was an immense aid to the members of the Watch in the final fight against the evil Cable Street Particulars. And while generally considered to be a tyrant, most of the stories about his wicked deeds amount to little more than rumor (his tendency to execute mimes and street artists have made him extremely popular). He was instrumental in stopping a war between his city and Klatch (after being deposed from his position of Patrician) that would have killed thousands with careful diplomacy. His actions in the City Watch and Lipwig books show him to be a calm and calculating man who has turned his vast intellect and understanding of espionage and secrecy towards the goal of smoothly transforming Ankh-Morpoark from a seething pot of barely controlled anarchy, violence, ****, murder, etc into a hub of economy, new technology, and has a police force that is envied and emulated by every city in the Plains.
As for the Assassin's Guild, characters like Mr. Teatime are vastly aberrant individuals (and are remarked to be such in the books). The Guild prides itself on its code of honor: Give the target a chance to survive, take no contracts on someone incapable of defending themselves, harm no bystanders.
The Assassin's Guild is also headed by Lord Downey who, although being perhaps the Disc's most skilled poisoner, is a remarkably kind individual known for his generosity towards children and small dogs (frequently giving Gaspode the WonderDog peppermints).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Downey.jpg
Then there's Prince Pteppic, crown prince of Djelibeybi who trained in the Assassin's Guild and used the skills he learned there to be an effective and intentionally non-lethal warrior, allowing him to save his country and perhaps the whole Disc from certain doom.
Then there's 71-hour-Ahmed (copied from Wiki beause I haven't read Jingo in a while): A Klatchian warrior who accompanies the Klatchian envoy Prince Khufurah on a diplomatic journey to Ankh-Morpork in the novel Jingo. He speaks with a heavy accent and has a penchant for chewing on cloves. Following an attempt on the prince's life by an unknown assassin, he is suspected of killing the Watch's prime suspect, provoking Vimes and other Watch members to pursue him back to Klatch (Particularly after he captures Angua in werewolf form).
Apart from belonging to a vicious but honorable warrior clan known as the D'regs, he is later revealed to be a Klatchian equivalent of a watchman on par with Vimes. It also turns out his obsessive clove-chewing and broken Morporkian are in fact a disguise meant to delude foreigners into falsely assuming he is nothing but an uncivilized barbarian. Like many privileged foreigners, he was sent to the Assassins' Guild as a child on the assumption that he would get an excellent education. He confounds Vimes by his fond memories of Ankh-Morpork, and even Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler. He and Vimes eventually develop a wary respect for each other, mostly based on both of them being basically-honest cops in unenviable positions.
He got his nickname after killing a man (guilty of poisoning a well, and killing a number of villagers and very valuable camels) one hour before the traditional D'reg three days of hospitality, during which even your greatest enemy should be shown respect, would have run out.
Your argument about how assassins work in real life is invalid as well. Just because in real life (read: pop culture) assasins are evil bastards who kill for money DOESN'T mean they are in real life. DnD classes bear only the most passing resemblance to their real-life counterparts.
In real life, Clerics are guys who wear dresses and funny hats and don't have sex. In DnD, they run around in chain mail blasting zombies with lances of radiant lazerness.
In real life, Druids are guys in dresses and funny hats (when they're not running around naked and having tons of sex) who make giant stone calendars and worship the sun. In DnD, they're protectors of the prime material plane who transform into powerful beasts and summon the elemental fury of nature against their foes.
In real life, a Warlock is a guy in a cape with a funny hairdo who looks a lot like Dracula. In DnD they're individuals who make pacts with amoral/evil eldritch beings of unimaginable power in order to tap into the latent energies of the universe.
In real life, a warlord is a despicable title for a bloodthirsty leader of an army. In DnD they heal people by shouting at them
Why couldn't assassins be vastly different from your rigid, narrow, and wholly innacurate view of what they do?
The Assassin is more readily abused by Munchkin players than any other class.
Uh, actually, that was Cleric and Druid in 3rd/3.5th edition. No munchkin player worth their salt even touched the incredibly weak and underpowered Assassin PrC.
It gives a player the tools to be more disruptive and go outside of what the DM has prepared.
Not as much as a Paladin.
Perhaps this new DDi version will be tempered down, and it will only be Assassin in name.
To be honest, your definition of "Assassin" is "Assassin in name" only.
Why couldn't assassins be vastly different from your rigid, narrow, and wholly innacurate view of what they do?
The answer to your question is contained in the question itself.
The answer to your question is contained in the question itself.
It was a rhetorical question ;)
It was a rhetorical question ;)
Yeah, I figured. ;)
Have you actually read any of the Discworld novels all the way through? *Snip of some very good references*
Vetinari has moved beyond the simple particulars of Assassination. He had use some of his skills when he was younger to save Vimes when he was pushed back in time, but to say that he is a full Assassin is stretching things a bit. He was taught at the Assassin's Guild, but is no longer a member. He uses what he has learned to run the city, and is never one to stop learning new lessons.
There are more examples than Mr Tee Ah Time Ee. He is just the longest lived.
The code is more of a guideline, not steadfast rules. Of course, the Guild support would be lax for those that go to far...
Pteppic went to the school, but did not have the lack of morals to actually become a true assassin.
Mr 71 hour Ahmed went to the guild to learn skills, not to become an assassin, which he is clearly not.
The Assassin's Guild is an exclusive school that has the best teachings of the world, but not all the students become Assassins. Some don't even survive the school.
Some amusing comparisons at the end there, kudos.
The fantasy trope Assassin that has typically been in the D&D books in the past are broken, even the PrC in the last edition, though it was basically an NPC class (Alignment restrictions of any kind is a bad rule).
I hope that the new write up goes past this trope without turning into a souped up Rogue or a Ninja lite. I don't think it is gonna happen.
The fantasy trope Assassin that has typically been in the D&D books in the past are broken, even the PrC in the last edition, though it was basically an NPC class (Alignment restrictions of any kind is a bad rule).
i don't understand what made the 3.5 PrC broken...could you please tell me. I had 2 diffrent PCs use it and never found them to be even onpar let alone ahead of the spellcasters...
i don't understand what made the 3.5 PrC broken...could you please tell me. I had 2 diffrent PCs use it and never found them to be even onpar let alone ahead of the spellcasters...
Insta-kill. The previous edition was tolerable, but the Death Attack, with all the restrictions and complicated study, is still a broken power. That a Rogue could get another D6 to his sneak when combined with the Assassin was another stickler.
It also was an "Non Good" or "Evil only" in 3.0, making it a Non Player Character class in my mind.
Downey is quite unarguably an assassin, and has been shown to be a kind and caring individual.
Both individuals are good, and both can be assassins.
The others, as graduates of the Assassin's guild, are for all official purposes Assassins.
Plus, no insta-kills in 4e except for with minions. It's been unoficially confirmed that the Assassin will be something like a weapon-using darklock.
Vetinari is certainly a full assassin, he Took the Black and inhumed the Patrician, and it has been alluded that he has taken the lives of several other people for money.
Downey is quite unarguably an assassin, and has been shown to be a kind and caring individual.
Both individuals are good, and both can be assassins.
The others, as graduates of the Assassin's guild, are for all official purposes Assassins.
Plus, no insta-kills in 4e except for with minions. It's been unoficially confirmed that the Assassin will be something like a weapon-using darklock.
You misunderstand. They may have the skills and used them on occasion, but have not made a living at the profession. Lord Downey is an administrater, and keeps up with the trade as a defense against eager students. Vetinari has done the exact same thing that a Vimes had down years before, with flare. He also has moved on from the teachings in the Guild to assassinate something else, the idea of a King in Anke Morpork. The skills that they have learned need not be from an Assassin specific class. Though Lord Downey does consider himself an Assassin, he is not "in the field." There are Assassins that seem like your best buddy, that knife in your back? Oh, my, how did that get there?
Insta-kill. The previous edition was tolerable, but the Death Attack, with all the restrictions and complicated study, is still a broken power. That a Rogue could get another D6 to his sneak when combined with the Assassin was another stickler.
It also was an "Non Good" or "Evil only" in 3.0, making it a Non Player Character class in my mind.
Ok, so if it's in your mind, stop stating it like it's objective fact. "The Assassin breaks up parties." No, it breaks up your parties. Several people here have commented that the Paladin does this far more often. "The Assassin is broken mechanically." No, it was actually one of the weakest PrCs in the DMG, and the DMG PrCs are the weakest of the 3.5 PrCs. Ask anyone who used to frequent the Character Optimization boards. "The Assassin is anti-traditional D&D." Anti-your conception of traditional D&D, which, based on the responses to this thread, is not a majority opinion, or even a strong minority. "The Assassin is ." Actually, like any class in D&D, there is an infinite amount of imagination that can be applied. Your "this is what it is, and nothing else is possible" attitude is far more "anti-traditional D&D" (and, indeed, anti-the concept of role playing games) than your perceived opinion of the Assassin. Which is to say, in a game of imagination, restricting your mind to one, rigid, static opinion of story and fluff is the antithesis of using the depth and breadth of human imagination to craft a story or a character.
You misunderstand. They may have the skills and used them on occasion, but have not made a living at the profession. Lord Downey is an administrater, and keeps up with the trade as a defense against eager students. Vetinari has done the exact same thing that a Vimes had down years before, with flare. He also has moved on from the teachings in the Guild to assassinate something else, the idea of a King in Anke Morpork. The skills that they have learned need not be from an Assassin specific class. Though Lord Downey does consider himself an Assassin, he is not "in the field." There are Assassins that seem like your best buddy, that knife in your back? Oh, my, how did that get there?
And there is nothing saying that a PC must call himself an assassin to take the assassin class. Classes are just fighting style with a loose amount of fluff tieing them together. The assassin class will just be a fighting style that works well for assassinations(leaves little evidence, quick escapes, and blending in are some of the traits it could have) that has a fluff tie to manipulating shadows. That doesn't mean that the character in game has to call himself an assassin.
And there is nothing saying that a PC must call himself an assassin to take the assassin class. Classes are just fighting style with a loose amount of fluff tieing them together. The assassin class will just be a fighting style that works well for assassinations(leaves little evidence, quick escapes, and blending in are some of the traits it could have) that has a fluff tie to manipulating shadows. That doesn't mean that the character in game has to call himself an assassin.
Hopefully, the class would be written to where this is true... it hasn't been in the past. As I have posted before, I have my doubts.
You misunderstand. They may have the skills and used them on occasion, but have not made a living at the profession. Lord Downey is an administrater, and keeps up with the trade as a defense against eager students. Vetinari has done the exact same thing that a Vimes had down years before, with flare. He also has moved on from the teachings in the Guild to assassinate something else, the idea of a King in Anke Morpork. The skills that they have learned need not be from an Assassin specific class. Though Lord Downey does consider himself an Assassin, he is not "in the field." There are Assassins that seem like your best buddy, that knife in your back? Oh, my, how did that get there?
They made a living with those skills for quite a while, Downey in particular. I'm not sure what you're saying about Downey 'defending himself against eager students', but if you're talking about him being assassinated then Downey has no fear of that. Assassins are not allowed to assassinate guild members (See Gaspode's comment about Downey's relationship with Lord Cruces, the then-head of the Assassin's Guild, in Feet of Clay). The only group on Ankh Morpoark who habitually use assassination as a means of promotion are the wizards, and Archchancellor Ridcully put a stop to all that nonsense.
As for Vetinari's actions against the idea of a king... WHAT? I've read all the discworld books multiple times, and that's just not anywhere in the books. Vetinari's chief goal in life is to drag his city kicking and screaming into the future and create a system in the city that works. If he wanted the idea of a king killed, all he'd have to do is have Carrot assassinated. He's relied on the well-known fact that Carrot is the heir several times, most notably when he grants Vimes the title of Duke of Ankh.
Anyways, there are assassins who are evil slimy men (Entreri, Cranberry, Teatime) and there are assassins who are respectable and are either unarguably good or serve highly noble causes (Altair, Vetinari, and almost EVERY pop-culture ninja ever made.)
Plus this is 4e, almost all the preconceived notions from earlier editions that weighed the system down, were unbalanced, or just plain not fun have been chucked out the window! The fact that Assassins have been unbalanced in the past has no bearing, if anything it's an argument in favor of them being beautifully balanced or perhaps underpowered in 4e!
Wizards, Druids, and Clerics were insanely overpowered in 3.5 at high levels and now they mesh beautifully with the entire system and don't step on the toes of any other class (if anything, Wizards are perhaps a wee bit underpowered).
Hopefully, the class would be written to where this is true... it hasn't been in the past. As I have posted before, I have my doubts.
That's the entire POINT of 4e, being able to vary from preconceived notions of your class. The Barbarian class can be a martial artist who channels the power of ancient spirits to shift from one fighting style to another (instead of a rage). Instead of a rogue being a thief who steals from everybody, he can be a swashbuckling fencer! The paladin doesn't have to be a raging religious fanatic who tries to kill everyone who seems even the least bit evil, he can be a humble and soft-spoken evangelist who hands out religious pamphlets in the streets and uses violence only as a last resort!
It's part of the entire design philosophy behind 4e. The devs aren't going to spend years developing this kind of system, and then ram a stick in 4e's proverbial spokes by making the Assassin class have as a prerequisite "Must kill people for money and be a nasty meanhearted bastard who screws over his allies anytime the slightest gain is presented or be an emo kid."
This class is going to be a shadow-magic-using class for certain. Why couldn't someone create an assassin like Shikamaru Nara, from Naruto? Why couldn't he use the tools and powers of the shadowfell to be a holy assassin for the raven queen, hunting down and slaying the undead?
You've got your mind stuck in 3.5. As they say in the Discworld, welcome to the Century of the Fruit Bat. 4e is a new game, with a new philosophy, and the old rules no longer apply (especially if the DM doesn't want them to).
Vetenari took down a power hungry, insane leader of a city, one that had been a deterrent for the city for some time. A Vimes long in the past (this is referenced several time in the Watch books) beheaded a king, a power hungry, insane leader that had been a deterrent for the city for some time.
The parallels isn't lost, I hope.
Lord Downy has retired, then, a successful Assassin that is kind to children and puppies to remind him of the morals he had so much ignored in his early life.
Indeed, the Assassin has been overpowered in the past, more so in first edition, I think. Perhaps a balanced Assassin class will be made. It still isn't needed for this new edition, however.
Ok, so now we're getting somewhere. You acknowledge that balance with Assassins hasn't been an issue for several editions now. So, pushing that point aside, what are your reasons for Assassin being "not needed" in this new edition?
Indeed, the Assassin has been overpowered in the past, more so in first edition, I think. Perhaps a balanced Assassin class will be made. It still isn't needed for this new edition, however.
On that, I agree with you. Neither is the Barbarian, Cleric, Paladin, Rogue, Fighter, Ranger, Swordmage, Spellscarred, Garrote Multiclass, or any other class option whatsoever. Wizards simply could have made four classes: Leader, Controller, Defender, and Striker, and created a vast array of mix-and-match class features per role and a huge movepool for each type.
The Assassin class has three major reasons for existing.
1) It adds flavor and style. It has the opportunity to make roleplaying more interesting, character concepts more varied, and facilitates new story ideas for DMs.
2) Customers want it. Plenty of people want a shadow class, a shadow-based striker, and an assassin/ninja type class. Wizards would be fools to not provide customers with something they want.
3) It's just plain cool! I mean seriously! A weapon-based class that not only lives in the shadows, but cloathes himself in them and causes them to reach up and bind his foes like the grasping arms of animated minions.
The parallels isn't lost, I hope.
I see the parallels, however it has nothing to do with Vetinari getting rid of the concepts of kings. If anything, he's highly in favor of it. He's quite subtly set up circumstances whereupon Carrot (one of Vetinari's biggest supporters and a man who is completely beloved by all the citizens of the city) will be able to easily take the throne if he should not survive the next assassination (not by the Guild of course, since they no longer take contracts on him) and continue making the city 'work'. Pratchett has even hinted towards this exact scenario happening in a future book, as recorded in Art of Discworld.
You misunderstand. They may have the skills and used them on occasion, but have not made a living at the profession. Lord Downey is an administrater, and keeps up with the trade as a defense against eager students. Vetinari has done the exact same thing that a Vimes had down years before, with flare. He also has moved on from the teachings in the Guild to assassinate something else, the idea of a King in Anke Morpork. The skills that they have learned need not be from an Assassin specific class. Though Lord Downey does consider himself an Assassin, he is not "in the field." There are Assassins that seem like your best buddy, that knife in your back? Oh, my, how did that get there?
So in 4e rules they'd still be an assassin class. The class only defines one's skills/powers not their current 'job'. So someone trained by an Assassin Guild would be an Assassin even if they aren't working as one now. If they're still using the skills learned that would mean they are the class that has those skills (powers). Otherwise they'd be a hybrid or another class and their background as an Assassin would be mere fluff with no mechanical influence on their character and a moot point.
A Wizard character could say they went to an Assassin Guild for training but unless they MC/hybrid as an Assassin then it's just background fluff for the character since they wouldn't have the skills they supposedly learned at the Guild (or they choose not to use them which has the same effect).
So in 4e rules they'd still be an assassin class. The class only defines one's skills/powers not their current 'job'. So someone trained by an Assassin Guild would be an Assassin even if they aren't working as one now. If they're still using the skills learned that would mean they are the class that has those skills (powers). Otherwise they'd be a hybrid or another class and their background as an Assassin would be mere fluff with no mechanical influence on their character and a moot point.
A Wizard character could say they went to an Assassin Guild for training but unless they MC/hybrid as an Assassin then it's just background fluff for the character since they wouldn't have the skills they supposedly learned at the Guild (or they choose not to use them which has the same effect).
My take is that students go there to learn a PP, after already having some skill before hand. The Rogue learning the Shadow Assassin mostly.
My take is that students go there to learn a PP, after already having some skill before hand. The Rogue learning the Shadow Assassin mostly.
NOW you're just making this stuff up. In Pyramids, Prince Ptepic had no proficiency in the skills covered by the Black Syllabus whatsoever.
Hence why he had his friend to back him up during the years of school, and he tried to fail the end test at the beginning of the book.
But he graduated as an incredibly skilled assassin, although without ever killing anybody. He tried to fail the test because the final part of the test was to kill a sleeping (albeit wooden, unbeknownst to him) victim and he didn't want to kill. He managed to pass each part of the examination with fairly high marks.
Plus, I would hardly consider any but a select few of the Discworld characters to be anything close to resembling Paragon level (even fewer approaching Epic).
My take is that students go there to learn a PP, after already having some skill before hand. The Rogue learning the Shadow Assassin mostly.
Your take, yes. But how does your take make it "not needed"?
We have the Paragon Paths already.
So? Between the Paragon Paths for Clerics and Paladins in the Player's Handbook, all the flavour niches that the Avenger and Invoker fill are already basically represented, but exploring it as separate classes provided for completely different class features (which make them distinct and interesting to play) as well as (instead of 3 measly powers for a PP) a full 29 levels worth of powers.
The Fighter PP from Martial Power, Ravager, fills the Barbarian niche, but same as above. More than 3 powers, a unique rage system to separate them from Fighters, etc.
And as for Sorcerors, same as Avengers and Invokers, really. Between the Wizard and Warlock PPs in Arcane Power alone (and especially if toss in the Sorceror-flavoured Spellstorm PP from the PH), there's no point in making a Sorceror class. Except, of course, for having more than 3 powers and unique class features. No two Strikers are alike and no two Arcane classes are alike, so having Sorcerors and Warlocks makes perfect sense when you compare the two classes and see how distinct they are.
So basically, your argument doesn't hold water based on past 4e precedent. Yes, it'll probably be another Striker. Doesn't mean it'll look anything like a Rogue, any more than an Avenger looks anything like a Rogue, or a Barbarian, or a Warlock.
European Style Witch
There are a lot of ways I could do this, here are some that come off the top of my head:
Druid
Druid MC Feylock
Feylock Hexer PP
Feylock MC Druid
Druid MC Wizard
Hybrid Feylock l Druid
Rogue with Ritual Caster and some homebrew curse rituals
A hypothesized Witch class
And you know what these have in common? The fact that none of those combinations mean anything for how the player plays his or her character. None whatsoever. Each of the above class combination fulfills the same basic archetype, but in a different way-which is the beauty of having lots of mechanical options.
The assassin class would provide players with another way of envisioning the a character who fits into the category of "deadly killer who strikes without warning". Now you could do that with a:
Warlock
Rogue
Wizard
Avenger
MC or Hybrid any of these classes together
But each of these would have a differing approach to the same basic idea of someone skilled in the art of stealthy killing. But guess what? Just like the Rogue class entry doesn't have:
Rogues must steal items from their party every 1d4 days.
Next to first strike and sneak attack. Likewise, Assassin's won't have:
You must be an anti-social sociopath or a whiny emo kid with abandonment issues to retain your class abilities
Next to whatever abilities developers choose to give them.
I understand your trepidation, considering the number of classes in 3.5 and earlier editions that had alignment restrictions *cough* Paladin *cough*. But we're looking at the same guys who turned the 3.5 wizard into a balanced class-cut them a little bit of slack.
Furthermore, the abilities that an assassin possesses are something that might be learned by non-assassins. Confused? It's a simple matter of characters not referring to themselves by the name of their class.
"I am but a humble hedge mage"
Now quick, what class is this character? A sorcerer, a wizard who was taught by a mentor who only understood basic magical theory? A warlock who made a pact with a fairy who visited him one night? A non-caster who knows a wide variety or rituals and who uses bluff and alchemical items to cement a reputation as a skilled arcanist?
Likewise, I could have an assassin character who says:
"I am but a shadowblade of my lord Cherval. I have sworn myself to Sehanine beneath the full moon to protect my nation come burning fire or chilling ice."
So what class is this character? Off the top of my head he could be:
A swordmage with the umbiri PP
A Wizard l Rogue hybrid specializing in illusions
A Rogue MC wizard doing the same
An assassin
A Rogue with the Shadow assassin PP
An avenger
That's the wonderful thing about 4th edition classes. More so than ever, flavor is mutable: you don't need to be a divine class to have sworn an oath to a deity, and you don't need to kill people for money if the class section of your character sheet says "Assassin".
It will be a Rogue with powers that are basically the same with different names. Why not use a Rogue instead?
It will? Hey, since you've traveled to September and come back, could you tell me what the New York state lottery numbers for this weekend will be? Appreciate it, thanks.
I agree that a munchkin call for anything that he is wanting is not gonna be as they envision.
You know, "munchkin" is about as close as we come to having a racial slur used only for gamers. It really devalues any argument you make after it. And if I've used it, I include myself in that criticism.
Party in fighting was the worst when players played an Assassin, and this won't change with the new edition. It is an excuse for the munchkin player to steal from other characters and end up causing fights that become to the death.
Funny. That's the exact same thing that happened to me in my very first D&D game in high school. Except that instead of an assassin, it was an off-the-rack 2e rogue doing it.
It is unheroic to kill for money...
Have you thought about playing something besides D&D? Seriously. What the heck do your PCs do in an adventure? You never, ever take "kill the bandits for this reward" quests?
I still have hope that the class will stay safely within the electronic pages of the DDi instead of being put in a PHB in the future. I would think that the right setting (like Grayhawk or Ali Quim) may make use of the class.
So, its completely unnecessary, except in settings where its completely appropriate?
So, its completely unnecessary, except in settings where its completely appropriate?
:heehee
Have you thought about playing something besides D&D? Seriously. What the heck do your PCs do in an adventure? You never, ever take "kill the bandits for this reward" quests?
There might be an expected reward for the capture of the bandits, though the meeting between the deputized adventurers and the bandits may take a more lethal turn. There isn't a contract signed beforehand to take out the leader with additional monies for each head on top of that. Not in my game.
There might be an expected reward for the capture of the bandits, though the meeting between the deputized adventurers and the bandits may take a more lethal turn. There isn't a contract signed beforehand to take out the leader with additional monies for each head on top of that. Not in my game.
That does not always have to be the case with an Assassin either.
There might be an expected reward for the capture of the bandits, though the meeting between the deputized adventurers and the bandits may take a more lethal turn. There isn't a contract signed beforehand to take out the leader with additional monies for each head on top of that. Not in my game.
So far it sounds like a normal game, so the error is still with the definition of assassins and assassination. Please look at my previous post that quotes Wikipedia.
I also asked you a question (or 3) you never answered a page back. The main question was what part of the assassin PrC in 3.5 you thought was overpowered. If you could convince me I will go over on your side and defend your argument.
Insta-kill. The previous edition was tolerable, but the Death Attack, with all the restrictions and complicated study, is still a broken power. That a Rogue could get another D6 to his sneak when combined with the Assassin was another stickler.
It also was an "Non Good" or "Evil only" in 3.0, making it a Non Player Character class in my mind.
There you go.
If that power was any lamer, it'd walk with crutches.
Indeed, but the Wizard had it's own problems. The PrC was there to appease, not actually be used. It still was to powerful, even with the crutches.
Not to anyone with a basic grasp of 3.5's mechanics, as anyone from the CharOp boards'll tell you.
Don't assume you don't like it before you know what's in it.
This logical fallacy is, unfortunately, how thaX lives his life.
The PrC was there to appease, not actually be used. It still was to powerful, even with the crutches.
Okay, I'll tell you what. Show me I'm wrong. Make an assassin with any combination of WotC books you have at any level. Show me how an off-the-rack, single-class wizard or cleric built only from PHB1 isn't more powerful.
Show me how you'd rather have a death attack at 6th level, the earliest for an assassin, than a 4th level cleric with hold person and a large stick.
Show me how at 10th level you'd rather have death attack than a 10th level druid with baleful polymorph.
Show me how at 14th level you'd rather have death attack than a 14th level wizard with finger of death.
Please, please, pretty please, show me how wrong I've been all these years.
Insta-kill. The previous edition was tolerable, but the Death Attack, with all the restrictions and complicated study, is still a broken power. That a Rogue could get another D6 to his sneak when combined with the Assassin was another stickler.
It also was an "Non Good" or "Evil only" in 3.0, making it a Non Player Character class in my mind..
It is only broken if you considder any power that can kill instantly broken. This would include the rules for massive damage, a whole bunch of spells everywhere (not to mention the actually broken holy word line) and so forth. What makes the assassin stand out as broken to these other abilities?
You then continue saying its better because it gets more than a rogue is also meaningless. In CO its usually said that a rogue will do better than an assassin (though I have my personal doubts) because he gain access to rogue special powers. Not only this, but in 3.5 mentality assassin was not supposed to be on par with the rogue, it was supposed to be better (as a PRC). You should compare it to other prestige classes, such as unseen seer, arcane trickster etc. Are they broken too?
By comparing level by level we get to meaningless points such as a Fighter beeing less useful than a ranger because at level 3 the ranger gets endurance but the fighter gets nothing. The rogue gets mroe skills and special abilities.
The alignment issue was the big fail with that class, since it should never have been there. There dragon article about assassins luckily addressed this, and admitted that 3.5 and previous versions did a severe error in labeling the assassin evil. In other words, in 4.0 the assassin will not be evil, because the designers also realized that they thus labeled a lot arguably good people evil (such as army snipers). I am not to be a moral compass or anything, but labeling anyone who kills in cold blood evil is a very strict view on good/evil.
And in 3.5 the assassin class was clearly there to be used, by players. What made you think otherwise? They even released a whole book tailored at playing much nastier things (Cancer-mage anyone...that is VILE).
Okay, I'll tell you what. Show me I'm wrong. Make an assassin with any combination of WotC books you have at any level. Show me how an off-the-rack, single-class wizard or cleric built only from PHB1 isn't more powerful.
Show me how you'd rather have a death attack at 6th level, the earliest for an assassin, than a 4th level cleric with hold person and a large stick.
Show me how at 10th level you'd rather have death attack than a 10th level druid with baleful polymorph.
Show me how at 14th level you'd rather have death attack than a 14th level wizard with finger of death.
Please, please, pretty please, show me how wrong I've been all these years.
But this one time in my game, someone tried to play Pun-Pun, and used Death Attack with an infinite DC after studying every opponent for three rounds through a Time Stop! Assassin is clearly broken.
Show me how you'd rather have a death attack at 6th level, the earliest for an assassin, than a 4th level cleric with hold person and a large stick.
Ok to be fair you can't get the prc till 6th or 7th so lets compair 7 to 7...that way the assassin still has an at will...ok prob more likley once per encounter SoD...the cleric has maybe 3 per day...they have simalar AC, the cleric has the better hp, the assasin prob has the better att/dam in melee...At the very least the assasin at 7th level is deadlier...although that wont last long, by 10th or 11th CoDzilla really comes into his own.
Show me how at 10th level you'd rather have death attack than a 10th level druid with baleful polymorph.
can't...druid hands dow the MOST BROKEN in game...
Show me how at 14th level you'd rather have death attack than a 14th level wizard with finger of death.
It depends are you just a straight wizard, and what do your other spells look like??? wizards are funny they run the gambit from just under Codzilla to weaksauce dependig on the player....
Please, please, pretty please, show me how wrong I've been all these years.
offf hand I would say you have been stacking the deck...
lets make this fair. Core only Clric level 7, Wizard Level 7, Rouge/Ass 7...can you really not see they are atleast close to even...in as close as anynon caster gets to a caster int hat addtion..
let me show you also the default charater my buddy kurt played in almost every game he wasn't a caster in...
Roge3, Ftr2, Ranger2,prcX...when book of 9 swords came out he did sometimes mix swordsage in as well...
offf hand I would say you have been stacking the deck...
lets make this fair. Core only Clric level 7, Wizard Level 7, Rouge/Ass 7...can you really not see they are atleast close to even...in as close as anynon caster gets to a caster int hat addtion..
How the heck am I stacking the deck? A single class Cleric, Wizard, or Druid can do stuff a whole lot worse than what thaX picks on the Assassin for.
thaX insists that no matter what else, Death Attack makes the Assassin unsuitable for players. Its a lame power that you have to go to a PrC to get. There are common spells available to several other classes that do the same thing or better (e.g. at range, two rounds faster, and no attack roll). If that breaks the Assassin, then any class that has full spellcasting progression is broken too, because they all have at least one of those abilities.
Its a lame power that you have to go to a PrC to get. There are common spells available to several other classes that do the same thing or better (e.g. at range, two rounds faster, and no attack roll). If that breaks the Assassin, then any class that has full spellcasting progression is broken too, because they all have at least one of those abilities.
QFT
As opposed to thaX I think the assassin PRC in 3.5 is suited for players and NOT for enemies. Why? Because its not cool when the group is suddenly ambushed by a bunch of things that just kill the group outright (Death attack DC can admittedly be very high if optimized).
Save or die effects are fair in the hand of players (since enemies don't have the same sentimental value), but its not cool to die before combat started.
The Previous Edition did have a lot of save or die effects, and the Wizard (At higher levels) was the worst offender.
Something of this sort will be there for this new Assassin, with either Massive damage with Encounter powers or an exception to the no insta-kill rule. It is like the current political scene. You can see what is happening, but others will keep drinking the kool aid and think it is fine.
This new edition simply does not need this as a fully written class.
As I have mentioned, it wasn't as bad as the previous incarnations. Whether you think the Death Attack was overpowered or a waste of space, it was a point of contention.
The Previous Edition did have a lot of save or die effects, and the Wizard (At higher levels) was the worst offender.
Something of this sort will be there for this new Assassin, with either Massive damage with Encounter powers or an exception to the no insta-kill rule. It is like the current political scene. You can see what is happening, but others will keep drinking the kool aid and think it is fine.
This new edition simply does not need this as a fully written class.
So, you've already gone to September and seen the class then? Sweet, tell me what the lotto numbers are for the next 3 months!
As I have mentioned, it wasn't as bad as the previous incarnations. Whether you think the Death Attack was overpowered or a waste of space, it was a point of contention.
So that I'm clear, you contend that Death Attack makes the Assassin broken, but can't offer a shadow of an example?
Something of this sort will be there for this new Assassin, with either Massive damage with Encounter powers or an exception to the no insta-kill rule.
So you are 100% sure they're going to go 180 degrees against the whole 4e design philosophy and make powers with instant kill effects or damage out of line for their level. You work for WotC? You stole a playtest document? Your adviser at the Psychic Friends Network tipped you off?
This is a class that has not had a very good track record and (as I have mentioned before) is not a good fit for the heroic game play that D&D is centered around.
It is an Assassin.
Ok, this is true.
This is a class that has not had a very good track record
False. Not in general, no. This might be true with you. Judging from this thread, and the thread this discussion started on, it's about 2-3 posters between two threads of dozens of posters, which is about 10% or less. So no, 90% of gamer experience as evidenced by your own thread is that this is not the case.
and (as I have mentioned before) is not a good fit for the heroic game play that D&D is centered around.
And this mention you've done before has been refuted in about three different logical arguments that you don't respond to. In the world of rational debate, that means they win by default, since you can't (or won't) defend your point.
Edit: And, to be clear, repeating your point over and over again doesn't count as defense of the point.
It is an Assassin.
This is a class that has not had a very good track record and (as I have mentioned before) is not a good fit for the heroic game play that D&D is centered around.
Which you have provided absolutely no proof or evidence of. All you're doing is repeating yourself over and over, as if that will somehow make you sound right.
I will most likely see the new Assassin at some point, but it most likely will be a class that really doesn't add anything to the overall product. I hope that it is kept within the DDi.
I think an assassin is much more likely to be taught these things: "Select Your Target Carefully". "Use Stealth", "Minimize Collateral Damage" (or equivalent term). An assassin played this way could very well get along with others (in an effort to get the job done, at the very least).
I think yer stretching here ;).
Disregard their teachings? As in "Kill Other Party Members" or even "Kill 'Em All, Let the Raven Queen sort 'em out" ;). Would that be part of training as an assassin? Seems unlikely to me.
I think an assassin is much more likely to be taught these things: "Select Your Target Carefully". "Use Stealth", "Minimize Collateral Damage" (or equivalent term). An assassin played this way could very well get along with others (in an effort to get the job done, at the very least).
I think yer stretching here ;).
Assassins does not equal Adventurer.
They do not work well in groups, are focused on single targets, and work best in an urban environment.
They tend to be secretive, and doesn't join in discussions much.
Stretching?
I see how it has been played just the same as the dumb, confused Half Orc is done. There are some that have different takes, but the stats and workings will be (And are) as such that the normal take on this will be prevalent.
Assassins does not equal Adventurer.
They do not work well in groups, are focused on single targets, and work best in an urban environment.
They tend to be secretive, and doesn't join in discussions much.
Stretching?
All of those are your opinions and expectations. They do not in any way reflect reality.
I think yer stretching here ;).
He does that... persistently.
There have been some here that has said they played an Assassin class differently, that they can get along with others. If they disregard their teachings and not be an Assassin, that would be true. I believe they played a power upped Rogue, not a true Assassin.
Key phrase highlighted. No one else but you, buddy. Certainly no historical experts on assassins throughout history, and in particular not the original Hashshashin from which the name derives. So, as Journey says, don't stop believin'. But you believing it not only doesn't make it true, it makes it your unique view.
So way to be unique! But the rest of us, who are sheeps to accuracy and imagination, will bow our heads and walk sullenly away from your Paradise of the Closed One-Track Mind.
Assassins does not equal Adventurer.
They do not work well in groups, are focused on single targets, and work best in an urban environment.
They tend to be secretive, and doesn't join in discussions much.
Stretching?
I see how it has been played just the same as the dumb, confused Half Orc is done. There are some that have different takes, but the stats and workings will be (And are) as such that the normal take on this will be prevalent.
Chances are assassins adventure m ore than wizards on average. Wizards seem to spend most of their time in research, while assassins are travelling around the world hunting their targets, whoever that may be.
Look at the definitions of adventurer and assassin and compare. Do you see anything that cannot or co-exist?
Assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure. Assassinations may be prompted by ideological, political, or military reasons. Additionally, assassins may be motivated by financial gain, revenge, personal public recognition, or mental illness.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination)
An adventurer or adventuress is a term that usually takes one of three meanings:
- One whose travels are unusual and often exotic, though not so unique as to qualify as exploration.
- One who lives by their wits.
- One who takes part in a risky or speculative course of action for profit or position.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventurer)
Why do they work best in an urban setting? Do they have anything in their description or abilities that support this statement?
They "may" be secretive. They may also be the opposite, stating blatantly what they are doing, to invoke fear, or just because they don't care. And again, why don't they join in discussions? Of course they do! What course of action a group takes is an assassins highest priority, and he will not let others choose a bad path for him.
The dumb orc is more logical, because they get a minus to certail mental stats, thus making them dumber than average (still not neccisarily very dumb). The assassin have no in-build mechanics that makes him either anti-party, city-delving, speechless, overpowered etc.
Assassins are Adventurerers, since adventurer is someone who puts himself in danger due to some goal.
Please stop saying "Assassins do/are this and that", when that is not an overarching theme for assassins. If you want to say so, you better have some facts or a lot of people behind it, if not its trolling.
Should I start a bunch of threads saying we don't need a fighter class? I could make up most of the same arguments relating to fighters, which would be true to some fighters (likely even more than too assassins)? I could argue that fighters should not be part of D&D because:
- They are not adventurerers, they are soldiers in large armies, and thus unsuitable to adventure (they don't even have spot and listen as class skills!).
- They don't take part in dicussion much, just follow a leader.
- They are low-level and thus will be beaten by wizards (ie. underpowered).
- They and simple minded.
What do you think of this? Do you think this makes any sense? It is exactly the same kind of arguing you are doing throughout this and other threads, except that you also continue stating the same things over and over, even when it is pointed out that some, if not most soldiers are tactically smart, some take on special missions, some grow into higher levels and they are active in discussion when there is no military leader available.
When a point is beaten you have to either say; "ok, that makes sense, thanks for pointing out", or come up with a new and better argument.
You are dancing between the same arguments. If I defute your first argument, you go to the second, when I explain the flaws of it (nr 2) you dance back to argument 1 that was already beaten before. You obviously see that we beat these arguments, but instead of admitting it you belittle it by stating that "some others seem to play against type", when it is obvious when looking at the number of people pro/contra that you are playing against type, not "some others".
Please read this carefully, cause I genuinely want your game to have assassins in the party, so I hope to show you how an assassin would normally be played. The fun thing about assassins is just that they work perfectly in a party, as leader, as scout, as thief, as combatant, magician, you name it. What an assassin is by nature is a perfectionist, because he must be a perfectionist to survive.
The reason I ask this is because I'm trying to understand why you reject the concept of a heroic assassin. Since you clearly don't have a problem with D&D heroes killing, is it the idea of premeditated killing that makes the concept distateful for you? Or is it something else, like having never been exposed to an assassin character you can identify with? Or is at legacy of alignment issues?
Thax, what would you call a character trained to attack from shadows or through subterfuge by a church and given assignments to kill leaders of evil cults, the undead, and demons (in the material plane) but granted no divine magic?
Finally, can anyone else suggest any references like mine above that portray assassins in a heroic light, or highlight assassins working as part of a team? I believe the movie Wanted would apply but I haven't seen it myself.
Good example of that is the [Eberron] Blade of the Flame trilogy.
Jason Bourne is another of those Ex-Assassins.
The concept of 4e classes goes towards a lifelong dedication. The way assassins are used mostly in novels is more like a background. That's part of why I, too, resent the Assassin - It just does not feel complete, flavor-wise. Devoting yourself to contract/conceptual killings is not nearly as fullfilling as any other class.
@cello: The problem with literature examples is, that most of those assassins, while trained as killers, do the heroic stuff either outside of their job, or reverted from their old ways to become not only a killer, but to fight for something bigger than them.
Good example of that is the [Eberron] Blade of the Flame trilogy.
Jason Bourne is another of those Ex-Assassins.
The concept of 4e classes goes towards a lifelong dedication. The way assassins are used mostly in novels is more like a background. That's part of why I, too, resent the Assassin - It just does not feel complete, flavor-wise. Devoting yourself to contract/conceptual killings is not nearly as fullfilling as any other class.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Jason Bourne use the skills he learned as an assassin throughout the entirity of both the movies and the books? His buisness card may not say assassin on it anymore, but he continues to use the skills of an assassin. Therefore since classes represent skills rather than job titles, he would still be the exact same class during the books and movies as he was in the back story.
So basically, being trained by CIA gave him the background why he can do what he does - but in no way is he still acting as before.
Classes do not only represent skills earned in the past. As you level, you learn newer and newer powers from/for your class. It's what you are, not what you once were.
Look at the movie Mr&Mrs. Smith. They are assassins, through and through. However, when in the end they fight against the company, they aren't anymore. They fight for different reasons than before. partially even with different means. It might be OK to say that they still are Assassins, but if they continue like that for years, they certainly are not what they started in the movie.
Yes, he uses skills he has learned previously, but he only wanted to live a normal life. They got back to him, shot his girl, and that's what you get then - an angry ex-assassin. Also, he kills for revenge, and not for any other reason that assassins usually do.
So basically, being trained by CIA gave him the background why he can do what he does - but in no way is he still acting as before.
Classes do not only represent skills earned in the past. As you level, you learn newer and newer powers from/for your class. It's what you are, not what you once were.
Look at the movie Mr&Mrs. Smith. They are assassins, through and through. However, when in the end they fight against the company, they aren't anymore. They fight for different reasons than before. partially even with different means. It might be OK to say that they still are Assassins, but if they continue like that for years, they certainly are not what they started in the movie.
But the point is that Bourne is still fighting as an assassin. He just doesn't advance in level as his assassin skills don't improve. However his class is still asssassin, having a different buisness card does not change that his skills are those of an assassin.
Someone with the fighter class can say he is a warlord. Someone with the Swordmage class can call themselves a paladin. Someone with the paladin class can call themselves a knight, but what they call themselves and what their motivations are does not change the skills that they are using, and the assassin class will be no different. It will give you a skill set associated with "true assassins" however you will not have to kill people for money to continue to advance in the class anymore than the wizard class has to spend all of his time cooped up in a library in order to advance in his arcane studies.
There have been some here that has said they played an Assassin class differently, that they can get along with others. If they disregard their teachings and not be an Assassin, that would be true. I believe they played a power upped Rogue, not a true Assassin.
I will most likely see the new Assassin at some point, but it most likely will be a class that really doesn't add anything to the overall product. I hope that it is kept within the DDi.
You know, taking this logic (and what astounding logic it is) we can apply it to something I personally have (never) wanted to be removed from the listed classes.
And that's the barbarian. We don't need a barbarian, and we don't want a barbarian- who would want a mindles psychopath, who is possessed of the overriding desire to turn us all into meaty giblets. How could such a class possibly add anything new or innovative to D&D? The short answer is that it doesn't.
I mean, oh sure, people go on about their good experiences with the class, but that's just them ignoring the barbarian teachings- if you're not slaughtering everything in sight all the time, you're not a barbarian- you're a souped up fighter. The whole thematics of the barbarian class is that its members are devoted to murdering everything in sight, and never ceasing. They kill, eviscerate, and slash open their enemies- and the whole world's their enemy.
Because, really, who'd want to be friends with a stabitty death machine that's going to be spending as much time mauling you as it will be your enemies?
The answer, is of course, nobody.
So here's me (not) starting my formal petition to get the barbarian class removed from dungeons and dragons. It's just a glorified fighter, and there's no way it could possibly produce a hero without people ignoring all the bararian teachings. And at that point, they're little better then the idiots in 3.5 with their 'multiclassing' and 'two level dips' and that other crap.
I won't stand for such an against-type class to exist in D&D. I, and my many followers (won't) demand that this class is permanently stricken from the player's handbook 2, and all references of it removed from there and martial power. It deserves no less. Furthermore, be that you insist on maintaining it as a class, at the very least restrict it to DDi, so I won't be forced to hear about it.
Moreover, I want you, yes you WotC to (not) send the memory wipe unit to the residence of everyone whose ever even remotely perused a PHB2, and remove the memory of this absolute tripe of a class from their minds.
However, it occurs to me that some people might have even played this game murdering monstrosity- so you'll have to (not) kill them. All. Every last one. It's the only way to be sure that this trash doesn't destroy D&D as we know it.
Life are like a box of chocolates,
You never know what your going to get,
Until you take a freakin' bite
You know, taking this logic (and what astounding logic it is) we can apply it to something I personally have (never) wanted to be removed from the listed classes.
And that's the barbarian. *snip* of parallel of Barbarian as unplayable as the Assassin is.
The Barbarian was the wizard of fighting in the first edition, and extremely under powered in the previous edition, both versions.
I have not taken a real close look at the new version. Thing is, the Barbarian has a history of pride, one of heritage and continuing the ways of a people. The Rage a lot HP factories in the previous edition were not the best envisioned class, but it was a niche that wasn't deluded with later classes toward the end of the edition.
The Assassin, however, has no redeeming qualities.
Yes we get that you see the assassin as nothing but an evil, anti-social, Hannibal Lecter. The rest of the world doesn't see it that way, especially not without actually seeing the class.
I don't recall anyone agreeing with you about the half-orc = dragonborn thing either. Wasn't your whole argument on that that both were 'monster races' so therefore the same? Nevermind that the dragonborn had a different culture and in fact are painted as being primarily good, civilized, and cultured.
I mean even the anti-gnome people can't say much now. The 4e gnome isn't the tinker gnome or David the gnome that they all thought previous edition gnomes were. Heck the half-orc in 4e is like the half-elf, not a bastard race anymore, and not one without a culture of its own. They even hint it's possible the half-orc has no orc blood in them at all and are just named such because of their physical features.
I will give you one point though: evil assassins are likely the way you've painted ALL assassins as being. The rest of the assassins out there (which likely in-game wouldn't call themselves assassins despite their character sheet listing it as their class) are likely quite upset that they're being stereotyped because of the behavior of a subset of those that share their skillset. I mean I've actually met some nice, intelligent, non-inbred, Southerners in my time despite all the rumors about them.
The Barbarian was the wizard of fighting in the first edition, and extremely under powered in the previous edition, both versions.
I have not taken a real close look at the new version. Thing is, the Barbarian has a history of pride, one of heritage and continuing the ways of a people. The Rage a lot HP factories in the previous edition were not the best envisioned class, but it was a niche that wasn't deluded with later classes toward the end of the edition.
The Assassin, however, has no redeeming qualities.
You're applying your own experiences of the barbarian against its type. it has no redeeming qualities at all in the sense of logic you yourself used. To say that it has a history of blah blah blah says that you're taking into account how people play it, and then the next line you go on about how you refuse to take into account how people play the assassin, you gigantic hippocrite.
You keep arguing that the basic concept of the assassin has no place in D&D and should not be a separate class- but to counter my argument, you go on about the more advanced player based conceptualizing, and the like. No. Just no.
If you want to play a warrior that has a history of pride and tradition, you play a fighter. Those be fluff differences. The barbarian has no place in D&D- not now, and not in 1E.
The basic concept of a barbarian is a barbarian- an uneducated brute who knows only that hitting people with his big metal stick is good, and that's all he does all day. Your (personal possessive) experiences with the class DO NOT factor in, because we are not discussing your (personal possessive) experiences, we are discussing the base merits of the idea to exist as a separate class.
And quite frankly it has none.
Using your logic, in any case.
I do think that the Assassin can be played by an experienced role player, but has the potential to be abused by the Munchkins that want it. This is true for any version of the class, from ignoring some class features in the 1st edition to getting the DM to disregard the Alignment restriction for the PrC in the previous edition and doing something different with the Death Attack.
With the classes and structure we have in this new edition, the more experienced Assassin is fully represented with the PP's and this full write up is unneeded.
What is next, the Thug? Mercenary? Spy? Marine?
You're applying your own experiences of the barbarian against its type. it has no redeeming qualities at all in the sense of logic you yourself used. To say that it has a history of blah blah blah says that you're taking into account how people play it, and then the next line you go on about how you refuse to take into account how people play the assassin, you gigantic hippocrite.
You keep arguing that the basic concept of the assassin has no place in D&D and should not be a separate class- but to counter my argument, you go on about the more advanced player based conceptualizing, and the like. No. Just no.
THIS. QFT.
Seriously, the hypocrisy boggles my mind. "Hey, my experiences of people playing Barbarians are not the historical barbarian or dictionary definition of barbarians, but that's cool and I think the class has a place." vs. "Your experiences of people playing Assassins are not the historical assassin or dictionary definition of assassins, but that's not cool and I think the class has no place." is such a ridiculous contradiction of logic, but thaX seems incapable of wrapping his mind around it.
I do think that the Assassin can be played by an experienced role player, but has the potential to be abused by the Munchkins that want it.
Same goes for any class, and in the previous edition, Clerics and Druids far more than Assassins.
This is true for any version of the class, from ignoring some class features in the 1st edition to getting the DM to disregard the Alignment restriction for the PrC in the previous edition and doing something different with the Death Attack.
...so you're basing the class being useless on DMs not following the class properly? THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO, I REPEAT, NOTHING, WITH THE CLASS ITSELF.
Same goes for any class, and in the previous edition, Clerics and Druids far more than Assassins.
...so you're basing the class being useless on DMs not following the class properly? THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO, I REPEAT, NOTHING, WITH THE CLASS ITSELF.
I base it on several factors. The previous write ups of this class and the typical play by munchkins a part of that. The DM scaling back the more abusive qualities shouldn't be a surprise.
I base it on several factors. The previous write ups of this class and the typical play by munchkins a part of that. The DM scaling back the more abusive qualities shouldn't be a surprise.
The previous writeups for the class say nothing about the class being what you say it is, and the "typical" play by munchkins of Clerics and Druids in 3.5 was a far worse abuse. Because the writeups in every previous edition said nothing about them being loners who are anti-social and kill party members, nor did they say anything about exclusively taking contracts for money to kill other people, we can ignore your first point out of hand.
Your second point, as many on this thread have stated multiple times, a) doesn't exist, since the Assassin PrC is one of the weakest PrCs, and Death Attack one of the weakest abilities, in the 3e/3.5 DMG, and the DMG PrCs among the weakest PrCs in 3e/3.5 and b) CORE CLASSES IN THE PH ARE MORE MECHANICALLY BROKEN AND ABUSED BY MUNCHKINS.
So, by your logic (again, ignoring the first point, as it's provable false), Clerics, Wizards and Druids are "not needed".
What is next, the Thug? Mercenary? Spy? Marine?
No, those aren't until PHB: The Pants Edition.
I hear we're getting 'Wizard', 'Fighter', 'Acrobat' and 'Elf' first.
So, by your logic (again, ignoring the first point, as it's provable false), Clerics, Wizards and Druids are "not needed".
These three classes are iconic in the D&D game, and were more balanced in the editions before 3rd. When 3rd edition did away with Racial level class restrictions and the Druid having to go through hoops after 12th level to keep going, they opened a limitless floodgate of multi class and power abuse that made the poor fighter a mere page in comparison. I was satisfied with the PrC NPC write up, a surprise to set loose on heady characters. though not a consideration for PC play. A neat solution.
The PP's in this current edition is a disappointment as they are level dependent, unlike the PrC's (They had Requirements), and only provides a power boost at a few set levels. I talk of all the PP and ED's, not just the Assassin ones. I consider the Assassin PP to be good enough for those that want that sort of thing, but to make a full class on top of having the PP's seems redundant and serves no real purpose.
It isn't needed.
These three classes are iconic in the D&D game, and were more balanced in the editions before 3rd. When 3rd edition did away with Racial level class restrictions and the Druid having to go through hoops after 12th level to keep going, they opened a limitless floodgate of multi class and power abuse that made the poor fighter a mere page in comparison. I was satisfied with the PrC NPC write up, a surprise to set loose on heady characters. though not a consideration for PC play. A neat solution.
It has nothing to do with multiclassing. You clearly don't understand the mechanics of 3.5 at all, since a straight Cleric, 1-20, or a straight Druid, 1-20, no PrCs, no multiclassing, could stomp the crap out of most combos using more than just the Core 3.
The PP's in this current edition is a disappointment as they are level dependent, unlike the PrC's (They had Requirements), and only provides a power boost at a few set levels. I talk of all the PP and ED's, not just the Assassin ones. I consider the Assassin PP to be good enough for those that want that sort of thing, but to make a full class on top of having the PP's seems redundant and serves no real purpose.
It isn't needed.
People have already addressed this point in your thread, and given numerous examples which you have elected not to respond to, which is as good as conceding defeat, so I don't know why you bring up this tired point again and again. If you were to actually address previous rebuttals to this very point, I'd consider it seriously, but at this point you're just a broken record, rehashing a point already defeated by multiple forum-goers on this thread alone.
"A killer, particularly one of a political leader or other public figure; a murderer"
Money isn't even mentioned in there and by that definition all PCs are assassins by definition, do they not murder things (granted they're monsters) and at times kill off the evil town leader or some such? Secondly if you're stuck on the money thing, a bounty hunter easily fits the heroic assassin gig as I said earlier. Third as someone else said, the assassin has its place much as a barbarian does. To make the analogy (thats where you compare things) clear to those who didn't get it. The Barbarian is to the fighter as the assassin is to the rogue. If you accept the barbarian as a class and an entity separate from the fighter and not the assassin from the rogue you are just being thick headed and hypocritical. If you however believe you can refute all three points completely (and the first is hard to ignore) I'd love to hear you try.
Assassins does not equal Adventurer.
They do not work well in groups, are focused on single targets, and work best in an urban environment.
They tend to be secretive, and doesn't join in discussions much.
Stretching?
I see how it has been played just the same as the dumb, confused Half Orc is done. There are some that have different takes, but the stats and workings will be (And are) as such that the normal take on this will be prevalent.
Chances are assassins adventure more than wizards on average. Wizards seem to spend most of their time in research, while assassins are travelling around the world hunting their targets, whoever that may be.
Look at the definitions of adventurer and assassin and compare. Do you see anything that cannot or co-exist?
Assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure. Assassinations may be prompted by ideological, political, or military reasons. Additionally, assassins may be motivated by financial gain, revenge, personal public recognition, or mental illness.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination)
An adventurer or adventuress is a term that usually takes one of three meanings:
- One whose travels are unusual and often exotic, though not so unique as to qualify as exploration.
- One who lives by their wits.
- One who takes part in a risky or speculative course of action for profit or position.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventurer)
Why do they work best in an urban setting? Do they have anything in their description or abilities that support this statement?
They "may" be secretive. They may also be the opposite, stating blatantly what they are doing, to invoke fear, or just because they don't care. And again, why don't they join in discussions? Of course they do! What course of action a group takes is an assassins highest priority, and he will not let others choose a bad path for him.
The dumb orc is more logical, because they get a minus to certail mental stats, thus making them dumber than average (still not neccisarily very dumb). The assassin have no in-build mechanics that makes him either anti-party, city-delving, speechless, overpowered etc.
Assassins are Adventurerers, since adventurer is someone who puts himself in danger due to some goal.
Please stop saying "Assassins do/are this and that", when that is not an overarching theme for assassins. If you want to say so, you better have some facts or a lot of people behind it, if not its trolling.
Should I start a bunch of threads saying we don't need a fighter class? I could make up most of the same arguments relating to fighters, which would be true to some fighters (likely even more than too assassins)? I could argue that fighters should not be part of D&D because:
- They are not adventurerers, they are soldiers in large armies, and thus unsuitable to adventure (they don't even have spot and listen as class skills!).
- They don't take part in dicussion much, just follow a leader.
- They are low-level and thus will be beaten by wizards (ie. underpowered).
- They and simple minded.
What do you think of this? Do you think this makes any sense? It is exactly the same kind of arguing you are doing throughout this and other threads, except that you also continue stating the same things over and over, even when it is pointed out that some, if not most soldiers are tactically smart, some take on special missions, some grow into higher levels and they are active in discussion when there is no military leader available.
When a point is beaten you have to either say; "ok, that makes sense, thanks for pointing out", or come up with a new and better argument.
You are dancing between the same arguments. If I defute your first argument, you go to the second, when I explain the flaws of it (nr 2) you dance back to argument 1 that was already beaten before. You obviously see that we beat these arguments, but instead of admitting it you belittle it by stating that "some others seem to play against type", when it is obvious when looking at the number of people pro/contra that you are playing against type, not "some others".
Please read this carefully, cause I genuinely want your game to have assassins in the party, so I hope to show you how an assassin would normally be played. The fun thing about assassins is just that they work perfectly in a party, as leader, as scout, as thief, as combatant, magician, you name it. What an assassin is by nature is a perfectionist, because he must be a perfectionist to survive.
BONUS: I also want to add one thing regarding barbarians and assassins. If you assassin should be banned because it is already covered via rogue (with daggermaster), then we can just as well ban paladin, barbarian and a host of other classes that can also be built via multiclassing etc. I am not saying that doing this is wrong/bad, but just banning some and leaving others is bad.
/snip
BONUS: I also want to add one thing regarding barbarians and assassins. If you assassin should be banned because it is already covered via rogue (with daggermaster), then we can just as well ban paladin, barbarian and a host of other classes that can also be built via multiclassing etc. I am not saying that doing this is wrong/bad, but just banning some and leaving others is bad.
All well said, I'm glad that I'm not the only open minded person on these boards.
The Assassin as it was in the previous editions simply would not work or be worthwhile in any edition, this one or in the future. The name, though, may be on a class that is more like the "Spy" than the actual Assassin.
Yes, typically, Assassins work in cities, sticking within the alleyways of buildings instead of the wooded paths out in the wilderness. Most work alone, keep secrets, and don't form friendships. This has been the way for the previous editions and is the general makeup for the profession.
Yet, this new edition seems to not have this sort of issue thus far. I have hoped that the class could be written without the back braking mechanics that seem to be the norm for it, or not have it watered down to the point of being Rogue2. Munchkins are gonna be disappointed, but I doubt that there are many of those that posted on this thread.
I hope that it stays in the DDi myself. Perhaps it may make it into Dark Sun Players Guide, or another setting, but not in a PHB.
Perhaps I should say... I don't need this class. I really don't see a reason that anyone else would want it, other than the munchkin overpower want.
I have been looking at this and see that there is some merit to the theme that the Assassin may go into. I hope to god the class does not take the Shadow Dancer's powers and such to do this, as I was hoping the Ninja would have this area.
The Assassin as it was in the previous editions simply would not work or be worthwhile in any edition, this one or in the future. The name, though, may be on a class that is more like the "Spy" than the actual Assassin.
Yes, typically, Assassins work in cities, sticking within the alleyways of buildings instead of the wooded paths out in the wilderness. Most work alone, keep secrets, and don't form friendships. This has been the way for the previous editions and is the general makeup for the profession.
Yet, this new edition seems to not have this sort of issue thus far. I have hoped that the class could be written without the back braking mechanics that seem to be the norm for it, or not have it watered down to the point of being Rogue2. Munchkins are gonna be disappointed, but I doubt that there are many of those that posted on this thread.
I hope that it stays in the DDi myself. Perhaps it may make it into Dark Sun Players Guide, or another setting, but not in a PHB.
Perhaps I should say... I don't need this class. I really don't see a reason that anyone else would want it, other than the munchkin overpower want.
/Shudder
Such ignorance. I don't want to point it out any more, cause I have already adressed every point you made in this post...
I have been looking at this and see that there is some merit to the theme that the Assassin may go into. I hope to god the class does not take the Shadow Dancer's powers and such to do this, as I was hoping the Ninja would have this area.
So what will you do when Ninja turns out to be an Assassin build or PP? ;)
Perhaps I should say... I don't need this class.
There, see, now that's being reasonable.
I really don't see a reason that anyone else would want it, other than the munchkin overpower want.
*shrugs*
The same reason a city boy wants to play a Druid, or a 98 lb weakling wants to play a Barbarian, or an agnostic wants to play a Cleric, or a soldier wants to play a Wizard - to play something different.
Or just because a person finds the concept fascinating.
That said, I can tell from the way your latest post has been written that you're about as tired of this discussion as we are- but also that we've made momentus strides of communication here.
We've gotten right to the heart of the problem, and as I estimated initially, it's both a problem with the thematics- but not just the thematics. It's a problem that's arisen because you haven't had yourself very many good experiences with the thematics. So becoming the jaded worrywort about this was, really, inevitable.
That said, I've seen all sorts of myriad portrayals of assassins- ones that might be rogues who devote themselves to that skillset, but also ones who partake of a shadowy nature, the darkness in creation. They both do the same job- nobody here is denying that. It's merely their means and method that's changing.
I mean, really, what's the difference between a poisoner and a sniper? Both are assassins, but the skillset to accomplish either task is vastly different- I think it'll be the same case with the 'true assassin' class.
I've also got a positive suggestion that might help your outlook on assassins. There's this terrific assassin-centric fantasy novel trilogy by a guy named Brent Weeks. The first book is called 'way of shadows' and details the journey of someone who is quite establishadley and assassin, but one who breaks all the tropes you've experienced. You could even equate each of the three books to a D&D tier.
Moreover, while he starts out as what could be equated as 'just another rogue', it's shown that he was never 'just another rogue' in the later parts of the story. You watch him go from lowly street punk to his glorious epic destiny, and by jove but it is kind of epic. Moreover, he quite definitely is a hero.
I think that, reading it, you might get some sense of what most of the rest of us have experienced when it comes to that concept called 'assassin' and why we'd welcome a class like that on top of 'mere' rogues.
Perhaps I should say... I don't need this class.
Ok, so I know you rehashed all of your old arguments (that have already been defeated soundly by multiple parties, and that you clearly don't read or don't understand), but this alone makes it worth it. Since everything else you said in that post has been stomped, they're all invalid. So all you really said was the above quote.
And for that, I'm glad. Now, hopefully, we can either a) put this thread to rest or b) thaX will take some logic classes, and come back to actually address our rebuttals. I'm fine with either, because one is a relief, and the other is a frakkin' miracle.
Perhaps I should say... I don't need this class.
Ok, this I can understand
I really don't see a reason that anyone else would want it, other than the munchkin overpower want.
This I cannot. First off I have a major issue with the fact that you still assume that because its called an assassin that it therefore must be overpowered before you've even seen a single word of its mechanics. Sure the assassins of the past have been less than well done but none of them were ever intended for player use to begin with. This is a whole different system and an entirely different edition, and I expect it to be on par or a little below the power of the rogue, I highly doubt it will be overpowered. And to state a fact, I want it for the same reason I wanted the barbarian, there is just that bit of a niche the great weapon fighter doesn't fit, there are some niches that the rogue doesn't fit.
I also, as mentioned, hope that the Shadow Dancer isn't absorbed into this class, saving that for the Ninja.
I believe that it will be balanced with the rest of the classes. However, the "Assassin feel" might be the sacrifice. If it ends up being a Rogue2, then those that have mentioned the sameness with all the classes will have an example that will be pretty hard to dispute.
I also, as mentioned, hope that the Shadow Dancer isn't absorbed into this class, saving that for the Ninja.
On this I actually agree with you.
I would much rather they never made an assassin base class, and rather made it into a lot of vivid paragon paths (as opposed to the rubbish called shadow assassin). Why assassins have to be tied to shadow-magic is something I never understood. That is clearly a niche, and not the mainstay.
Ninja "might" be worth a class, but I feel that is also stretching it since the smae result cna well be achieved via rogue/warlock multiclassing (if you want the shadow-things).
If I could hope, I would hope for rogue 2, if only because it is what makes most sense. If we look at waht I expect, then a ninja is more in line with that.
But yes, @thaX and friends: The Ninja and the Asssassin are practically identical thematically.
I think they should just fold assassin and ninja into one class, personally. Eastern/western aside, from the looks of the flavour it's basically identical. Or make Ninja a paragon path for assassin.
But yes, @thaX and friends: The Ninja and the Asssassin are practically identical thematically.
Well, the Ninja have been even more missinterpreted than the assassin with his shadow-mambo-jambo.
"Real life" Ninja: Guy who does shady stuff in Japan (including but not limited to killing).
Real life Assassin: Guy who's primary job is to kill spesific individuals.
Fantasy ninja: Guy who kills people, and who turns invisible, uses his fingers to make people dazed and use exotic weapons. Always high level :embarrass
Fantasy assassin: Evil guy who is super intelligent and who kills people without sweat nor thought. Usually uses a dagger (note the lack of shadow-magic, or magic in general).
As I see it the rogue class fits the assassin picture pretty well, in all ways.
The Ninja seems like a rogue/warlock multiclassed, using some exotic weapon.
Well, the Ninja have been even more missinterpreted than the assassin with his shadow-mambo-jambo.
"Real life" Ninja: Guy who does shady stuff in Japan (including but not limited to killing).
Real life Assassin: Guy who's primary job is to kill spesific individuals.
Fantasy ninja: Guy who kills people, and who turns invisible, uses his fingers to make people dazed and use exotic weapons. Always high level :embarrass
Fantasy assassin: Evil guy who is super intelligent and who kills people without sweat nor thought. Usually uses a dagger (note the lack of shadow-magic, or magic in general).
As I see it the rogue class fits the assassin picture pretty well, in all ways.
The Ninja seems like a rogue/warlock multiclassed, using some exotic weapon.
While I agree with you that what ever they give the assassin could be covered by the rogue with a separate build, currently it does not. The artiful dodger build "I dodge stuff acrobatically." The Aerialist build "I jump around acrobatically." The Brutal Scoundrel "I stab things really hard." The Ruthless Ruffian "I club things really hard." Where is the Silent Stalker more assassin like rogue the "I shoot you or stab you and you still aren't quite sure where I am" character. It could be a rogue build sure (some feature that says if you successfully hit a target while hidden and apply sneak attack damage to the target you remain hidden) but it isn't one yet, and the assassin will probably be basically that.
While I agree with you that what ever they give the assassin could be covered by the rogue with a separate build, currently it does not. The artiful dodger build "I dodge stuff acrobatically." The Aerialist build "I jump around acrobatically." The Brutal Scoundrel "I stab things really hard." The Ruthless Ruffian "I club things really hard." Where is the Silent Stalker more assassin like rogue the "I shoot you or stab you and you still aren't quite sure where I am" character. It could be a rogue build sure (some feature that says if you successfully hit a target while hidden and apply sneak attack damage to the target you remain hidden) but it isn't one yet, and the assassin will probably be basically that.
I agree, but for a different reason. I see all rogue builds as "I shoot you or stab you and you still aren't quite sure where I am", but what I miss is a damage build that keys of charisma or intelligence. An int based rogue build would be plenty assassin for me.
My own character (an assassin) is a dark elf rogue/daggermaster/deadly trickster who goes artful dodger, and who maximize damage potential. It may seem like a strange mix, but when you look at things like the lv 19 daily its rather potent.
I think they should just fold assassin and ninja into one class, personally. Eastern/western aside, from the looks of the flavour it's basically identical. Or make Ninja a paragon path for assassin.
But yes, @thaX and friends: The Ninja and the Assassin are practically identical thematically.
I stand by my assertion that the Assassin is more constrained and narrow than what the Ninja is. I think the Assassin not need to be in the Shadow Power Source, but the Ninja definitely is.
I agree, but for a different reason. I see all rogue builds as "I shoot you or stab you and you still aren't quite sure where I am"
How so? I don't know off hand of any powers or abilities that let a rogue remain hidden after it hits. There are a few off the wall powers in dragon I can think of that let you remain hidden if you miss but they are very very few in number, I can only think of 2, and aren't quite the same.
I would hope that the Assassin does not make it to a PHB.
Well, since it's supposed to be DDi exlcusive, you're probably going to get your wish. :P
Until the halfway point of 4e, when all the DDi exclusives get collected into one hardcover. ;)
Need to assassinate this thread already
I hereby second this motion, all opposed....?
I stand by my assertion that the Assassin is more constrained and narrow than what the Ninja is. I think the Assassin not need to be in the Shadow Power Source, but the Ninja definitely is.
Uhhh...a Ninja is just a Japanese Assassin. So actually, a Ninja is more constrained than what an Assassin is, because it specifies a cultural background (and even more specifically, a national background) to a broader concept of Assassin.
Uhhh...a Ninja is just a Japanese Assassin. So actually, a Ninja is more constrained than what an Assassin is, because it specifies a cultural background (and even more specifically, a national background) to a broader concept of Assassin.
Ninja are more than a mere Assassin, that is just one aspect of their overall theme. It is something that can (once again) be covered with a PP.
Ninja are more than a mere Assassin, that is just one aspect of their overall theme. It is something that can (once again) be covered with a PP.
Ninjas can be covered by a PP, yes. Or an alternate class feature for Assassin, along the lines of the different types of Rage for a Barbarian to emulate different types of Barbarians (the noble savage and the wild savage).
But Assassin, as a base, is what a Ninja is. Assassins in other cultures than Japan operate in a Ninja-like way. The basis of an Assassin is murdering for an ideal or for money. That's what adventurers in general do, but Assassins do it as unobtrusively as possible. Ninjas are no different, they just have cultural context to them. The Assassin as a general concept can have an Arabic Muslim bent (like the original Assassins), or a Japanese bent, or a pre-colonial African bent, or a South American bent...whatever tack you take with it, the possibilities are endless with an Assassin, whereas the possibilities are extremely restricted to one culture with a Ninja or a Samurai or whatever. I totally agree with the Dragon column where they talked about how making oriental classes made as much sense as making western classes. You take a concept, and apply your own flavour to it, maybe make an interchangable mechanic if you want. But ultimately, restrictions on RP make much less sense than more open-ended approaches.
That's one of the reasons I think that a Fighter is a good idea, but not a Samurai, and why I think an Assassin is a good idea, but not a Ninja.
Assassins are not as many as the Ninja were, and are not a group of people that have their own secret society. Ninja mostly killed to keep that society secret as well as vying for power and influence. Ninja did not make money killing people.
So you think that Ninja is just an Assassin from another place? Or that all Assassin's in that place are Ninja?
Assassins are not as many as the Ninja were, and are not a group of people that have their own secret society. Ninja mostly killed to keep that society secret as well as vying for power and influence. Ninja did not make money killing people.
Wow. So, I gather you've never taken a university-level Japanese history course? Because Ninja definitely made money. You're taking romanticized film versions of Ninja, and making that your definition.
That aside, the original Assassins, from which the name is derived, killed for an ideal, not for money (although, as with Ninja, power and influence followed even when money didn't necessarily, which leads to money, but, again, that was the case with Ninja too). And Assassins were a secret society, a group of people who killed for power and influence for their chosen cause.
So basically, Ninjas are more like authentic, actual Assassins than whatever concept you think is what Assassins do.
So you think that Ninja is just an Assassin from another place? Or that all Assassin's in that place are Ninja?
Assassins are not as many as the Ninja were, and are not a group of people that have their own secret society. Ninja mostly killed to keep that society secret as well as vying for power and influence. Ninja did not make money killing people.
You are amazing...
Ninja is just a rogue from a different place (Japan), and they were called Shinobi.
Assassins were definatly more noumerous than Ninjas, as assassin is a global term. Its like saying there are more Soldiers in Japan than there are commando-soldiers in the world (the more limited type of soldiers in the world was intended to reflect assassins as more specialised).
Just as ninjas sometimes (not always) had secret societies, assassins did so to. Ninja made power, influence and money and assassins did the same thing.
Did you know that the Ninja-To didn't exist?
Did you know that Ninja were often Samurai?
Did you know that Ninjas only wore a dark pyjamas when it fit their needs?
Did you know that the dark pyjamas was not black, but rather dark green, red or blue?
I think it would be great if the shadow-source striker was called Ninja instead of assassin, only because Ninja in pop-fantasy sometimes use shadow stuff, while assassins never do that (except for D&D...)
He's just one person bubbling nonsense....
the only good this thread did do is teach me about Shinobi, Assassins (the muslim guys) and Rogues in general ^^'
why do ya'll still argou with ThaX?
He's just one person bubbling nonsense....
the only good this thread did do is teach me about Shinobi, Assassins (the muslim guys) and Rogues in general ^^'
This is what John Stuart Mill talked about. People should be free to voice even obviously incorrect opinions, because it facilitates a greater understanding of knowledge through the clash of truth and error. thaX's error means we all gain truth.