D&D 5E Split the Assassin from the Rogue back into its own class

[Minigiant]

There is a difference between "not caring about mechanics" and seeing mechanics as a means rather than an end in themselves.

My points is that I've never see anyone claim the desire to have fewer classes and then display the mechanics that would give an end which is satisfying to anyone who cares about the archetypes reduced.

I've seen way too many Paladin subclasses that actually don't do anything nor play like their previous versions that I am jaded to the idea until the speaker displays conflicting evidence.

 

[Parmandur]

My points is that I've never see anyone claim the desire to have fewer classes and then display the mechanics that would give an end which is satisfying to anyone who cares about the archetypes reduced.

I've seen way too many Paladin subclasses that actually don't do anything nor play like their previous versions that I am jaded to the idea until the speaker displays conflicting evidence.

Oh, I wouldn't say that it would be satisfying to anyone "who cares about the archetypes reduced." But it would be satisfying to those who value focus. What we have now is an ideal compromise, based on the poll results here.

 

[Minigiant]

Oh, I wouldn't say that it would be satisfying to anyone "who cares about the archetypes reduced." But it would be satisfying to those who value focus. What we have now is an ideal compromise, based on the poll results here.

Based on the responses people don't even want an Assassin in the game and are fine with the subclass because they don't care about it.

I should have added an "Assassin shouldn't even be a subclass" option.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

horrible

You know what, artificer, with a nice coat of refluff-paint, could be an interesting take on the Warlock or Sorcerer. Either by having the class bind spirits/vestiges in items (warlock) or infuses their own magical essence/resonance in an item (sorcerer).

Either would be more interesting than the arcane pseudo-scientific gadgeteer, IMHO.

 

[Parmandur]

Based on the responses people don't even want an Assassin in the game and are fine with the subclass because they don't care about it.

I should have added an "Assassin shouldn't even be a subclass" option.

Kind of reading into that a bit: I haven't really heard any complaints about the Assassin Subclass in the past 8 years. I would wager if you split it thst way "No, the Subclass is just fine" would be the overwhelming favorite.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You know what, artificer, with a nice coat of refluff-paint, could be an interesting take on the Warlock or Sorcerer. Either by having the class bind spirits/vestiges in items (warlock) or infuses their own magical essence/resonance in an item (sorcerer).

Either would be more interesting than the arcane pseudo-scientific gadgeteer, IMHO.

I probably still wouldn't care for it, depending on how well balanced it is, but it would probably be better than the gadget-man class it is now.

 

[Irlo]

Based on the responses people don't even want an Assassin in the game and are fine with the subclass because they don't care about it.

I should have added an "Assassin shouldn't even be a subclass" option.

I think you might be talking about me. I absolutely do NOT want to keep you from having the assassin you want to have. I was just responding to the survey.

Keep in mind that there are maybe two people here who have said anything like this out of your 80+ survey respondants, and I didn't even say I don't want an assassin the game. And I really didn't say that the subclass should not exist. What I don't want are mechanics for instant kills. Your particular vision of what an assassin needs to be revolves around this idea, I think, but it doesn't need to.

An assassin class strong enough to operate in a way you want it to ... effectively, to solo-kill oponents reliably enough to make the risks worthwhile ... doesn't fit into that way I want to play D&D. The assassin subclass as it exists might be weak and could use some tweaks, but I wouldn't say that I don't want it in my game. I get that it might not satisfy a lot of players, but it's not designed to operate on its own.

I mentioned before that I think an assassin class as you imagine it could work very well in a party of one or two. I'm imagining the options for spell-based assassins with stealth and subterfuge magics and a couple of potent attack spells and it seems like a lot of fun.

 

[Minigiant]

Kind of reading into that a bit: I haven't really heard any complaints about the Assassin Subclass in the past 8 years. I would wager if you split it thst way "No, the Subclass is just fine" would be the overwhelming favorite.

More than a couple people stated that the assassin style is "sneak in, kill, slip out" and that it isn't conductive to D&D play. When I stated that this type of PC isn't what I want, the response changed to either that the D&D Assassin is that loner and is bad or that the class idea has no real benefit.

Despite that a Fighter/Rogue class is one of the most requested types of classes on many D&D discussion places.

 

[ad_hoc]

I voted no (other) because I don't want the assassin in the game at all. At best it should be non-core.

The archetype just doesn't fit into the play of the average game. Being an option makes a promise to players that the game is built to work with an assassin character and it isn't.

 

[Minigiant]

I think you might be talking about me. I absolutely do NOT want to keep you from having the assassin you want to have. I was just responding to the survey.

Keep in mind that there are maybe two people here who have said anything like this out of your 80+ survey respondants, and I didn't even say I don't want an assassin the game. And I really didn't say that the subclass should not exist. What I don't want are mechanics for instant kills. Your particular vision of what an assassin needs to be revolves around this idea, I think, but it doesn't need to.

An assassin class strong enough to operate in a way you want it to ... effectively, to solo-kill oponents reliably enough to make the risks worthwhile ... doesn't fit into that way I want to play D&D. The assassin subclass as it exists might be weak and could use some tweaks, but I wouldn't say that I don't want it in my game. I get that it might not satisfy a lot of players, but it's not designed to operate on its own.

I mentioned before that I think an assassin class as you imagine it could work very well in a party of one or two. I'm imagining the options for spell-based assassins with stealth and subterfuge magics and a couple of potent attack spells and it seems like a lot of fun.

I think you are not imagining what I am proposing.

My imagined Assassin class would be instant killing only enemies much weaker than them. Basically replicating a popular house rule of autolkilling mooks and minions. You don't bother counting the damage. You look for 6s and if you roll enough

Basically Turn Undead & Destroy Undead but for anything unlimited times. It wouldn't be applicable to strong does. For those you need to do damage.

My combat core of the class would be the Assassin doing pseudo-manevers when they roll 6s. Knockdowns, stuns, blinds etc. Like the monk but rolling well and only attacking once or twice a turn instead of burning all your K and attacking 3-4 timesi. This is in addition to doing a lot of damage. The second aspect would be Assassin getting a buff at the start of combat that disappears after a few turns. Maybe even getting penalties if the fight goes too long.

Out of combat would have a focus on dis guide and mimicking. Possibly good at languages.