Assassin in DDN

[steeldragons]

I guess the issue is whether they do a mostly magical assassin or a mostly non-magical assassin; either way they will probably upset some people

Exactly what I waas going to say/talk about.

There are "cster" classes/archetypes and "non-caster" class archetypes. The assassin archetype is a non'caster. The argument could be made that the "ninja" archetype could be considered a caster class...sure. But that's something else, not the traditional D&D Assassin Class...that's a Ninja class...or sub-class...or something.

I think the 5e needs to be very careful/clear about [*WARNING* Provocative word ahead! Use caution...in 3...2...1...] "balancing" the classes between those that use magic and those that do not.

And the Assassin (and normal rogue/thief) is one of those that has no reason to have to use/have magic "built in" to their class automatically.

^^ This!

While I enjoy what they did with the 4E assassin, I would prefer it to be an alternate. I'd like the assassin to be a non-magical/non-mystic class as the base and allow for the addition of the over-the-top, wuxia, ninja style aspects of the 4E version as something else, possibly a theme/build option.

This was pretty exactly, also, what I was going to say. If the Assassin is going to be a class in and of itself, then make the "shadowcaster/ninja/magicky assassin" a theme or eventual option/"prestige assassin"(?)

I like my Assassins as martial powered combat rogues. So, technically 1e is my favorite implementation.
-snip-
Basically, when I'm playing an Assassin, I want a warrior that exchanges heavy armor and hp for stealth and dirty combat tricks. I don't care about picking pockets, thieves cant, deciphering languages/magic, bluffing, etc.

Yup, and this. A more martial/combat oriented Rogue. That's the Assassin class. He's gotta sneak. He's gotta hide...even in plain sight. But at the end of the day, he needs to know how to fight...just about anyone. He's gotta be able to take out the target when he gets to it...even if that target is bigger, stronger, a master swordsman, has 10 eyestalks, etc.

So, yeah, I'm throwin' my 2 coppers in for a NON-magicky martially focused Assassin class.

If that makes it the 1e Assassin, then fine. I have no idea how they were done in 3e...and 4e's shadow-teleporting thing way too out there for me to be hard-wired into the class. Incorporating that garrotte use/attack from the (am I getting this right?) Essentials "Executioner" assassin makes a lot of sense though. No shadow magic required to wrap some cheese-wire around someone's neck.

--SD

 

[fuindordm]

And the Assassin (and normal rogue/thief) is one of those that has no reason to have to use/have magic "built in" to their class automatically.

class. He's gotta sneak. He's gotta hide...even in plain sight. But at the end of the day, he needs to know how to fight...just about anyone. He's gotta be able to take out the target when he gets to it...even if that target is bigger, stronger, a master swordsman, has 10 eyestalks, etc.

I totally agree--no magic, and effective in fights. The class shouldn't have the staying power of the fighter, and might easily be overwhelmed by large numbers, but it should shine in short combats and quick takedowns.

The Spy/Assassin also has to be distinct from the fighter/thief. So deadly suprise attacks, improvised/exotic weapons, critical hits are all good for supporting the combat role, but the class needs unique abilities for the non-combat roles.

Class bonuses and tricks for bluff/disguise (e.g. impersonation, improvised disguises, quick change), deciphering script (codes & ciphers), forgery, picking (and putting) pockets, seduction, perfect recall, poison use... all of these support the archetype. It doesn't mean that other classes can't learn these skills, but the spy/assassin should be better at them than any other class.

 

[Serendipity]

Surely James "License to Kill" Bond is an assassin archetype and not just a spy, if anyone is.

Indeed. You wouldn't be the first one to think so either.

"Assassins kill people as the result of orders or directions from someone else. That makes James Bond an assassin, even if he's not evil." Gary Gygax, Dragon # 103

So you're in good company.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I prefer the 1E assassin (or the ultimate: 1/2 orc cleric/assassin!).

The assassin should:

- Have a number of skills in common with the rogue (stealth, disable device)
- Have the ability to disguise him/herself as another race/class
- Have better weapon and armor proficiency and combat ability than the rogue
- Be adept at trap-setting and poison use
- Be nonmagical as a base class, but with class options or multi-classing able to pick up some magical skills

To distinguish from the rogue, I'd restrict trap-setting to the assassin, and not give the assassin a number of the social and knowledge skills the rogue gets. I'd also use different mechanics between the two classes for backstab/sneak attack to keep them thematically different.

 

[the Jester]

I... I can't decide.

I dm 4e, so I haven't played a 4e assassin, but one player had an oassassin for a while (died quick, but that's Dave for ya). She was awesome in play, and I really dug the flavor.

The 3e assassin was cool- you could make all kinds of interesting builds with any class with it, which was awesome- a team of assassins after a pc might be a rogue/assassin, fighter/assassin, sorcerer/assassin and monk/assassin!

But I have to go with 1e, because in one of my favorite pcs back in the day was a ridiculously powerful assassin. Fought and murdered his way to the top, and he was my first pc to break 100,000 gp in wealth at one time.

 

[Tallifer]

No assassins at my table thanks. And no lawful evil clerics either.

 

[gyor]

Perhaps the best way to settle this is vie guilds.

Say ninja guilds for mixing shadow magic with poisons and other assassin abilities like poison, shadowmaster guilds for assassins that heavily use shadow magic, and the hidden guilds for those that focus on non shadow magical assassin abilities.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think the assassin would work best as a theme, and not just for rogues. I don't see why one shouldn't be able to play a fighter assassin or ranger assassin.

 

[Khaalis]

I think the assassin would work best as a theme, and not just for rogues. I don't see why one shouldn't be able to play a fighter assassin or ranger assassin.

This entirely depends on how it is decided to define "assassin".

Is an assassin just someone who kills for a cause (and money counts as a cause)? Then yes it could be a theme that could be applied to anyone.

However, if "assassin" is defined to mean someone specifically trained in infiltration (both physical and social), subterfuge, exploiting the weaknesses of others, and in precise ways to deal death - often unnoticed/untraceable... then yes it can easily support its own class.

 

[Mokona]

As a player of low-magic games, put me down in favor of a no-spell assassin class. With or without poison rules, both are interesting.

What about using the 3e Shadowdancer name for the shadow-spellcasting assassin class?

What makes a spell-less assassin different from a thief? Oh I don't know, by analogy what makes a spell-less ranger different from a fighter? Or what makes a bard different from a multiclass magic-user/thief? There is room for a different take on rogue that is less Thief focused and more Assassin focused without resorting to shadow magic.

I like the idea of a martial assassin (to borrow 4e terminology) and a ninja-esque, magical, shadow-powered assassin. You just need to come up with two names for the separate classes.