Assassin in DDN

[Pheonix0114]

For what its worth, I have never had a player play an assassin at my table except the 4th edition one, and though I thought how the class worked was cool, it always struck me that if a person was able to do what the assassin could (even from level 1) then they should be far more powerful than they were mechanically. I had this same problem with many of the 4e classes, I just felt that their mechanics gave them tools that didn't quite work with their power level as far as my own suspension of disbelief was concerned.

That being said, I propose that assassin be some kind of non magical theme designed for several classes that works more like 2e kits (i.e. lose this and that to gain something else) for Rouges it could be some of their utility, for fighters/paladins it could be heavy armor, for rangers some nature stuff. And then on top of this I would suggest a PrC or Paragon Path or what have you that was only available to those that took the assassin theme that makes you a "Shadow Assassin" or w/e, giving you access to some of the things that defines a magical assassin in fiction, such as invisibility, teleporting through shadows, etc.

 

[outsider]

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.

If an Assassin is just somebody who kills for money, then a Fighter is just somebody who fights. I don't see why one shouldn't be able to play a thief fighter, or a mage fighter.

 

[Sirot]

If an Assassin is just somebody who kills for money, then a Fighter is just somebody who fights. I don't see why one shouldn't be able to play a thief fighter, or a mage fighter.

I agree with this. People are too eager to throw down things they don't like under the theme bus.

 

[Mercule]

If an Assassin is just somebody who kills for money, then a Fighter is just somebody who fights. I don't see why one shouldn't be able to play a thief fighter, or a mage fighter.

To me, it would depend on the class implementation. I bet the shadow-based assassin and executioner in 4e would be a blast to play, and I'm fine with the classes existing. I just don't think I'd call them "assassin".

When I think of an assassin, magic doesn't really factor into the equation. So, I'm having difficulty in defining what would separate an assassin class from a rogue, assuming Disguise stayed some sort of skill. Poison use isn't enough. That could just as easily be a feat or an optional ability in the rogue's list.

That said, it's not like the 1e assassin didn't have any world-specific flavor built into the class. I probably wouldn't have any issue if the 5e assassin had some sort of magic/ritual/shadow ties. I'd be just as happy with a theme/kit that could be applied across classes to give poison use, access to a couple skills, etc.

 

[Savage Wombat]

If an Assassin is just somebody who kills for money, then a Fighter is just somebody who fights. I don't see why one shouldn't be able to play a thief fighter, or a mage fighter.

I've played a wizard thief. He used magic to steal things, and had no thief levels at all. Which is why rogue was an improvement on thief as a class name.

Maybe thief should be a theme then too.

 

[outsider]

When I think of an assassin, magic doesn't really factor into the equation. So, I'm having difficulty in defining what would separate an assassin class from a rogue.

If you assume that the 5e rogue is going to be fairly combat capable, there is no need for an Assassin class(4e didn't really need one). I think that assumption will prove to be incorrect, however. Thus giving the Assassin a niche.

 

[Kzach]

An assassin should be an assassin.

It sounds like it should be obvious and simple and yet few RPG's ever seem to get such an obvious and straightforward concept right. They always seem to want to create a unique snowflake.

Assassins kill people. That's their purpose and function. Any fuss or muss that diverts from that purpose or function is just unnecessary designer trash added primarily to satisfy their egos. Look at me, look at me, I made an 'assassin' that farts rainbows! Wheee!

I think the purest expression of the assassin concept in D&D to date is probably the Executioner, although even then, without a "Strike First, Strike Hard," option it still falls flat. Instead of having that death strike ability that kills a target if it's hit points are below a certain amount, that should be reversed and added to the very first strike made by the assassin against a target.

Assassins also don't just strike from shadows. They often strike in plain sight, without anyone the wiser. Subtlety, misdirection, disguise, poisons... the deadliest assassins in history were often the unlikeliest people to be so, like hand-maidens or kitchen hands.

 

[variant]

5e really needs talent trees. That way you could opt to have either the 1e themed Assassin or the 4e themed one.

 

[Gundark]

I think the best way to handle assassins is to make it a theme available to rogues.

Consider the first edition assassin, and how much it overlapped with thieves.

4e was able to create an assassin that functioned differently from the rogue

 

[Meophist]

Some people earlier talked about doing something similar to the "Colour wheel" from magic with the classes. I'm just trying to think about how this would work.

It would likely be based on the four main classes, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard. So to put it that way...

Martial - Fighter
^
| - Paladin
v
Divine - Cleric
^
| - I don't know what'll go here right now.
v
Roguish - Rogue
^
| - Bard
v
Arcane - Wizard
^
| - The Arcane-using martial guy
v
Martial - Fighter

If there can be classes that takes opposite sides, a Martial-Roguish would be a Ranger. However, thinking about it, the "Roguish" trait combined with anything else could be the assassin. Roguish-Martial could be your more typical archetype, Roguish-Divine could be more like a divine executor archetype, and Roguish-Arcane can be your shadow-magic assassin.

Something like that, anyways.