Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6011185" data-attributes="member: 92511">Agreed about the Assassin. It seems odd that the "Thief", who is/was the "Rogue" class since time immemorial should be shuffled off to a scheme, but Assassin is going to be a class of its own...but from the way I've heard it mentioned and referenced in articles and such, it does sound like it is going to get to be it's own class...I, personally, would like if they renamed it and opened it up in concept a bit so that "Assassin" wasn't class...regardless of the popularity of "Assassin's Creed."Make it an "Avenger" - a roguish fighter type (even a roguish paladin if that's the flavor you want to go for), non-magical, think Assassin's Creed or, even, Batman! Diverse skills and decent fighting abilities, possibly wrapped up in a "cause" that they are fighting for. Keep the poison/alchemical knowledge and use, keep the "kill" attack (which could just be a standard "Sneak Attack" with a lil' extra something, like an auto-unconsscious for those who don't want to kill everyone). Add in the specialties for variants (like a shadow-walker/caster/magic assassiny guy, a gadget/tinkerer/refluffed artificer maybe guy, a more acrobat-y/judo-ish/almost monk style fightery guy, etc...) An "Assassin" then, is simply someone who labels themselves as such...an Avenger who kills for cause (most likely cause=money but doesn't have to)...and/or has no moral qualms about killing at all.But then, I also wouldn't mind the Paladin be reskinned as "Champion" (or something) so that the folks that want to argue "Lawful Good/Alignment restrictions" vs. "Paladins should be ALL alignments" vs. "No Alignment in my game at all" and "Deity/religion/divine" versus "Ideal/virtue/vow" flavor can get in on the game...and the "Paladin", then, is just one Champion specialty/variant/package, who must be Lawful Good (or at least Lawful) and fights for her god and temple...and other Champions of other religions or alignments or ideals or vows or whatever are simply called something else/some other "Specialty/variant" that can easily be incorporated.I THOROUGHLY SINCERELY AND WHOLE-HEARTEDLY agree (the use of typed words can not get this across fully enough), that the Barbarian as a Class has seen its day and should be put in its rightful place as a cultural background. A Berserker/Rager fighting style/specialty for Fighters is all that is required since the Barbarian's only shtick was "raging" and what that did for/gave them.Throw in a Barbarian or Tribesman or Savage or Woodsman or any number of other backgrounds should be able to replicate any sort of what was once called a "Barbarian" class. Warlord, also, and I will respectfully disagree with ComradeGull here, is definitely fit for a Specialty and nothing more. I think you could EASILY get the Warlord's leadership traits and "inspiring" flavor  threw a few feat tricks that could easily be wrapped up in a Specialty package or 3 or 4 feats (even the "healing" if you wanted, either through imbuing Temp HP during  a combat - "rallying the troops" - or simply  getting a Healing/Medic skill where they have  mundane healing knowledge to use after or during a combat, also makes flavor sense).In fact, I would say, other than the Ranger and Paladin (who we've already discussed), as they kind of have the "traditional/senority" cards in their corner, MOST Warrior-based classes, PHB1 or not, could be easily relgated to Specialties/Thematic packages: Knight/Cavalier, Barbarian, Warlord, Swordmage, Swashbuckler/Duelist, etc.Moreso, it seems to me than primarily magic-using/caster classes for whom "built-in" flavor (particularly magic/power source and casting/how it is practiced) is/should/needs to be a defining element. I also do not like the Sorcerer flavor [never have] enough to warrant its own class. I know it's a moot point. But I see no reason "spontaneous arcane caster" can't just be a specialty that any Wizard/mage could take.But, in the interest of symmetry and organization, I WOULD like to see the non-magic/non-caster by default classes equal to the caster/magic-user classes.So it would be something like this...which you've all seen some variation of a hundred times by now, I'm sure:Fighter--Ranger -no magic as default. Specialties that allow some.--Champion (ne Paladin) -still "granted/imbued" with certain powers that would be "magical" in nature but no spells/not a caster. Rogue--Avenger (ne Assassin) -no magic as default. Specialties that allow some.--Bard -has magic/spell-knowledge and use but as a secondary (if not tertiary) thing, not a "primary caster".Cleric--DruidMage--Warlock -whose flavor and mechanics I DO consider far and enough away from a Mage/wizard to warrant their own class.So you'd have fair/even options:Non-magical: Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Avenger/AssassinMagical: Cleric, Mage, Druid, Warlock...and the "Kinda in between/magical but not really casters" exceptions to the rule: Champion/Paladin and Bard.Shamans, Monks, Psionics, and whatever else might be wanted...can wait/all come later.That's what I'd like to see/could be happy with, anyway.--SD</blockquote>

Verification