Exclusive Races/Classes in Dragon: Why the Angst?

[Klaus]

I got into a disagreement with my DM and fellow DDI subscriber over September's assassin release. He thought that material of this length should only be released in a book because he learns better when it is presented in that format; I argued that while I originally felt that way, after running an artificer since September using only the Dragon pdf and the Character Builder, I learned that at least for me, it no longer made a difference.

While I do think that some people do learn better from deadtree format, I also think some of the resistance comes from lack of familiarity with using digital format in this way. There's also the argument that DDI-subscriber only content creates haves and have nots, but I think that's largely a false argument since it applies to more than just DDI content.

I too learn better from deadtrees, so I took the Revenant article, re-formatted it to fit A4 pages and printed it out. 6 pages total.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Perhaps the issue is the Assassin class, which was previously in the core books - it seems strange for that to no longer be in a core book.

Cheers

 

[Particle_Man]

Perhaps the issue is the Assassin class, which was previously in the core books - it seems strange for that to no longer be in a core book.

Cheers

Only odd numbered editions of (A)D&D have the Assassin in core. Even numbered editions do not.

It is a little like Star Trek movies.

Mind you, some paragon paths titles have the word "assassin" in them in the phb and phb 2.

 

[Shroomy]

The assassin was only ever in the core books in 1e; I think that using the 3.5e prestige path (which was technically optional) is a false comparison.

 

[Particle_Man]

The assassin was only ever in the core books in 1e; I think that using the 3.5e prestige path (which was technically optional) is a false comparison.

First of all the Assassin prestige class was available right from the 3.0 get-go. It wasn't later added in 3.5, but simply modified (a better spell list, for one thing, and "sorceror" type rules for learning spells, for another).

Second, the DMG is core. It is, in fact, "Core Rulebook II". Thus the assassin was in the core books of 3rd ed. right from the get-go.

Now if you don't like the "prestige" nature of it, I assume you also don't like Bards in 1e, since they were effectively the first "prestige" class (you had to be other classes first before you could be a bard). And the bard was in the 1st ed. player's handbook but was also considered optional (heck, it was in an appendix, like where they stuck the psionics rules).

Oh, and 3rd, the 3rd ed Assassin, like the 1st ed Assassin, had a chance to instantly kill their victim. This was not the case with the Assassins in the Kit books in 2nd ed., (oddly, it did exist in a kit in the Humanoid's handbook that was not called "assassin"). So far as I know, the 4th ed paragon paths in the PHB and PHB II don't have "instakill" abilities, even if they have "assassin" in their name. Well I guess if they hit a minion it dies, but everyone has that ability.

I don't know about the Assassin class in Dragon for 4th ed. though. Does it have a chance to instakill? That would be interesting.

 

[Shroomy]

First of all the Assassin prestige class was available right from the 3.0 get-go. It wasn't later added in 3.5, but simply modified (a better spell list, for one thing, and "sorceror" type rules for learning spells, for another).

Second, the DMG is core. It is, in fact, "Core Rulebook II". Thus the assassin was in the core books of 3rd ed. right from the get-go.

Now if you don't like the "prestige" nature of it, I assume you also don't like Bards in 1e, since they were effectively the first "prestige" class (you had to be other classes first before you could be a bard). And the bard was in the 1st ed. player's handbook but was also considered optional (heck, it was in an appendix, like where they stuck the psionics rules).

Oh, and 3rd, the 3rd ed Assassin, like the 1st ed Assassin, had a chance to instantly kill their victim. This was not the case with the Assassins in the Kit books in 2nd ed., (oddly, it did exist in a kit in the Humanoid's handbook that was not called "assassin"). So far as I know, the 4th ed paragon paths in the PHB and PHB II don't have "instakill" abilities, even if they have "assassin" in their name. Well I guess if they hit a minion it dies, but everyone has that ability.

I don't know about the Assassin class in Dragon for 4th ed. though. Does it have a chance to instakill? That would be interesting.

Sorry, I meant to type 3.x, however, my point was that if you are talking about recent history, IMO its probably best to not compare a 10-level optional prestige class to a PHB base class. The assassin hasn't been a base class for 20 years and since then has appeared in different iterations, in various books, across several editions. At this point, I wouldn't necessarily expect to see it in a core book.

As for instakill, well like "save or die" that's been completely stripped from 4e, so I wouldn't expect to see it in the 4e version of the assassin. Maybe we'll see something that works with the coup de grace rules, but I think it will be a far cry from a death strike power.

 

[Particle_Man]

Technically, all classes were optional in 3rd ed. If the DM decided he didn't like sorcerers, then there were no sorcerers in his game.

 

[slwoyach]

I'd have to disagree.

While there was a lot of good stuff in the 1Ed & 2Ed days, there was just as much garbage. And while there was some power creep in the 3Ed era of Dragon, I found some stuff to be quite well done- the Feats for Soulknives in #341 were not only good & balanced, they were often drafted more efficiently than similar ones that appeared in CompPsi.

Similarly the feats & weapons that got reprinted in DCv1 were also of generally high quality, and were in accord with the Core of the game.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Prior to 3e, most of the text in Dragon was fluff. What crunch there was was usually balanced fairly well. Now character development has fallen over the wayside in favor of builds. DND has gone from about 75% roleplayer-25% powergamer to the reverse, and Dragon reflects that.

 

[slwoyach]

I have to say nothing in my mind has ever couaght up to the awsome sauce that was 92-96 Dragon.

I'd have to agree that was definately the golden age of Dragon. More than that, TSR in general had far better writers then than at any other time. Beautifully thought out game worlds, balanced play, man that was the sweet spot. Nothing against d20, I actually like the 3e core rules far more than 2e, but the quality of the writers was best then.

 

[slwoyach]

It's hard to argue this point when many of the classes that originally appeared in Dragon prior to 3e were generally NPC classes designed around a specific theme/character type. The Plethora of Paladins for example, were meant to be NPCs as were many, many, many of those classes. If you don't have to balance it, such as the ole Duelist and Bounty Hunter, the whole arguement of 'ever balanced well' falls completely apart no?

You do make a good point, at least as far as 1e goes. That wasn't really an issue in the 2e days, which I consider to be Dragons best years, though. However, even in 1ed most of the for PC material was bell balanced (though often goofy.)