Monk or Assassin, Which do you Dislike?

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I just took all of the Assassin and Shadowdancer class abilities and made them Rogue Talents in my Pathfinder House Rules. That way you could have a pure Martial Rogue or Assassin from one Rogue class, or you could choose how much Shadow you wanted to build in.

 

[Li Shenron]

I mildly dislike both.

I love the Monk concept in an oriental setting, but I dislike its presence in a western-themed medieval setting, just like I don't like having Paladins in the former. If the setting has to be a mix-mash of both, then the Monk is fine but it cannot be the only asian-themed class, so its status as a core class feels to me like hitting a wrong note. Also, I'm not fully satisfied with the mechanical design of the Monk class in any edition so far.

I'm fine with the concept of Assassin, but I just think it's a bit too narrow to be a base class of its own, I prefer to see it as a mid-level character concept.

 

[steenan]

I have nothing against monks. They are eastern-flavored, but for me D&D has too many historical inconsistencies to be treated as "european" anyway. It's just a fantasy world. Ki-powered martial artists are no better and no worse than spellcasting clerics.

I have a mild dislike of assassin, but it's not because of the class itself. I just dislike how the classes are designed, with no clear indication of whether they indicate abilities, profession, archetype or style; we get a mix of all of these. If we are talking about profession, assasins are fine, but not appropriate for player characters. If it's a set of capabilities, it's just a type of rogue.

 

[Argyle King]

I voted that neither bothers me.


Why the monk doesn't bother me

Not all martial arts come from Asia and/or Oriental countries.

Friar Tuck from the Robin Hood stories could be described as a monk; in some versions of the stories, he is said to have been a skilled pugilist.

I would like for there to be an option for monks in D&D which is less Wire-Fu and more ascetic hand-to-hand combatant, but I can live with the monk being in D&D. I often run games which aren't strictly European.


Assassin

I voted it doesn't bother me. To expand upon that answer, I'll say it doesn't bother me as a concept. I don't really understand it as a core class though. Assassin seems (to me) like it's something better suited as an option for other classes. It does not bother me to have it as a class; I simply feel it makes more sense as an advancement option rather than a core career path.

 

[Jhaelen]

I have a slight dislike for the assassin archetype because of its implied evil alignment and the type of players that are as a consequence attracted by it.

What is a assassin really? The class's concept and powers have changed quite a bit over time. In earlier editions it was closer to a 'Ninja', in 4e we have two very different interpretations, one being a kind of 'Shadowcaster', the other being an infiltrator/poisoner.

Simply changing the class's name would go a long way to remove part of my dislike; changing the 'background fluff' to make it more palatable for a typical party of 'heroes' would get rid of it entirely. It's not actually the bundle of class abilities I dislike, it's the associations the name provokes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I like them both. As always the specifics of the GM's setting should be considered. In some campaigns monks are strictly tied to far east analogues, in others they are present in an otherwise northern european-like region. As long as the GM has an explanation for their presence in the setting, monks work great IMO.

 

[amerigoV]

I picked...Gnomes!

Are the bulimic Dwarves? Are they a weird halfling offshoot? I do not know. Thus, I hate 'em.

 

[Ferrous]

The flavour of the Monk is at odds to the rest of the characters and came about because some guy liked the song "kung fu fighting". If the campaign was pseudo-asian themed then I would not have a problem with them, but you need to restyle the whole setting.

Oh yes and just because the name Monk can be applied to European character it does not mean that this class does a good job of representing them! I don't remember any kung fu action in the "Name of the Rose".

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have a simple algorithm for whether I like a class: are there more things you can do with the addition than you could before without hard coded niche protection?

The monk extends the range of the game - you can do things with a monk you can't do with any other class and it doesn't bend the game double so it's handy for the game. Of course it doesn't fit all settings - but that's setting specific and it's easier to remove a class than add one. And the 1e monk was abysmal.

The assassin on the other hand doesn't normally appear to do anything that a properly specialised rogue or thief can't or shouldn't. It makes a much better kit or build than class. The 1e assassin was a slightly specialised thief. The 3e Assassin was effectively a rogue-by-prestige-class. (That said the pre-essentials 4e assassin as a teleporting smokebombing ninja is something else and it's just a pity about it being mechanically weak; the e-Assassin should just be a collection of rogue powers).

Edit: And the Monk makes a better Assassin than the Assassin. A fast and mobile class that can be made sneaky and kill with its bare hands? That's an assassin.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Personally I like both of them. I really dislike having monks an eastern, kung-fu image (especially if they're named Lo Mein, like my friend's 3.0 Monk) but they fill my desire for a pugilist and it's simple for me to not get hung up on the name and reimagine them as a fantasy brawler.

You know, I think there's room for an unarmed brawler, even in Euro-centric fantasy...

The thing that bugs me about issues with the assassin is: why does it matter...

Both of these deserve XP but apparently you've said too many sensical things because I can't XP either one!