Monk or Assassin, Which do you Dislike?

[the Jester]

Probably the two most controversial of the "traditional" character classes for D&D are the assassin (which until 4e required an evil pc) and the monk (due to its non-Medieval European flavor). Many people have a strong dislike of one or the other (or both).

Which one do you dislike?

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I don't dislike either. I believe they can co-exist in the same party even, depending on the flavor and setting of the campaign.

I don't believe that a Monk is non-medieval, you can have medieval monks pretty easily. I think perhaps a good example is Salvatore's Cleric Quintet and the Monk character of Danica Maupoissant. I felt that Salvatore blended her in very well with a "medieval fantasy" setting.

As far as Assassins go, not all have to be evil even in pre 4E IMHO. I feel that an assassin can be good. Think in the terms of the "Assassin's Creed" video games, you are killing in the name of a greater good, taking out the evil minions of some usurper or BBEG. Not all assassins have to be evil.

 

[Lord Crimson]

I don't dislike either in the least.

Though if I were to point to the one that is least medieval European, it would definitely be the monk (yes, there were monks in the Middle Ages, but they weren't kung-fu monks).

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

About the poll: I lied.

 

[1Mac]

I have problems with evil PCs, but with the Assassin the evil alignment requirement is easily houseruled away.

I also have problems with Far-East character concepts in classic fantasy, and it's harder to houserule or reskin the kung-fu flavor of the monk than it is to handwave an alignment requirement. If I were GMing a Far-East campaign, I wouldn't allow paladins for the same reason.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Damn the monks! Er, um,

 

[the Jester]

As far as Assassins go, not all have to be evil even in pre 4E IMHO.

Well, by the RAW they do.

To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
Alignment: Any evil.

Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal).

I may be wrong about 2e, as I don't have a copy of the Complete Thieves' Handbook to check the kit.

 

[Greg K]

Anyone that has problems with the monk in D&D should read Will Shetterly's Witch Blood.

I don't have a problem per se with the monk in D&D. I just don't like monk we have been given- especially, in 3e.

1. Too many things are prescribed. I would have preferred the 3e monk to have been more customizable (and why is the site telling me that either I am spelling this word wrong or it does not recognize the word?).
2. I don't like automatic immunity. I would have preferred a +10 save bonus in stead.
3. The whole enlightened monk abilities at the mid to upper levels feel more appropriate at mid to high level feel more appropriate to a PrC.

4. After seeing the OA shaman, I would rather have that as the basis.
a. one, I want my default monk more priestly.
a. By changing the spell lists (similar to what was done with the Unearthed Arcana Bard Variants or Urban variant) you can change the flavor to fit divine, nature, or arcane flavoring.
b. With a variant similar to the spell less Paladin and Ranger variants in which one gives up spells for bonus feats giving a list of various feats to be more martial (or more priestly)

As for the assassin, I am not a fan of the shadow magic/power source stuff of 3e and 4e. Other than that, I have no problem with them except that I don't think that they should be default PC class (I feel the same about Infernal and Starpact Warlocks)

 

[Keenberg]

This is a leading question, if not leading and double-barreled, but at least you provided an option for me that allowed me to answer it.

I believe a player should be able to play monk or assassin in any campaign, even if it is medieval-Europe centri/tolkien based/etc, ON THE BASIS that they have a good back story explaining why they are of such a vocation. Perhaps the monk was banished from his lands, and now must travel without a home to regain his piety?

The "assassin issue" is murkier water yet. It is hard in many campaigns to distinguish good from evil, because the alignment system falls victim to a whole lot of relativity and subjectivism. As a PC (yes, PC, not player) put it in one of my "evil" campaigns:

"I'm fuzzy on this whole 'good' and 'evil' things. I believe what I am doing is the best thing to be doing, but you are clearly in opposition to what I strive to achieve. I am therefore to say that you are the evil one, and of course you take me as the villian. Who is more right? Perhaps none of us are."
​

Is a hired blade always doing something evil? It depends on your standpoint. If killing another human is always an evil act, there are many paladins that ought to lose their powers, and most adventurers are evil. So Assassins should have a good back story too. Why did they become assassins? why are they still in the profession? those are the kinds of things that sepearte the malignant adventurers from the vigilantes.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I am not really a fan of either.

The monk does not really fit the rest of the classes in tone, or the rest of the classes don't fit the monk, take your pick.

As for the assassin, it just sounds like an evil class, and I do not like that in my D&D.

But if someone wants to play one, they are welcome to, in my games.