Monk or Assassin, Which do you Dislike?

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Yes, I know that's why I said "IMHO", which is my opinion on the matter and how I would handle it. If it was a good party and I was DM'ing the game I wouldn't allow an evil assassin in the group as it would probably lead to intraparty fighting. I'd allow evil assassin in an evil group in an evil campaign, or a good assassin in a good group in a good campaign. I won't argue with you about the RAW, because I do understand that RAW say differently than what I think about the subject matter at hand, but at the same time Gygax himself said things to the contrary of the RAW.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The assassin is such a narrow concept I think it's best represented as some subspecialization of rogue (like a prestige class, or an archetype). But I certainly don't have any problem with it. It's a very intriguing class that's designed for functioning outside of traditional combat, which is always a plus. I don't see all assassins as evil; it rather depends on who you are assassinating and why. Even though it is an implicitly evil class, I still have no problem with that, as there's plenty of support for all alignments out there.

The monk...I don't hate it. The execution in 3e was not good enough. The bottom line is you either have full BAB or you don't. I don't mind the nonwestern background being implied, though I think this stuff tends to be done better when coupled with an appropriate setting.


If I could boot one controversial classic, it would definitely be the paladin.

 

[Rechan]

You know, I think there's room for an unarmed brawler, even in Euro-centric fantasy. Hercules did a lot of unarmed fighting, you have Greco-Roman wrestlers, Beowulf took on Grendel unarmed, etc. The problem comes with the Eastern flavor.

Understand I enjoy Eastern-flavor and kung fu. But, I think that a lot of complaints would be relaxed if it was just an 'unarmed fighter' class, and the monk flavor was an option alongside non-monk options.

I voted 'don't dislike' (AUGH DOUBLE NEGATIVE).

 

[pemerton]

I haven't GMed either in D&D, but have GMed both monks (of various sorts, ranging from pure martial artists to 4e-style psionic monks) and assassins (again, both AD&D-style skill ones and 3E-style magic one) in Rolemaster, and briefly GMed a monk in RQ.

I have not used alignment in an RPG since the mid-80s, so the fact that an assassin must be evil would not have come up in my game.

I think they are fine fantasy PCs. One of my Rolemaster campaigns was set in Greyhawk, and the monk was a refugee from the Scarlet Brotherhood. The other was an Oriental Adventures game.

In the RQ game, the setting was pseudo-Earth, and the monk's backstory involved a trip on a sailing boat from Japan to Holland.

 

[Rechan]

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

Sure, the class is called an assassin, but IMO it's a rare DM that actually gives the PC an assassination contract to carry out. Usually that assassin is in the dungeon with the rest of the PCs stabbing monsters in the face, not shooting kings in the neck with arrows or poisoning nobles' food.

 

[Gilladian]

I dislike both, but for very different reasons, and with differing levels of finality.

Monks I don't like on a flavor basis. They're eastern priests; if I want to play an eastern game, I want to have EVERYONE play eastern characters in an eastern world. I don't want them in my pseudo-medieval world. Sorry.

Assassins (and ninja and all other similar classes) I dislike because of the attitude they bring out in players. They're emo-loners who don't fit into a team of adventurers. Wanna go be a spy and killer of important people for money or politics? Fine, but not on DnD game night. I'll run you a solo campaign at another time.

 

[howandwhy99]

I picked assassin. For me, that's like opting to play a game where the primary goals for your character is to be a better killer. You spy and steal too, but really you want to sneak up on people unawares and make an assassination attack. I get the appeal of "Boom! Head shot", but I'd rather not have people at my table thinking of ways to kill others rather than resolve conflict another way.

 

[M.L. Martin]

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

Sure, the class is called an assassin, but IMO it's a rare DM that actually gives the PC an assassination contract to carry out. Usually that assassin is in the dungeon with the rest of the PCs stabbing monsters in the face, not shooting kings in the neck with arrows or poisoning nobles' food.

Then why make it a distinct class called assassin?

This was part of 2E's reasoning for dropping it, along with the tendency of immature players to take the "I'm a thief, therefore I should steal from other party members" school of thought to the extreme, which apparently turned a few people off to the game. (I know my PC was going to be the victim of this in one session when I was young; I walked out on the session before the actual event took place.)

 

[Rechan]

Then why make it a distinct class called assassin?

Next up on "Why is it called that when it implies x" line of arguments: Barbarian, Fighter.

It's called the Assassin because it's another sneaky-class, but has different mechanics than the rogue, therefore needs a name to differentiate it.

Also, the assassin is a classic trope in most genres.

 

[The Human Target]

I like them both.

A lot.

I prefer my DnD to not be "realistically" Medieval European.

I mean it isn't in the first place, so monks don't bother me anymore than Mind Flayers do.

Assassins are just cool to me. And they have more fantasy fiction support than some of the other classes do, like say the cleric.