Monk or Assassin, Which do you Dislike?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I have problems with both.

In the case of the assassin, why does it even exist? Play a rogue. In 4e there's a rogue "talent" in MP2 that turns a rogue (usually a skirmisher striker) into a lurker striker. I don't even see the point of the assassin class in Heroes of Shadows. It has a few powers that could be transferred directly to a lurker rogue (things about garotting and poison) and there you go, an "assassin"-flavored rogue.

The monk was shockingly poorly-designed in 3.x. It's role was narrow, unclear (Flurry of Blows versus high mobility), and people wanted to play Bruce Lee, who is a defender anyway. The monk in 4e is at least clear, even if you can't do Bruce Lee.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am off the opinion that assassin does not need class support its really a build of rogue.

 

[Bluenose]

Assassin is too much like a Rogue/Thief who learnt a few specialised talents for me to want it to be a specific class. That's why I'm against having it as a class rather than a note attached to some abilities - though I will admit the 4e version does some extra things that justify a different class to Rogue.

Monk has always been done badly in D&D, imo, and until I see a version that actually works well I won't change my opinion that it shouldn't be in the game.

 

[Rune]

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.

Once upon a time, a paladin would have lost his powers for killing an opponent in an unfair fight--which is pretty much what the assassin does (especially the 1e assassin, who was designed as a lurker).

It wasn't killing that was evil--it was how you went about doing it.

 

[Rune]

I have problems with both.

In the case of the assassin, why does it even exist? Play a rogue. In 4e there's a rogue "talent" in MP2 that turns a rogue (usually a skirmisher striker) into a lurker striker. I don't even see the point of the assassin class in Heroes of Shadows. It has a few powers that could be transferred directly to a lurker rogue (things about garotting and poison) and there you go, an "assassin"-flavored rogue.

The monk was shockingly poorly-designed in 3.x. It's role was narrow, unclear (Flurry of Blows versus high mobility), and people wanted to play Bruce Lee, who is a defender anyway. The monk in 4e is at least clear, even if you can't do Bruce Lee.

Not to derail this thread, but my brother and I designed a 4e mobile defender monk for him to play; it uses stances similar to the essentials knight/slayer, and intercepts enemies moving through a range determined by Wis (or Dex--I forget). Then, it provokes a basic attack from the enemy (with the stances and feats, more likely to miss) that the enemy must take if it wants to continue moving. If the enemy misses, the monk gets to make a basic attack vs. the enemy (modified by stance, of course). If this attack is successful, the enemy's movement is stopped, cold. This mechanic is an Opportunity Action, so can happen once per turn. It's pretty awesome in play.

 

[gamerprinter]

I think some of the 'why does assassin' even exist ideas does not look upon what the assassin concept brings to the table - it isn't more 'skirmishy' activity, it is killing an opponent by bypassing the hit point mechanic. Assassinations are killing opponents even with a full set of hit points. No amount of specialized combat maneuvers can get by hit points short of a coup de grace.

Also remember for 3x/PF, assassin is still a prestige class, not a base class.

On the other hand, Pathfinder now has the Ninja, which is the rogue assassin made into a base class concept, though Assassinate is still 10 levels before having access to that class feature. To me the concept of master spy/scout is what a ninja is with assassinations as a secondary role.

Our adventures include a formal assassin's contract that a PC ninja/assassin 'signs' to formally pursue their class concept, and not just be another rogue in the party with some fancy kill ability.

 

[Nagol]

It depends on the campaign.

for most "traditional" D&D campaigns, I don't like either.

As a class Assassin is too focused and should, by rights not be engaged in general dungeon-crawling and treasure collecting; he should be out acquiring contracts and killing people. If we're looking at the abiliities the class offers rather than the role the class should fill then frankly it's a odd version of other prestige classes clumped together with limited value.

The Monk class is a jack-of-al-trades with limited niche protection by doing a particular thing moderately well that everyone else sucks at, but everyone else uses different methods to achieve the same result better.

Assassin can shine in specific campaign styles (civilised anthromorphic-centric with heavy intrigue and/or covert action).

Monks are one of the go-to classes (the other is Bard) for very small player groups where having a couple of JoaTs can be preferable to having two specialists.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

As a class Assassin is too focused and should, by rights not be engaged in general dungeon-crawling and treasure collecting; he should be out acquiring contracts and killing people.

To me that's focusing too much on the name. Just like a Thief PC isn't required to steal, an Assassin PC isn't required to carry out assassinations.(Although I see where you're coming from.)

 

[Rechan]

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".

"Some Guy" happened to be Gary Gygax.

It was in response to the popular David Carradine show "Kung Fu" that was going on in the 70s.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I have no problem with either class. Like Rechan said, I don't know why there's an Assassin class, but I have no problems with it existing, either. I've never DM'd for anybody who wanted to play one.

I loved playing a Monk in the Rise of the Runelords AP before we took a break. Unlike apparently everyone else, I never read the Monk as 'Eastern.' I mean, that's certainly the imagery that Paizo put in the Core Rulebook, but when I read:

"These monks (so called because they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers."

I guess I don't see 'self-taught brawlers' as being specifically an 'Eastern' thing. My Elven Monk had been caught and tortured by Drow and learned to fight back, which lead to him repeatedly punching enemies in the face. There's nothing mechanically different between punching someone in the face three or four times with Flurry of Blows and "Karate chopping" them three or four times with Flurry of Blows.