Should Assassin be theme or class?

[Texicles]

4 classes with 30 themes is 120 possible combinations.

14 classes with 20 themes is 280 possible combinations. I want lots of combinations.

This got me thinking. Deep down, if I were building D&D for me only, I'd have a list of classes that included Paladin and Ranger, excluded Assassin, and I'd have a PHB that was satisfactory to me... but I might not have anyone else to play with, and that makes for a pretty sad game IMO.

I realized that, whether I do or don't like a particular class, or a combination of customizations that make X class look suspiciously like Y class, doesn't matter. If someone wants to play a Cleric that looks, to my eye, like a Paladin, or a Rogue that seems Assassiny, meh.

The more permutations, the more people will get to play what they want. If there's something that the DM/group thinks is a little ridiculous, it can easily be excluded from that game, without exclusion from the game.


My only reservation here is how themes are handled with regard to classes. Maybe I'm just too narrow in my thinking, but I think the core feel of the Fighter runs counter to the Magic-user theme, and that there should be some limits, but maybe that's just the realm of houserules.

 

[erleni]

Class definitely. Plus thenes to make it deeper.

 

[Abstruse]

Class definitely. Plus thenes to make it deeper.

Why?

 

[Remathilis]

Why?

I'm not Erleni, but I'll give it my whirl...

Unlike a classes system, class defines what you bring to the party. Its what you do. Fighters fight. Clerics heal. Rogues sneak. It also defines who you are, to an extent. Paladins fight for a higher purpose. Rangers are guardians of the woods. Druids serve nature. There is a lot more said in the phrase "I'm a ranger" than "I'm a warrior who has naturalist background skills and archery feats". Like alignment, its a shorthand way of saying what to expect; both mechanically and to a less extent, vocationally.

For me, I want as many different vocations as possible. I want stealthy assassins and heroic paladins (though perhaps not on the same team...) I like that druid isn't just some cleric with the nature domain, he's a unique creature with new spells and strange powers who isn't always welcomed by clerical faiths. I want bards with awesome bardsongs and monks who have strange ki-infused powers. I want to say "My guy is a barbarian" and have people know he's got anger issues and tends to prefer heavy weapons and light clothing.

In short, I like lots of classes because I like the idea of summarizing my character thusly: Human Ranger, Chaotic Good. In four words, I've said more about my character than any casual perusal of a character sheet can.

 

[Abstruse]

In short, I like lots of classes because I like the idea of summarizing my character thusly: Human Ranger, Chaotic Good. In four words, I've said more about my character than any casual perusal of a character sheet can.

So what do you say about Human Rogue, Chaotic Neutral? You can't make too many assumptions off that small phrase - cutpurse, burglar, thug, treasure hunter, smuggler, pirate, assassin...all of those can be covered under that description and all of those are very different.

Or the fighter. "Human Fighter, Neutral Good" doesn't exactly say much since that can cover a sword-and-shield heavy armor warrior, a swashbuckling dex-based fighter, a greataxe wielding , an archer, a bare-knuckle boxer.

In fact, with the introduction of themes into the game, my argument is that the more flexible a class, the better it is. The more themes you can put on a class and the more different characters you get, the better. If every theme I stick on a ranger ends up with me in a green cloak hanging out in the woods tracking stuff, hating goblins/orcs/giants/whatever, and having a very loyal pet that can maul someone's face off...why does it need to be a class? If you take every theme possible and stick them on a ranger and come out with something that looks, plays, and feels exactly the same with one one or two differences (my woodland fighter uses a bow, while his woodland fighter uses two swords), then why is it a class when the other classes have so many variations?

 

[IanB]

The more themes you can put on a class and the more different characters you get, the better.

You get more combinations with more classes.

Let me expand on this: you seem to think that a ranger with say, a bandit theme and a ranger with the slayer theme will be less different from each other than two fighters with those two themes. I see no reason to make this assumption.

Scenario 1: rogue ranger assassin and fighter are clases, bandit, slayer and guardian are themes. 12 combinations.
Scenario 2: rogue and fighter are classes, assasin, ranger, bandit, slayer and guardian are themes. 10 combinations.

Scenario 1 gives you more choice in your character building. And that's before we get into multiclassing...

 

[erleni]

The main reason is that I loved the 4e assassin and that one will not simply work as a modified rogue. As Remathilis said a shadow assassin is not simply a shadowy rogue. By the way the D&DN rogue is more a skill-monkey than anything else as far as we can see.
Assassin and Swordsage are really two classes I'd like to see in D&DN.

 

[Abstruse]

You get more combinations with more classes.

Not if they all end up the same. If I have 4 classes (F/W/R/C) and 12 themes (10 random ones plus ranger and paladin) and each one comes up with something different, that's 48 base character builds. If I've got 6 classes (F/W/R/C with ranger and paladin) and 10 themes (same as before but without ranger and paladin), but every paladin comes out looking like a holy knight in shining armor with a magic horsie and every paladin comes out a woodland fighter with a vicious-but-loyal pet who uses either a bow or two weapons, that's only 43 base character builds. So you end up with spending more time and page count on creating them as classes as well as increased complexity and more choices at character generation and you end up with fewer options overall.

Same if the assassin is functionally the same as the rogue with just a few numbers flipped around (bigger HD but less sneak attack but better armor but can't hide quite as well). You have 4 classes and 11 themes (including assassin), you get 44 variations. You have 5 classes (including assassin) and 10 themes, you have 40 variations because applying a theme on the rogue or a theme on the assassin ends up with a build that looks, plays, and feels the same.

Throw all of them together and the 4 classes with 13 themes get you 52 variations. Put them as 7 classes and 10 themes, and you only get 43 variations. And for every class you add that doesn't have enough variety to support different themes producing different build types, you have more waste and the gap becomes larger.

 

[IanB]

Here's where my disconnect with you is: why do you think a sword and shield fighter and a greataxe fighter are more different from each other than a ranger who uses a bow and a ranger who fights with two weapons? I mean literally your examples of all those 'different' fighters are just weapon choice, which is exactly what you use to indicate that rangers aren't different enough from each other!

Further why do you assume that a rogue/slayer and an assassin/slayer would necessarily play identically? We have the 4e assassin (multiple styles even) as something to point at that is emphatically not the same as a rogue.

 

[Abstruse]

Here's where my disconnect with you is: why do you think a sword and shield fighter and a greataxe fighter are more different from each other than a ranger who uses a bow and a ranger who fights with two weapons? I mean literally your examples of all those 'different' fighters are just weapon choice, which is exactly what you use to indicate that rangers aren't different enough from each other!

Because a sword and shield fighter is the guy who may not dish out the most damage but can take a hit and keep going, staying on his feet and protecting his allies. The greataxe fighter is the guy who steps up and beats the crap out of everything without regard for himself. The duelist fighter is pretty much a completely martially-focused rogue, dancing around the fight to find the enemies weaknesses and stepping in to exploit them. Each one plays differently. Also I listed something like five or six different variations of fighter.

Ranger has "guy in the woods who tracks stuff, hates goblins, and has a pet." The only difference is if he's the guy standing in the back playing Legolas or if he's the human ginsu up front with two blades.

The fighter class at its core is "I take this sharp object and use it to poke holes in bad guys." The variations in the class come from exactly how the fighter does that. It's more than just roleplay choice or picking a weapon, it's a fighting style. A samurai, a Spartan soldier, a English archer on the fields of the Battle of Hastings, a Renaissance duelist...these are all fighters. They all have different ways of approaching combat and completely different styles, but they all use martial abilities to stab/slice/bludgeon opponents. Same class, different themes.

What I want to know from the people who are supporting the ranger as a class is how that class can have its definition stretched enough to support that many archetypes - that many character builds - without losing at its core what it is to be a ranger. If being a ranger is only what I said above, you can't stretch that definition except to include two archetypes - archer ranger and two-weapon ranger.

If you think there's more to being a ranger than just that, show me. Show me different variations on the ranger that feel thematically different from one another, but at the same time are still rangers. Tell me exactly what it is to be a ranger in the most basic, simple terms. That's what I want to know, and that's what we should be talking about.

 

[Gryph]

Here's a different take on the question.

On the playtest character sheets it suggests to play without background and theme for a more old school feel. I want to be able to follow that suggestion, play the stripped down core system, and play an assassin (or paladin or ranger) all at the same time.

One of the primary design goals for Next is for groups to be able to play in a style similar to any of the earlier versions of D&D. I would like to be able to, at least sometimes, roll characters in 5 minutes and jump in. To do that the choices for character generation need to be real simple and few in number: Race, Class, Ability Scores, and equipment.

 

[IanB]

Look at all the different ranger types in 4e. The two weapon guy and the archer guy and the beast guy and the essentials guys play differently than each other. Look at the billions of options for Pathfinder rangers. There are lots of ways to fit different things into the ranger "space". I'm not going to whiteboard an entire class design here, especially since it has been done before.

 

[Abstruse]

Look at all the different ranger types in 4e. The two weapon guy and the archer guy and the beast guy and the essentials guys play differently than each other. Look at the billions of options for Pathfinder rangers. There are lots of ways to fit different things into the ranger "space". I'm not going to whiteboard an entire class design here, especially since it has been done before.

In 4e we have "Woodland warrior who can track and uses two weapons", "Woodland warrior who can track and uses a bow", and "Woodland warrior who can track and has a pet." In Essentials, we have "Woodland warrior who can track and uses two weapons" and "Woodland warrior who can track and uses a bow". In Pathfinder (without multiclassing), I see "A woodland warrior who can track and has a pet who uses a bow" or "A woodland warrior who can track and has a pet who uses two weapons".

The 4e versions in particular are very similar with the exception of the Seeker or whatever the Essentials archer was called, and that's solely because the seeker is a Controller rather than a Striker...and since Next has gotten rid of the concept of "roles", it's a useless distinction.

Finally, I'm not asking about what other editions did to the ranger. I'm talking about Next. How can the Next version of the Ranger be different from the Next version of a fighter with a tracking-and-two-weapon or tracking-and-bow theme? Explain to me exactly what a ranger is, then show me the different variations you can have within that definition.

 

[was]

I'd rather see it as a theme than its own class.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think the assassin deserves a class.

We've got classes built around weapons, prayers, spells, deception, charm, chivalry, animism, etc... Why not the quintessential class built around the art of assassination?

It makes sense as this is a key part of stories involving political intrigue, and this can apply to the dungeon bosses too.

There is plenty of space to explore here, all the methods of delivering all the kinds of sudden death, making it appears accidental or not, getting into and out of the kill area safely - unnoticed or 'mis-noticed' as desired. Lots of equipment, gadgets, subtle magics.

Then there is the Half-Orc race, and giving them their iconic class. I love the idea of the high-str Half-Orc garrote-wielding assassin forcing a Hobgoblin guard into a sound-muffled wrestle to the death.

Nah, definitely give us the class.

 

[CleverNickName]

Later, there will be threads about whether we need RED dragons. Can't we just have dragons and use a red theme?

Yep. Followed by the obligatory "monsters don't get to use PC stuff" cries of outrage.

 

[Minigiant]

The "Super Sneak attack" assassin should be a theme.

The "percentile Save or Die" assassin or the "shadow magic" assassin should be a class.

 

[Abstruse]

I keep thinking of a quote from RA Salvatore...apparently, he was told that he had to kill off Artemis Entrari because they were switching from 1st to 2nd Edition where there was no assassin class. All the assassins from 1st Edition were being fed to some evil god, but Entrari had become a fan favorite character so they wanted Salvatore to give him a "proper" death. He went round and round with TSR about it because he didn't want to kill Entrari.

Finally, he says, "Entrari is not an assassin! He's a fighter/thief who kills people for money!"

If the iconic NPC from arguably the most popular novel series who used to be the poster boy for a class can be so easily reclassified, it really makes me question the assassin as a class.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Hopefully we will see something like this (along with race):

Class "Build" Background Theme
Assassin Guilds Outlaw Hired Killer
Bard Troupes Entertainer Con Artist
Berzerker Rages Barbarian Slayer
Cleric Domains Priest Healer
Druid Circles Nomad Herbalist
Fighter Styles Soldier Swordsman
Paladin Vows Knight Defender
Psion Auras Outcast Dominator
Ranger I dunno Trapper Archer
Rogue Schemes Commoner Lurker
Sorcerer Elements Orphan Pyromaniac
Warlord Drills Noble Marshal
Warlock Pacts Acursed Blackheart
Wizard Schools Researcher Arcanist

Mix-n-match race, class, background, and theme as you like.

With at least a few options in each of the non-class columns.

I just slapped that together, so don't expect all of them to be brilliant, but by taking a theme or background that is "expected" to come from another class you have a form of mini-multiclassing, and the Assassin (to bring it back to the original discussion, can be BOTH (in that any class can take the "Hired Killer" theme and be an "Assassin" but the assassin with the "Hired Killer" theme is the most assassin-y assassin, if you get my drift.

 

[Remathilis]

In fact, with the introduction of themes into the game, my argument is that the more flexible a class, the better it is. The more themes you can put on a class and the more different characters you get, the better. If every theme I stick on a ranger ends up with me in a green cloak hanging out in the woods tracking stuff, hating goblins/orcs/giants/whatever, and having a very loyal pet that can maul someone's face off...why does it need to be a class? If you take every theme possible and stick them on a ranger and come out with something that looks, plays, and feels exactly the same with one one or two differences (my woodland fighter uses a bow, while his woodland fighter uses two swords), then why is it a class when the other classes have so many variations?

Someone else pointed out that a theme discusses HOW you do something, not WHAT you do. Yeah, any permeation of the ranger is going to put you in a green cloak, because that is what a ranger DOES. The theme describes if he's an archer, a dual-wielder, a slayer, a guardian, a lurker, etc.

A reverse example: what does a "ranger" theme look like? What does a paladin theme look like? Are we willing to make things like detect evil or lay on hands feats?