Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Abstruse" data-source="post: 5940289" data-attributes="member: 6669048">This is the debate I've been having in the various paladin/ranger threads around. What makes a class a class? Since WotC is drawing a line between what is a class and what is simply a theme (as they've stated the avenger will be), where should that line be?My opinion is that a class should be versatile enough to allow for multiple different build types that still "feel" like the original archetype of the class. It should also be unique enough from other classes that there is a reason for it to exist separately.So let's examine those questions. Assassin meets the first requirement without a doubt. You have many different types of assassins in fiction. You have the archetypical assassin, hiding in the shadows and looking for the right moment to strike, pouncing out to do the most amount of damage possible and kill as quickly as possible to avoid any chance of a return strike. Then you have the hitman, someone tough who kills for money, using stealth and guile to gain advantages over opponents but not shying away from fighting a target toe-to-toe when needed. And you've got the mystical assassin/ninja who uses small magic tricks, spells, and supernatural abilities to gain an edge in combat to kill quickly and silently.The second question though? I really don't think so. There's not enough unique about the assassin that requires it to be a class. Putting a fighter-based theme like slayer on the rogue class would give you the first type of assassin. Putting a rogue-based theme on the fighter like thief on the fighter and you have the hitman. Giving the rogue the arcane dabbler theme will possibly give them enough tricks to be the mystic ninja (depending on how the theme works at higher levels and if not, make one that does).The assassin is thus not unique enough to be a class. Adding it as a class would just add complexity to the game for the sake of appeasing fans of the class (like me). It's not good game design, it's a marketing stunt aimed at grognards. If the class can't stand on its own and meet those requirements, it should not be a class.And again, I love the assassin class. I think there's a lot of roleplaying fun to be had with them and though the mechanics have varied from decent to complete crap over the editions, I've still loved playing the class. But if I can't hold the classes I love (assassin, avenger) to the same standard I hold the classes I don't like as much (ranger, paladin) or outright loathe (druid), then I'm no better than any other grognard insisting that their opinion is the most important using emotional reasoning rather than rational arguments.</blockquote>

Verification