D&D 5E Split the Assassin from the Rogue back into its own class

[Irlo]

I think you are not imagining what I am proposing.

My imagined Assassin class would be instant killing only enemies much weaker than them. Basically replicating a popular house rule of autolkilling mooks and minions. You don't bother counting the damage. You look for 6s and if you roll enough

Basically Turn Undead & Destroy Undead but for anything unlimited times. It wouldn't be applicable to strong does. For those you need to do damage.

My combat core of the class would be the Assassin doing pseudo-manevers when they roll 6s. Knockdowns, stuns, blinds etc. Like the monk but rolling well and only attacking once or twice a turn instead of burning all your K and attacking 3-4 timesi. This is in addition to doing a lot of damage. The second aspect would be Assassin getting a buff at the start of combat that disappears after a few turns. Maybe even getting penalties if the fight goes too long.

Out of combat would have a focus on dis guide and mimicking. Possibly good at languages.

You're right. I was not imagining that.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: save-or-die spells

5e Has nerfed the vast majority of those, and for good reason.

And as a direct result, combats take longer because you have to wade through everybody's hit points the hard way.

I'd posit that anything that can insta-kill (or insta-incapacitate, same thing for this purpose) might be a welcome relief.

Yes these things make combats both riskier and swingier, but that's also good. Predictable non-swingy combats are perhaps the most boring aspect of the entire game, in any edition.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Re: save-or-die spells

And as a direct result, combats take longer because you have to wade through everybody's hit points the hard way.

I'd posit that anything that can insta-kill (or insta-incapacitate, same thing for this purpose) might be a welcome relief.

Yes these things make combats both riskier and swingier, but that's also good. Predictable non-swingy combats are perhaps the most boring aspect of the entire game, in any edition.

Yup, I started adding a little of those here and there in my games. Circle of Death works closer to Sleep but with insta-death, Finger of Death still deal a bunch of damage and its death at 0 HP, no death saving throw.

Dragon breath does not allow for death save. A dragon breath drops you to 0 hp? You are dead! Same with a few other things.

Given, its not really save or die, but its kinda close.

 

[Mordhau]

I think 13th Age handles the Instakill thing best. Don't give it a hit dice limit - give it a hit point limit. That way the Assassin's iconic ability isn't useless against the boss monster, They just can't use until it they bring the monster within range.

 

[Mecheon]

And we never adopted Artificer--horrible class.

When I look at classes I go for the archetype, not so much the mechanical side. But the artificer is the archetype of the gadget-user, which is one that's been lacking a long while and why it'll keep showing up. Barbarian and Fighter are two different archetypes these days, even if there's overlap, and especially wizard, warlock and sorcerer, between "Studying to gain power", "Born under auspicious circumstances" and "Bargained with something to gain power". Problem of course is the way D&D is at the moment is they're not differentiated mechanically heavy despite how different those archetypes are.


Anywho, assassin's one of those odd ones because while I do think it does have a strong archetype, the problem is its archetype doesnt' play well with how D&D is these days. Which is why I'm kind

If someone could do up a good one I could see it being classed up again as there's promise there, but making it work mechanically alongside everything else is where the issue does come in.

 

[DND_Reborn]

When I look at classes I go for the archetype, not so much the mechanical side. But the artificer is the archetype of the gadget-user, which is one that's been lacking a long while and why it'll keep showing up.

To me it should be (at most) a background, not a class. I, personally, don't want or need a class revolved around making magical gadgets. And I am not sure what you mean by it'll keep showing up. Up until 5E, I never heard of it.

And mechanically, it is not balanced IMO. But if you would like to continue the conversation, I suggest we move to another thread so as to not threadjack this one further. If not, we'll just toss it up to differences of opinion/ preference.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To me it should be (at most) a background, not a class. I, personally, don't want or need a class revolved around making magical gadgets. And I am not sure what you mean by it'll keep showing up. Up until 5E, I never heard of it.

And mechanically, it is not balanced IMO. But if you would like to continue the conversation, I suggest we move to another thread so as to not threadjack this one further. If not, we'll just toss it up to differences of opinion/ preference.

Whether or not it's needed depends on the tone of the setting. I quite like the artificer, but based on your other ideas, I think you could make it a rogue subclass (lose the spells but keep the infusions).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes these things make combats both riskier and swingier, but that's also good. Predictable non-swingy combats are perhaps the most boring aspect of the entire game, in any edition.

Blech. The entire premise of D&D as a system is miniatures combat coupled with roleplaying. Having intricate fights is kinda the point. If we wanted to get past the combat stuff as quickly as possible, I'd play a different RPG that handwaves a lot of it... especially if that speeding through combat just results in the player characters dying left and right.

Yeah, I know many old-school players find the idea of creating 27 different PCs for themselves over an entire campaign to be a good time, but to me that's just nothing more than really playing a typical board game where every session you're just starting over. If I wanted just a token on the grid that I had no attachment to and didn't care that they died, I'd play RoboRally.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Whether or not it's needed depends on the tone of the setting. I quite like the artificer, but based on your other ideas, I think you could make it a rogue subclass (lose the spells but keep the infusions).

That would have been a better approach IMO. A tinker-type who learns to infuse objects with magic, but can't actually cast spells would have been a much better approach, both thematically and balance-wise.

Maybe I'll look at it again and see what I could come up with. I am not sure about the idea of sneak attacking with the concept... but otherwise I like the idea of an "expert" magic-infuser. I don't know if it would work with my low-tone magic setting, but it is worth some thought.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That would have been a better approach IMO. A tinker-type who learns to infuse objects with magic, but can't actually cast spells would have been a much better approach, both thematically and balance-wise.

Maybe I'll look at it again and see what I could come up with. I am not sure about the idea of sneak attacking with the concept... but otherwise I like the idea of an "expert" magic-infuser. I don't know if it would work with my low-tone magic setting, but it is worth some thought.

Well my artificer refluffs the spells to gadgets. For example my artificer has mini-grapple, Magic Magnet and Slime Shooter. But not everyone is comfortable with refluffing, and it helps if the tone isn't deadly serious.

I guess one mechanic for an artificing rogue would be if each infusion "consumes" a sneak attack die.