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

Should the Assassin be made into its own class again?

  • Yes, the Assassin should split from the Rogue and be its own class

    Votes: 15 15.2%
  • Yes, the Assassin should split from the Rogue and take the Thief with it

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Yes (Other)

    Votes: 3 3.0%
  • No, the Assassin should stay where it is

    Votes: 65 65.7%
  • No, the Assassin should stay where it is. Someother subclass should split from the Rogue

    Votes: 3 3.0%
  • No, just make more killy Rogue subclasses

    Votes: 5 5.1%
  • No (other)

    Votes: 8 8.1%
  • A THIEF is a THIEF! An ASSASSIN is an ASSASSIN! No Rogues.

    Votes: 5 5.1%
  • I'm about to be Sneak Attacked

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • (Currently hiding)

    Votes: 3 3.0%

  • Poll closed .

DND_Reborn

Legend
5e has 13, and that is already too much overlap.
Yeah, I agree.

Getting rid of Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Warlock by making them subclasses of Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric brought our group done to 9 classes (three full-casters, three half-casters, three martials--- my Libra sense of balance is very happy :D ).

And we never adopted Artificer--horrible class.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Yeah, I agree.

Getting rid of Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Warlock by making them subclasses of Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric brought our group done to 9 classes (three full-casters, three half-casters, three martials--- my Libra sense of balance is very happy :D ).

And we never adopted Artificer--horrible class.
I pretty much agree, but I'm not sure I understand your calculation:
3 Martials: Fighter, Rogue, Monk ?
3 Half-casters: Ranger, Paladin and...I guess you moved bards to 1/2 casting?
3 Wizard, Cleric and Druid?

Something like this?
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
3 Martials: Fighter, Rogue, Monk ?
3 Half-casters: Ranger, Paladin and...I guess you moved bards to 1/2 casting?
3 Wizard, Cleric and Druid?

Something like this?
Nailed it. We moved bards to Arcane half-casters, just as Paladins are Divine half-casters and Rangers are Primal half-casters.

It works pretty well IMO. If you want to see Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Warlock as subclasses, let me know.
 

Irlo

Adventurer
So Save or Die spells?
Examples, please? I'm not very familiar with high-level spells, but aren't Save or Die spells in 5e really just Save or Take A Lot of Damage? Other than Power Word Kill, which only works on creatures with 100 or fewer hit points. If you want your 17th level Assassin to automatically kill creature with less than 100 hit points once per day, I have no objection. :)
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
One extra class that overlaps significantly with three others. Where do you stop? A slightly more fighty cleric? A slightly less fighty cleric? A slightly more holy monk? Pathfinder had at least 50-something classes at last count.

5e has 13, and that is already too much overlap.
Sure if you don't care about mechanics.

I having seen any fan or designer reduce classes without removing or heavily nerfing core mechanics.

Overlapping classes s only a problem if you are a bad game designer.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Examples, please? I'm not very familiar with high-level spells, but aren't Save or Die spells in 5e really just Save or Take A Lot of Damage? Other than Power Word Kill, which only works on creatures with 100 or fewer hit points. If you want your 17th level Assassin to automatically kill creature with less than 100 hit points once per day, I have no objection. :)

Mostly. There are very few SOD in 5e.

But like others, I would have a level/HD cap. No Sniping the BBEG outside of damage.
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
Nailed it. We moved bards to Arcane half-casters, just as Paladins are Divine half-casters and Rangers are Primal half-casters.

It works pretty well IMO. If you want to see Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Warlock as subclasses, let me know.
I'm letting you know! I'm letting you know! :p

(I already dismantled the Warlock to give its things to the Bard and this thread as given me the push to make it a Background instead).

Never had the push to make Druid a Cleric subclass? I've been toying with the idea myself, giving them Wildshape as a Channel Divinity.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Sure if you don't care about mechanics.

I having seen any fan or designer reduce classes without removing or heavily nerfing core mechanics.

Overlapping classes s only a problem if you are a bad game designer.
There is a difference between "not caring about mechanics" and seeing mechanics as a means rather than an end in themselves.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
I'm letting you know! I'm letting you know! :p
LOL fine, here you go. ;)

Basically I tried to take the core class features and mostly turn them into the features for the subclasses. Warlock was the hardest. Now, these subclasses use my "faster feature" variant, so every feature is gained by level 15. I also standardize when subclass awards are gained (Levels 1, 5, 9, and 13) across all subclasses. I also have rules for damage reduction for armor, etc. so you'll notice the Barbarian subclass's Unarmored Rigor grants DR instead of AC. There's a bunch more (the mod is 150 pages or so), too much to go into here, but you'll get the feel of things.

Finally, most of the subclasses for these classes were moved to become subclasses for other classes. For example, Shadow Magic for Sorcerer became the College of Shadows for Bard, Berserker for Barbarian became Berserker for Fighter, Divine Soul Sorcerer became Way of the Divine Soul for Monk, and so on. Frankly, we love it, but I know it wouldn't appeal to everyone.

1642787671689.png
1642787775253.png
1642787618092.png


If you have any question on it, or want to see more, p.m. me and we can talk there since I don't want to threadjack this thread further.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Never had the push to make Druid a Cleric subclass? I've been toying with the idea myself, giving them Wildshape as a Channel Divinity.
Forgot to answer this: No. I felt there was enough distinction to keep druids separate and with the Anima feature for Circle of Lands, we expanded things a bit.

And, on a personal note, Druid was one of my favorite classes in AD&D so I would be loathe to demote it. I always felt like the 5E version of Barbarian, and also the design for Sorcerer and Warlock were never enough to warrant a full class.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
There is a difference between "not caring about mechanics" and seeing mechanics as a means rather than an end in themselves.
My points is that I've never see anyone claim the desire to have fewer classes and then display the mechanics that would give an end which is satisfying to anyone who cares about the archetypes reduced.

I've seen way too many Paladin subclasses that actually don't do anything nor play like their previous versions that I am jaded to the idea until the speaker displays conflicting evidence.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
My points is that I've never see anyone claim the desire to have fewer classes and then display the mechanics that would give an end which is satisfying to anyone who cares about the archetypes reduced.

I've seen way too many Paladin subclasses that actually don't do anything nor play like their previous versions that I am jaded to the idea until the speaker displays conflicting evidence.
Oh, I wouldn't say that it would be satisfying to anyone "who cares about the archetypes reduced." But it would be satisfying to those who value focus. What we have now is an ideal compromise, based on the poll results here.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Oh, I wouldn't say that it would be satisfying to anyone "who cares about the archetypes reduced." But it would be satisfying to those who value focus. What we have now is an ideal compromise, based on the poll results here.
Based on the responses people don't even want an Assassin in the game and are fine with the subclass because they don't care about it.

I should have added an "Assassin shouldn't even be a subclass" option.
 

vincegetorix

Jewel of the North
You know what, artificer, with a nice coat of refluff-paint, could be an interesting take on the Warlock or Sorcerer. Either by having the class bind spirits/vestiges in items (warlock) or infuses their own magical essence/resonance in an item (sorcerer).

Either would be more interesting than the arcane pseudo-scientific gadgeteer, IMHO.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Based on the responses people don't even want an Assassin in the game and are fine with the subclass because they don't care about it.

I should have added an "Assassin shouldn't even be a subclass" option.
Kind of reading into that a bit: I haven't really heard any complaints about the Assassin Subclass in the past 8 years. I would wager if you split it thst way "No, the Subclass is just fine" would be the overwhelming favorite.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
You know what, artificer, with a nice coat of refluff-paint, could be an interesting take on the Warlock or Sorcerer. Either by having the class bind spirits/vestiges in items (warlock) or infuses their own magical essence/resonance in an item (sorcerer).

Either would be more interesting than the arcane pseudo-scientific gadgeteer, IMHO.
I probably still wouldn't care for it, depending on how well balanced it is, but it would probably be better than the gadget-man class it is now.
 

Irlo

Adventurer
Based on the responses people don't even want an Assassin in the game and are fine with the subclass because they don't care about it.

I should have added an "Assassin shouldn't even be a subclass" option.
I think you might be talking about me. I absolutely do NOT want to keep you from having the assassin you want to have. I was just responding to the survey.

Keep in mind that there are maybe two people here who have said anything like this out of your 80+ survey respondants, and I didn't even say I don't want an assassin the game. And I really didn't say that the subclass should not exist. What I don't want are mechanics for instant kills. Your particular vision of what an assassin needs to be revolves around this idea, I think, but it doesn't need to.

An assassin class strong enough to operate in a way you want it to ... effectively, to solo-kill oponents reliably enough to make the risks worthwhile ... doesn't fit into that way I want to play D&D. The assassin subclass as it exists might be weak and could use some tweaks, but I wouldn't say that I don't want it in my game. I get that it might not satisfy a lot of players, but it's not designed to operate on its own.

I mentioned before that I think an assassin class as you imagine it could work very well in a party of one or two. I'm imagining the options for spell-based assassins with stealth and subterfuge magics and a couple of potent attack spells and it seems like a lot of fun.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Kind of reading into that a bit: I haven't really heard any complaints about the Assassin Subclass in the past 8 years. I would wager if you split it thst way "No, the Subclass is just fine" would be the overwhelming favorite.
More than a couple people stated that the assassin style is "sneak in, kill, slip out" and that it isn't conductive to D&D play. When I stated that this type of PC isn't what I want, the response changed to either that the D&D Assassin is that loner and is bad or that the class idea has no real benefit.

Despite that a Fighter/Rogue class is one of the most requested types of classes on many D&D discussion places.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
I voted no (other) because I don't want the assassin in the game at all. At best it should be non-core.

The archetype just doesn't fit into the play of the average game. Being an option makes a promise to players that the game is built to work with an assassin character and it isn't.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I think you might be talking about me. I absolutely do NOT want to keep you from having the assassin you want to have. I was just responding to the survey.

Keep in mind that there are maybe two people here who have said anything like this out of your 80+ survey respondants, and I didn't even say I don't want an assassin the game. And I really didn't say that the subclass should not exist. What I don't want are mechanics for instant kills. Your particular vision of what an assassin needs to be revolves around this idea, I think, but it doesn't need to.

An assassin class strong enough to operate in a way you want it to ... effectively, to solo-kill oponents reliably enough to make the risks worthwhile ... doesn't fit into that way I want to play D&D. The assassin subclass as it exists might be weak and could use some tweaks, but I wouldn't say that I don't want it in my game. I get that it might not satisfy a lot of players, but it's not designed to operate on its own.

I mentioned before that I think an assassin class as you imagine it could work very well in a party of one or two. I'm imagining the options for spell-based assassins with stealth and subterfuge magics and a couple of potent attack spells and it seems like a lot of fun.

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.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top