Assassins Gone from 3rd Ed?!
Anthony Law
latest draft of the 3rd Edition rules has removed the "assassin" as a
character class."
Is this true?! How can they do that?
--
Anthony Law
"Remove the words 'remove this' from my e-mail address to e-mail me
directly"
Andy Cooper
Correct me if I am wrong, but assassins were not in sec. Ed. either.
Anthony Law wrote in message ...
Anthony Law
there are a couple classes (barbarians, monks) who were not in 2nd ed, but
are coming back from the first ed.
--
Anthony Law
"Remove the words 'remove this' from my e-mail address to e-mail me
directly"
Andy Cooper <apco...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:7tt50q$f8h$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
Andy Cooper
Anthony Law wrote in message <78pM3.1168$ry3....@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
>You're right, they weren't in the 2nd ed. But they WERE in first ed and
>there are a couple classes (barbarians, monks) who were not in 2nd ed, but
>are coming back from the first ed.
>
>--
I don't mean to start a fight but both barbarians and monks were included
in 2nd ed, they just were not in the player's. In fact barbarians had a
whole hand book which had 2 classes in it ( a fighter type and a priest
type). One of my all time favorite PC's was a barbarian fighter.
Marmalade Cat
> Depends on the word processor, but the general idea is to highlight the
text
> describing the Assassin class and pressing the Delete button
> (Note: this doesn't work as well once the rules are actually printed.)
shhh!!! don't give the editors any ideas! i like the assassin! and the
barbarian! it's not as if dms *have* to use them!
--
marmalade_cat [at] hotmail.com
www.geocities.com/Area51/2801
ICQ 31558340
Jefferson Krogh
> I was reading Desslock's RPG page and he stated "I've also learned that the
> latest draft of the 3rd Edition rules has removed the "assassin" as a
> character class."
>
> Is this true?! How can they do that?
Depends on the word processor, but the general idea is to highlight the text
describing the Assassin class and pressing the Delete button.
(Note: this doesn't work as well once the rules are actually printed.)
--
Jefferson Krogh, MCSE
IS Manager
Kennerley-Spratling, Inc.
PJS
>
>Anthony Law wrote in message
<78pM3.1168$ry3....@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>...
>>You're right, they weren't in the 2nd ed. But they WERE in first ed and
>>there are a couple classes (barbarians, monks) who were not in 2nd ed, but
>>are coming back from the first ed.
>>
>>--
>
>I don't mean to start a fight but both barbarians and monks were included
>in 2nd ed, they just were not in the player's. In fact barbarians had a
>whole hand book which had 2 classes in it ( a fighter type and a priest
>type). One of my all time favorite PC's was a barbarian fighter.
But they weren't, if you'll pardon the expression, "proper" barbarians, but
what the Complete Fighter kits section was classifying as "Savages" or
"Wilderness Warriors". Most people expect barbarians to Conan types, or
possibly Vikings or Celts.
---
Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere
may be happy.
- H.L. Mencken
Anthony Law
will i get to be as much of a smart ass as you?! ;)
--
Anthony Law
"Remove the words 'remove this' from my e-mail address to e-mail me
directly"
Jefferson Krogh <jeff...@skaldheim.com> wrote in message
news:380222C8...@skaldheim.com...
Jefferson Krogh
> ya know, i never thought of that?! when i get my mcse (6 months from know),
> will i get to be as much of a smart ass as you?! ;)
Heh, you don't need a certificate to be a smartass. It just makes your
wisecracks weightier, and you get paid more for them.
Jason Hatter
reveal...@this.home.com proclaimed
<ieoM3.1165$ry3....@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>:
>I was reading Desslock's RPG page and he stated "I've also learned
>that the latest draft of the 3rd Edition rules has removed the
>"assassin" as a character class."
Last I had heard, they were putting it in the DMG, since it's a "not
suggested for PC's, but useable if you want it." class
>Is this true?! How can they do that?
Very easily. Cut & paste or delete works wonders.
--
Jason
http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Danbuter
>latest draft of the 3rd Edition rules has removed the "assassin" as a
>character class."
>
>
>Anthony Law
>
Not sure if it's true or not. But there will ALWAYS be an assassin class in any
of my campaigns ;> I highly recommend the 2nd edition assassin found in the
Scarlet Brotherhood book.
DAn.....
The older I get, the more my alignment shifts to Lawful Good...
Anthony Law
from:
"It's in the latest draft of the 3rd edition rules."
--
Anthony Law
"Remove the words 'remove this' from my e-mail address to e-mail me
directly"
Anthony Law <reveal...@this.home.com> wrote in message
news:ieoM3.1165$ry3....@news.rdc1.ne.home.com...
> I was reading Desslock's RPG page and he stated "I've also learned that
the
> latest draft of the 3rd Edition rules has removed the "assassin" as a
> character class."
>
> Is this true?! How can they do that?
>
> --
> Anthony Law
Alan D Kohler
<reveal...@this.home.com> wrote:
>This is what I got from Desslock after asking him where he got the info
>from:
>
>"It's in the latest draft of the 3rd edition rules."
Woo-hoo!
Ding dong the witch is dead (again, as it should be...)
Alan D. Kohler(hawk...@NOSPAM.olg.com)
"I once shot a man in Nepal just to watch him reincarnate." -Wierd Al
Hawkwind's RPG Pages are back at last!
http://members.tripod.com/~hawk_wind/homepage.html
Anthony Law
anything about them)
--
Anthony Law
"Remove the words 'remove this' from my e-mail address to e-mail me
directly"
Alan D Kohler <hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com> wrote in message
news:3802a745...@news.olg.com...
Sheitan
rogue/wizard/warrior/whatever who kills people for money and chooses to take
skills/spells that help in that process (pharmacology, climb walls/spider
climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)? The counter is, how
does it hurt anyone to have a separate class? There are some people who
want to use it as a separate class, so why don't everyone who doesn't think
it should be a class just not use it in their campaigns?
Its been beaten to death many times, along with the barbarian/cavalier
arguments. RIP.
--
- Sheitan
"A cat, when dropped from a great height, will always land on its feet. A
piece of buttered toast, when similarly dropped, will always land buttered
side down. A cat with a piece of buttered toast strapped to its back will
hover 1 metre above the ground. With a giant butter/cat array, you could
generate enough energy to power New York City!"
Anthony Law <reveal...@this.home.com> wrote in message
news:qRxM3.1208$ry3....@news.rdc1.ne.home.com...
Sea Wasp
>
> On 11 Oct 1999, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Anthony Law
> reveal...@this.home.com proclaimed
> <ieoM3.1165$ry3....@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>:
>
> >"assassin" as a character class."
>
> suggested for PC's, but useable if you want it." class
A horrid idea, IMCGO, since it immediately destroys the consistency
that they were starting to give to the game. If there are ANY character
classes, ALL of them should be in the PH. Okay, so not many of your PCs
will want to be bakers or blacksmiths... but that doesn't mean the PH
shouldn't have those in there, IF you make such things character classes
rather than skills. And that means that things like Assassins and (if
they made them) Antipaladins should be in the PH, not shoved off into a
corner of the DMG.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Matt Devney
text... we ARE getting derivative aren't we? :-)
Jason Hatter wrote:
>
> On 11 Oct 1999, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Anthony Law
> reveal...@this.home.com proclaimed
> <ieoM3.1165$ry3....@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>:
>
> >I was reading Desslock's RPG page and he stated "I've also learned
> >that the latest draft of the 3rd Edition rules has removed the
> >"assassin" as a character class."
>
> Last I had heard, they were putting it in the DMG, since it's a "not
> suggested for PC's, but useable if you want it." class
>
> >Is this true?! How can they do that?
>
> Very easily. Cut & paste or delete works wonders.
> --
> Jason
> http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/
> Sailor Moon V at http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
> Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
--
"I have now changed my .sig" announced Matt Devney ( whose post you are
reading RIGHT NOW ) at a recent interview. "I still have to say that my
comments may not reflect what the official Ford Motor Company policy is
on any subject, but I have cut out that whole 'free car' thing - mainly
due to not being given one ( a car that is ) for quite a while now". He
then rode off unsteadily on his unicycle, whistling that Brian May song.
Karsten Diekmann
<reveal...@this.home.com> wrote:
>You're right, they weren't in the 2nd ed. But they WERE in first ed and
>there are a couple classes (barbarians, monks) who were not in 2nd ed, but
>are coming back from the first ed.
>
partially true, they were in the scarlet brotherhood accessory which
is in fact 2nd ed.
Patrick M. Berry
> I was reading Desslock's RPG page and he stated "I've also learned that the
> latest draft of the 3rd Edition rules has removed the "assassin" as a
> character class."
>
Well, they own the game. I guess they can do whatever they want with it.
But this particular rumor sounds pretty fishy to me. Since the assassin
has been missing from the game for a decade, I don't see how the latest
draft of 3rd Edition can "remove" it.
Anthony Law
--
Anthony Law
"Remove the words 'remove this' from my e-mail address to e-mail me
directly"
Karsten Diekmann <karsten....@stud.uni-hannover.de> wrote in message
news:38038c27...@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de...
Sea Wasp
Very easily. They WERE in the FIRST draft of Third Edition. Whether
they're in the current draft or not I'm not at liberty to say. But by
the first fact you can see that it would be very easy for them to remove
it.
Michael Brown
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
> An argument which works equally well for eliminating thieves and
> fighters, as well. Arcane arts are somewhat special, but every thing
> thieves and fighters do can be handled by skills at varrying levels.
Sigh. That just isn't true. The *framework* of the thief class (ie;
oodles of improving non-weapon skills) is unique and viable. Whatever you
call the damnned thing, a class *like* that is a viable member of the unholy
pentad (warrior/priest/thief/wizard/psi). The *framework* of the warrior
class (huge combat ability perks instead of piles of skills) is likewise
unique and viable.
I'm all for better names, but don't throw the baby out with the
dishwater. I completely agree that many character class approaches can make
for good "thieves" (as in, people who steal), but something with the
skillset we currently call the Thief Class can make for many good
characters.
-Michael
Dave
news:7u0j7k$chn$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> <snip snip snip>
> I think
> that 2nd Edition's justification was kind of stupid, fitting in with the
> happy-happy-nice-nice that brought us no demons and devils in the original
> release of 2nd edition.
Agreed.
> What is an assassin? Well basically it's someone who kills people
primarily
> with stealth. In AD&D the thief class--broadly defined--has stealth down.
> Many characters are nominally thieves but never steal a thing. Perhaps
one
> could go further and say that the assassin is a slightly better fighter
than
> a thief as well. The 1st Edition Assassin wasn't *that* much better than
a
> thief.
What is a ranger? Just a fighter with some outdoors skills. The class is
"justified" by either giving it powers that members of other class cannot
obtain or else give the ranger advantages in certain skills over the other
classes.
The 1st edition assassin could become proficient with all weapons and could
functionally use a shield in battle. The assassin started with more WP's
than the thief and had the same non-proficiency penalty as the fighter
class. The assassin had the same backstab ability as the thief. In every
combat-related mechanic, the assassin's ability was always greater than or
equal to the thief's ability.
> The thief and fighter/thief make good assassins depending on allocation of
> thief points (certainly any thief multiclass works but these represent the
> spirit of the original the best). Insto-kill is against the spirit of the
> basic hit point system and is adequately represented by backstab (which is
a
> pretty damn good way of killing people in one blow I might point out :)
than
> that stupid Assassination Table. Other than that, the assassin had a few
> perks--spying abilities, languages, some "tradecraft"--that can be soaked
up
> with appropriate choice of proficiencies just fine.
There are also other existing abilities that can be lumped in as
proficiencies just fine. IIRC, 3E has turned the thief abilities into
skills.
> Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can
dispense
> with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you really
want
> to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit, Cavalier,
> etc.
If we are to think of them as customizable templates, then why do we need a
ranger or bard class?
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
john v verkuilen
is if you enforce very strict class boundaries and don't use proficiencies.
IMO 2nd Edition superceded the need for the assassin entirely. I think
happy-happy-nice-nice that brought us no demons and devils in the original
is still true even if the justification at the time was thinly veiled
self-censorship.
What is an assassin? Well basically it's someone who kills people primarily
with stealth. In AD&D the thief class--broadly defined--has stealth down.
Many characters are nominally thieves but never steal a thing. Perhaps one
could go further and say that the assassin is a slightly better fighter than
a thief as well. The 1st Edition Assassin wasn't *that* much better than a
thief.
The thief and fighter/thief make good assassins depending on allocation of
thief points (certainly any thief multiclass works but these represent the
spirit of the original the best). Insto-kill is against the spirit of the
basic hit point system and is adequately represented by backstab (which is a
pretty damn good way of killing people in one blow I might point out :) than
that stupid Assassination Table. Other than that, the assassin had a few
perks--spying abilities, languages, some "tradecraft"--that can be soaked up
with appropriate choice of proficiencies just fine. Just assume that
learning things like Poison Lore or the like requires specialized training
from a Guild of Assassins and you're in business. You want to run it like
the 1st Edition guild, go for it. But you certainly don't need an entire
class to do the job.
(Note that I assumed that multiclassing will be available to everyone. I
already do that and I seem to recall that's how 3E will work. My point is
still valid if you only have single class characters.)
Same goes for the barbarian IMO. Just take a fighter, given some appropriate
proficiencies, and you're on your way. If you'd rather, make said fighter
a ranger. If you don't like the various Drizzle "Oreo" Do'umbshit assumptions
that got forced onto the 2nd Edition ranger, change things around some. Take
away the two weapon fighting or other special abilities and give the ranger
weapon specialization or any other things you'd like, makes a perfectly good
barbarian.
Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can dispense
with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you really want
to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit, Cavalier,
etc.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@staff.uiuc.edu
"Tabloids are the print version of television."
--Dunnigan & Nofi, Shooting Blanks
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Jason Hatter wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Oct 1999, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Anthony Law
>> reveal...@this.home.com proclaimed
>> <ieoM3.1165$ry3....@news.rdc1.ne.home.com>:
>>
>> >I was reading Desslock's RPG page and he stated "I've also learned
>> >that the latest draft of the 3rd Edition rules has removed the
>> >"assassin" as a character class."
>>
>> Last I had heard, they were putting it in the DMG, since it's a "not
>> suggested for PC's, but useable if you want it." class
>
> A horrid idea, IMCGO, since it immediately destroys the consistency
>that they were starting to give to the game. If there are ANY character
>classes, ALL of them should be in the PH.
Except, of course, the psionicist. ;-)
Okay, so not many of your PCs
>will want to be bakers or blacksmiths... but that doesn't mean the PH
>shouldn't have those in there, IF you make such things character classes
>rather than skills. And that means that things like Assassins and (if
>they made them) Antipaladins should be in the PH, not shoved off into a
>corner of the DMG.
Hoz'a'bout a special supplement all their own?
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>The argument is, why do they need to be a separate class, rather than just a
>rogue/wizard/warrior/whatever who kills people for money and chooses to take
>skills/spells that help in that process (pharmacology, climb walls/spider
>climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)?
<snip>
An argument which works equally well for eliminating thieves and
fighters, as well. Arcane arts are somewhat special, but every thing
thieves and fighters do can be handled by skills at varrying levels.
--
Robert Baldwin
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>> An argument which works equally well for eliminating thieves and
>> fighters, as well. Arcane arts are somewhat special, but every thing
>> thieves and fighters do can be handled by skills at varrying levels.
>
> Sigh. That just isn't true. The *framework* of the thief class (ie;
>oodles of improving non-weapon skills) is unique and viable. Whatever you
>call the damnned thing, a class *like* that is a viable member of the unholy
>pentad (warrior/priest/thief/wizard/psi). The *framework* of the warrior
>class (huge combat ability perks instead of piles of skills) is likewise
>unique and viable.
>
> I'm all for better names, but don't throw the baby out with the
>dishwater. I completely agree that many character class approaches can make
>for good "thieves" (as in, people who steal), but something with the
>skillset we currently call the Thief Class can make for many good
>characters.
Ok, I didn't cut any of this because (excluding the second sentence) I
don't disagree with any of it. I *do* say, though, that everything
you've said in favor of the thief and fighter can be *equally* applied
to the assassin. The concept of a character with special
training/expertise in killing through means of stealth is as viable as
a thief or a fighter. Likewise, the argument that "assassin is an
occupation, not a Class" is equally effective (or equally
*ineffective*) against fighters and thieves.
Examine the fighter. Not one ability which isn't shared by other
classes. The fighter just has more/better abilities, but *anyone* can
strap on armor and swing a sharp bit of metal.
Examine the thief. Stealth, and acquisition of property thereby.
Yet, *any* pc can "try and move quietly", "try not to be seen", "try
to attack from behind and with surprise". The thief just does it
better.
Same for the assassin. While there are good reasons for disliking the
exact mechanics used in PHB1, the *concept* of an assassin is every
bit as valid as the fighter or the thief.
As you know, I'm an advocate of strong Classes, and the "artchetype"
characters. And the Secret Killer is neither the thief nor the
fighter. Yet the character concept is as valid as either.
I am also a strong opponent of universal skill systems. Using
Classes, how else do you portray the Secret Killer than as a class of
it's own? Because any argument for creating an assassin by just
tacking a few skills on an existing class can work as well for
fighters and thieves. just add some proficiencies and voila! instant
fighter.
SpaceGnome
>Examine the fighter. Not one ability which isn't shared by other
>classes. The fighter just has more/better abilities, but *anyone* can
>strap on armor and swing a sharp bit of metal.
With S&P and 3E this is and will be true. But if one retains the fighters
special abilities of weapon specialization (and the older weapon
restrictions by class) to them alone, then the fighter remains a most
desirable class and unparalleled in combat.
Space
Michael Brown
> training/expertise in killing through means of stealth is as viable as
> a thief or a fighter. Likewise, the argument that "assassin is an
> occupation, not a Class" is equally effective (or equally
> *ineffective*) against fighters and thieves.
Disagreement. It's very inefficient to go from an 'assassin class' to
something with the same capabilities as a character with the Fighter or
Thief skillset, while only a small modification to the Fighter or Theif
structure produces a completely viable assassin character.
-Michael
john v verkuilen
>In article <7u0j7k$chn$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>What is an assassin? Well basically it's someone who kills people primarily
>>with stealth. In AD&D the thief class--broadly defined--has stealth down.
>By that reasoning there is no such thing as a ranger or paladin either.
Pretty much right on, except that both of those classes have quasi-magical
abilities that the assassin doesn't have. I have all-but eliminated the
ranger and paladin from my camapaign. Since humans can multiclass, a
fighter/thief or fighter/priest (for the ranger) and a fighter/priest for
the paladin works just fine. Also solves the IMO stupid "paladins of non-LG
alignment" problem too.
Michael Brown
john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:7u2doi$9ss$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
> abilities that the assassin doesn't have. I have all-but eliminated the
> ranger and paladin from my camapaign. Since humans can multiclass, a
> fighter/thief or fighter/priest (for the ranger) and a fighter/priest for
> the paladin works just fine. Also solves the IMO stupid "paladins of
non-LG
> alignment" problem too.
The man has a point. The way 3E works, why *not* have holy warriors
simply be warrior priests with an exemption from the "different levels"
multiclass xp penalty if they promise to keep their skills in a particular
ratio (like 3:1 warrior-priest)? This would trivially satisfy the slower
advancement for the "paladin" as well, because every few levels he has to
take some time off and refocus his priestly abilities.
He could start out at L1 as a plain fighter, and would have to *earn*
the privelege of a dieity's blessing, or he might start as a militant priest
and change course for some heavy battle training.
The elegant multiclassing rules elminate the need for a lot of the
"fudge" crossover classes.
-Michael
john v verkuilen
[snip]
>What is a ranger? Just a fighter with some outdoors skills. The class is
>"justified" by either giving it powers that members of other class cannot
>obtain or else give the ranger advantages in certain skills over the other
>classes.
Like I've said in other posts, I'm not adverse to tacking on an XP mod or
two for special abilities if I feel it's warranted. But I don't need a whole
extra subclass to do this for me. Hell if it's a good enough story I'll
just let you keep the base table and run with the alteration as it stands.
Thieves that walk around with bastard swords often have their own problems
(like the relative obtrusiveness of a bastard sword) and probably don't need
more penalties. I don't care what you take proficiency in. (Mages can use
two-handers IMC. I've never seen it though.)
I encourage players to use the multiclass system--which I've opened up to
humans--to come up with characters that have multiple abilities. I don't
need rangers and paladins since the roles of wilderness warrior with some
supernatural powers or holy warrior can be quite adequately represented with
multiclass fighters.
>The 1st edition assassin could become proficient with all weapons and could
>functionally use a shield in battle. The assassin started with more WP's
>than the thief and had the same non-proficiency penalty as the fighter
>class. The assassin had the same backstab ability as the thief. In every
>combat-related mechanic, the assassin's ability was always greater than or
>equal to the thief's ability.
Sure. I just don't see a need to have an entire "subclass" for the whole
mess. I don't want to see subclass proliferation happening. The number of
subclasses in 1st Edition got ridiculous. Given a bit of GM flexibility
and player reasonableness, customization can be accomplished easily without
having to have 9000 subclasses.
>> that stupid Assassination Table. Other than that, the assassin had a few
>> perks--spying abilities, languages, some "tradecraft"--that can be soaked
>up
>> with appropriate choice of proficiencies just fine.
>There are also other existing abilities that can be lumped in as
>proficiencies just fine. IIRC, 3E has turned the thief abilities into
>skills.
I've done this for some time now and this helps a lot. You want a fighter
who has a bit of stealth? Spend 4 NWPs to learn Move Silently and Hide in
Shadows. You won't be all that great at them but the will get better each
level. The thief gets these for free, of course.
>> Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can
>dispense
>> with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you really
>want
>> to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit, Cavalier,
>> etc.
>If we are to think of them as customizable templates, then why do we need a
>ranger or bard class?
Well my views on the ranger are already set out in another post, so I won't
repeat them. I'm not talking about getting rid of all the classes, but after
a while making a separate subclass for what is a relatively small variation
strikes me as a good way to make a big mess. I take the specialty priest as a
good example of what I'm talking about. Each is, in a way, its own class,
but you only need one table and don't have a completely separate and basically
redundant class listing. It worked for the priest, why not the other four
classes?
Led Mirage
wrote:
> A horrid idea, IMCGO, since it immediately destroys the consistency
>that they were starting to give to the game. If there are ANY character
>classes, ALL of them should be in the PH. Okay, so not many of your PCs
>will want to be bakers or blacksmiths... but that doesn't mean the PH
>shouldn't have those in there, IF you make such things character classes
>rather than skills. And that means that things like Assassins and (if
>they made them) Antipaladins should be in the PH, not shoved off into a
>corner of the DMG.
What inconsistency? Psionicist class wasn't in the PH from the start
and I didn't hear you complain about that.
Led Mirage
wrote:
>climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)? The counter is, how
>does it hurt anyone to have a separate class? There are some people who
>want to use it as a separate class, so why don't everyone who doesn't think
>it should be a class just not use it in their campaigns?
Since assassins, by definition, are people who kill other people for a
living, it doesn't sit well with the basic outlook of AD&D.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
Yet, specialization is *still* just more/better. The Fighter does not
actually have a *unique* skill. Nor does the thief. *Any* person,
classed or not, can do what those classes do, just not as well.
Robert Baldwin
<davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>news:7u0j7k$chn$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>> <snip snip snip>
>> I think
>> that 2nd Edition's justification was kind of stupid, fitting in with the
>> happy-happy-nice-nice that brought us no demons and devils in the original
>> release of 2nd edition.
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>> What is an assassin? Well basically it's someone who kills people
>primarily
>> with stealth. In AD&D the thief class--broadly defined--has stealth down.
>> Many characters are nominally thieves but never steal a thing. Perhaps
>one
>> could go further and say that the assassin is a slightly better fighter
>than
>> a thief as well. The 1st Edition Assassin wasn't *that* much better than
>a
>> thief.
>
>What is a ranger? Just a fighter with some outdoors skills. The class is
>"justified" by either giving it powers that members of other class cannot
>obtain or else give the ranger advantages in certain skills over the other
>classes.
I would go farther than that. IMO a "class" is justified if the
personality it attempts to describe is significantly different than
that of any other class *and* it has/requires unique skills/ability
sets. The woodsman (Ranger) is clearly a different *type* of
character than is the generic fighter, as is the Holy Knight
(Paladin). And the Secret Killer (assassin) is different than the
thief.
<snip>
>> The thief and fighter/thief make good assassins depending on allocation of
>> thief points (certainly any thief multiclass works but these represent the
>> spirit of the original the best). Insto-kill is against the spirit of the
>> basic hit point system and is adequately represented by backstab (which is
>a
>> pretty damn good way of killing people in one blow I might point out :)
>than
>> that stupid Assassination Table.
Here I disagree. The entire *point* of the assassin is the extreme
skill at killing. This is represented by the ability to by-pass the
usual HP model. Reverting to the backstab mechanic as it exists now
is simply eliminating the mechanic which implements the class. We
might as well eliminate clerical spells as an ability and say that
clerics can still pray. The point of the cleric would be lost.
The character concept of a secret killer is valid, and there must be
*some* method of that ability to be implemented, above and beyond what
other classes have.
Other than that, the assassin had a few
>> perks--spying abilities, languages, some "tradecraft"--that can be soaked
>up
>> with appropriate choice of proficiencies just fine.
So, just give some clerics a bit more combat skill and call them
paladins. Give those clerics a bit of woods-lore and eliminate
rangers. Give *any* character a bit more fighting skill and eliminate
figters entirely.
Guess what? We just eliminated classes in favor of
skills/proficiencies.
>There are also other existing abilities that can be lumped in as
>proficiencies just fine. IIRC, 3E has turned the thief abilities into
>skills.
Hey, I can play RoleMaster any time. D&D uses classes.
>> Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can
>dispense
>> with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you really
>want
>> to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit, Cavalier,
>> etc.
Feh. The Archer/Archer ranger was nothing but an attempt towards
weapon specialization. And I never saw *any* PC Bandits or Death
Masters.
>If we are to think of them as customizable templates, then why do we need a
>ranger or bard class?
Or any other class for that matter. *Any* class can be de-constructed
and turned into a skill list.
Robert Baldwin
<shrug> Less efficient, I agree. But all of the fighter's abilities
*allready* exist, to some degree, in every character. THAC0, AC and
the choice of weapons. The rest is window-dressing. Likewise, we can
assign a base chance for any unskilled 0 level grunt to "move
silently", etc. The chance may be slim, but it *exists*. Once we
quantify it, we have replaced the thief.
Now, to be *very* clear, I am not advocating this. I use the "it
works against fighters and thieves as well" point as an argument for
*not* accepting the elimination of the assassin. Because if the
argument that "anyone can be an assassin" is accepted as a reason to
eliminate *that* class, the fighter and thief are next in line and
we're on the way to a dark and horrible slide into the depths of a
skill based system.
What I *do* accept (based in large part on our last run at this issue)
is that the current (1st ed) mechanic used for the assassin
undesirably eliminates some role-play scenarios. What I am inclined
to look at is simply allowing the asassin to have an attack method
which uses the %HP calculation as you have suggested for such things
as acid, etc. This achieves my goal of giving the assassin the
ability to by-pass non-physical hp's, and does so in a way which is
more consistant with the established combat model.
I also think that the assassin should be seen as more of a bi-classed
character (avoiding the term "dual-classed for clarity) in the manner
of a bard. A bard, although officially a "Rogue" is clearly as mauch
mage as thief, and good bit of neither. I would arrang the assassin
to be similarly treated, although I would use rogue-fighter as the
basis. I would give the assassin enough combat skills that he could
at least reasonbaly *appear* to be a fighter, and some thievish skills
as well. I'd boost the xp table up to either ranger or paladin level,
as compensation.
So, a fighter, no specialization options, fewer weapon choices, a
small number of thief points (15/level, say) and a "special attack"
mechanic. Treated as the better of thief or fighter for saves, as a
thief for hp's, or a cleric, maybe. Clearly not as skilled as a
fighter.
Weapons...maybe require one or two groups to be chosen. Gives the
character all weapons at *start*, but limited to those groups
there-after.
Armor...probably anything not heavier than chain.
<shrug> More thought is needed, but it maintains a viable srchetype
which is otherwise being buried in a mess of abstract skills.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
And that outlook is..?
I certainly have no problem with using such a type in a fanatsy game,
certainy if I'm leaning more towards sword&sorcery than Tolkienish
High Fantasy.
john v verkuilen
>>> What is an assassin? Well basically it's someone who kills people
>>primarily
>>> with stealth.
>>What is a ranger? Just a fighter with some outdoors skills. The class is
>>"justified" by either giving it powers that members of other class cannot
>>obtain or else give the ranger advantages in certain skills over the other
>>classes.
>I would go farther than that. IMO a "class" is justified if the
>personality it attempts to describe is significantly different than
>that of any other class *and* it has/requires unique skills/ability
>sets. The woodsman (Ranger) is clearly a different *type* of
>character than is the generic fighter,
Sure, but do you want to have all woodsmen pigeon-holed in the way that the
AD&D ranger is?
as is the Holy Knight
>(Paladin).
Or "religious warriors" pigeon-holed the way the AD&D paladin is?
And the Secret Killer (assassin) is different than the
>thief.
Sure, but at some level you have to draw the line as to where you say,
all right, this isn't worthy of a class but should be accounted for by
a system that allows for customization within the class boundaries.
><snip>
>>> The thief and fighter/thief make good assassins depending on allocation of
>>> thief points (certainly any thief multiclass works but these represent the
>>> spirit of the original the best). Insto-kill is against the spirit of the
>>> basic hit point system and is adequately represented by backstab (which is
>>a
>>> pretty damn good way of killing people in one blow I might point out :)
>>than
>>> that stupid Assassination Table.
>Here I disagree. The entire *point* of the assassin is the extreme
>skill at killing. This is represented by the ability to by-pass the
>usual HP model. Reverting to the backstab mechanic as it exists now
>is simply eliminating the mechanic which implements the class. We
>might as well eliminate clerical spells as an ability and say that
>clerics can still pray. The point of the cleric would be lost.
I think there is a big difference in kind between eliminating a cleric's
spells and eliminating the Assassination Table. One eliminates an entire
range of abilities (spells), while the other (quick, stealthy kills) still
leaves the assassin with a perfectly viable method of quick, stealthy kill--
the backstab.
>The character concept of a secret killer is valid, and there must be
>*some* method of that ability to be implemented, above and beyond what
>other classes have.
I disagree that it needs a separate class. See below.
>Other than that, the assassin had a few
>>> perks--spying abilities, languages, some "tradecraft"--that can be soaked
>>up
>>> with appropriate choice of proficiencies just fine.
>So, just give some clerics a bit more combat skill and call them
>paladins. Give those clerics a bit of woods-lore and eliminate
>rangers. Give *any* character a bit more fighting skill and eliminate
>figters entirely.
>Guess what? We just eliminated classes in favor of
>skills/proficiencies.
I'm not proposing this. All I'm saying is that the existing proficiency
system can soak up the relatively minor mechanical differences between
the thief and the assassin IMO. I don't consider the differences to be
all that huge. Backstab, stealth, and an appropriate choice of proficiencies
that are largely (but not necessarily exclusively) the province of the
professional contract killer are enough to do the "Secret Killer" just fine
in my eyes. I do not need an entirely separate set of rules to handle this.
But I don't even look on the "thief" class as representing the classic
"steals to make money" thief. Rather a "thief" is a character who uses some
combination of stealth, mechanical ability, moderate fighting ability,
perception, and wits to get by as opposed to divine favor (priests), magical
ability (mages), or fighting prowess (fighters). I've seen (and played) many
characters who were nominally thieves (or multiclass thieves) who wouldn't
have thought of themselves a thief in the dictionary sense and would have been
offended at the entire notion in some cases. Some examples include: scout
(thief/priest), explorer (thief), merchant/explorer (fighter/thief), spy
(thief/mage), bounty hunter (thief), and assassin (fighter/thief. All were
served well enough by the rules of the thief, especially in 2nd Edition which
allows player discretion in allocation of points to abilities and has a
proficiency system.
Classes' quasimagical or magical abilities I consider out of bounds of the
proficiency system (if I were to allow them at all; like I said I don't allow
all classes). I also consider abilities like possession of weapon
specialization or backstab to be out of the bounds of the proficiency system.
So these aren't things that I take away from a class or give to another.
>>There are also other existing abilities that can be lumped in as
>>proficiencies just fine. IIRC, 3E has turned the thief abilities into
>>skills.
>Hey, I can play RoleMaster any time. D&D uses classes.
Sure it does, but you can have a class system that is supplemented with a
skill system that allows for some out-of-class customization without
violating the spirit of the system itself. I think of the four basic
classes--fighter, mage, priest, thief--as being the core of the game.
Multiclassing (which, as I've said, I opened up to humans after coming up
with a reasonably coherent set of multiclass rules) and proficiencies allow
for some variations and does the basic job of handling the elaborations and
customization that I see people wanting without adding a lot of ad hoc rules,
e.g., the Assassination Table or the Druid XP Advancement Table.
I'm willing to allow some "oddball" classes like the bard or the monk where
I feel they add to the game. The main question is whether there is a truly
unique approach or set of abilities that they add. If so--and provided there
is sufficient demand and a reason for me to incorporate such a character into
my world, I will do so. So I don't have monks because there isn't a culture
from which they would arise in my world. I prefer to keep the number of
classes to a minimum however so I look VERY closely at any such proposal.
Both the Barbarian and the Assassin fail my test; neither is sufficiently
different from their basic classes, Fighter and Thief, respectively, or
multiclass options (Fighter/Thief in both cases, with appropriate proficiency
and ability choices) to require their own separate set of rules.
Bottom Line: If, using, the existing rules, I can construct a credible
character that fulfills the role, I don't need a subclass. I as GM can
cut people enough slack on things like weapon restrictions (does anyone
really take these as seriously as the book seems to imply?) to get a decent
fit. I want the spirit of the rules respected--in general thieves should not
be walking around with large battle weapons, for instance, but should tend
to choose small, relatively handy ones instead--but if I feel I should allow a
professional killer to learn to use other weapons, fine. Thus my claim that
classes are a template.
>>> Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can
>>dispense
>>> with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you really
>>want
>>> to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit, Cavalier,
>>> etc.
>Feh. The Archer/Archer ranger was nothing but an attempt towards
>weapon specialization. And I never saw *any* PC Bandits or Death
>Masters.
Sure, but (as you have basically made a straw man of my position) these
*are* the logical extremes of your position. I trust you can recognize
this?
>>If we are to think of them as customizable templates, then why do we need a
>>ranger or bard class?
>Or any other class for that matter. *Any* class can be de-constructed
>and turned into a skill list.
But you're reading way too much into what I'm saying and/or are making a straw
man argument. I'm *not* proposing deconstructing every class or even the
class system. Skills & Powers did this FAR more than my own house rules.
It remains to be seen what 3E will do.
Matt Devney
> I think there is a big difference in kind between eliminating a cleric's
> spells and eliminating the Assassination Table. One eliminates an entire
> range of abilities (spells), while the other (quick, stealthy kills) still
> leaves the assassin with a perfectly viable method of quick, stealthy kill--
> the backstab.
Imagine a scenario where an assassin wants to 'secretly kill' a high
level fighter (round about 100hp) exactly HOW can he do this with a
single backstab (needed if he wants to maintain his secrecy)???? I
certainly don't think it's possible. So in order to do that he needs an
extra ability, which IMHO is too complicated and powerful to just be a
NWP. Therefore it needs to be included in a new class. Nuff said.
On the original subject of assassins being cut out - it's no biggie,
just put them back in from 1st ed, or make them up... we've all got
imaginations right? We can figure out the rules :-)
The above is rather simplistic, but its enough for me. You guys can
argue the toss about it till the cows come home. I won't mind, I'll be
off roleplaying :-) By the way, I don't use assassins in my game -
players get annoyed when their chartacters just die in the middle of the
night - and I rather hate the idea of my main NPC bad guy getting his
throat slit without a damn good fight!
--
Matt Devney
My opinions are not Ford Motor Company's opinions. Obviously...
The Wraith
>
>Sure. I just don't see a need to have an entire "subclass" for the whole
>mess. I don't want to see subclass proliferation happening. The number of
>subclasses in 1st Edition got ridiculous. Given a bit of GM flexibility
>and player reasonableness, customization can be accomplished easily without
>having to have 9000 subclasses.
This reminds me of the Rolemaster of an edition or two back.
Rolemaster uses a combined class and skill system, which means that
while the classes lay out the basic abilities of characters, the
system is also quite flexible and will allow a character of any class
to do pretty much anything. (Note - I'm not saying that RM is superior
to AD&D because of this. Rolemaster has its own failings, not least of
which is the incredible number of tables the system uses. It is
sometimes nicknamed "Chartmaster" for this reason.)
However, this particular edition of the game had a series of Companion
books. Each Companion added a fairly large number of class (around 20?
maybe?) to the game. Seeing as there were at least five basic
Companions, plus the Elemental Companion and one or two others
besides, the number of classes got really ridiculous. The thing was,
very few of the classes really added anything to the game. Most seemed
like a poor excuse to add five extra spell lists to the game (since
Rolemaster magic was based around a small number of lists available to
many spellcasting classes and about five lists specific to each
spellcasting class). It seemed to me that the same effect, and more,
could be achieved simply by adding the extra spell lists and making
them available to existing classes. (After all, nobody could get all
the lists available to them anyway, so its not as if extra possible
lists would increase the power of any individual character.)
Anyway, something very similar occurs with (A)D&D if you try building
a class for each and every concept you come up with. There are better
ways to allow customization of characters.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Michael Brown
Matt Devney <mde...@ford.com> wrote in message
news:380590CE...@ford.com...
> Imagine a scenario where an assassin wants to 'secretly kill' a high
> level fighter (round about 100hp) exactly HOW can he do this with a
> single backstab (needed if he wants to maintain his secrecy)????
Attack him when he is helpless. Or make him helpless and then attack
him. It's just that easy.
You cannot possibly hope to sit there with a straight face and claim
that a warrior with downright *godlike* reflexes is going to be a viable
target for simply sneaking up and stabbing to death. Any attempt to kill
such a foe *must* involve better control of the situation than a simple
physical attack. Arm yourself with magic, poison your weapon, sabotage his
defenses and escape routes, then strike when he is most vulnerable,
Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
-Michael
The Wraith
>rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert Baldwin) writes:
>
>>The woodsman (Ranger) is clearly a different *type* of
>>character than is the generic fighter,
>
>Sure, but do you want to have all woodsmen pigeon-holed in the way that the
>AD&D ranger is?
(Actually, I see scope for a ranger as being a woodsman who is not a
fighter first and foremost, one whose primary skillset is
outdoors/survival skills rather than combat, or magic, faith or
stealth for that matter. I do agree that the current AD&D ranger fails
to implement this properly.)
>I think there is a big difference in kind between eliminating a cleric's
>spells and eliminating the Assassination Table. One eliminates an entire
>range of abilities (spells), while the other (quick, stealthy kills) still
>leaves the assassin with a perfectly viable method of quick, stealthy kill--
>the backstab.
Especially if the backstab bonus is customizable, the way the other
thief skills are, as then the means exists to have a character who is
especially skill in this area.
>Classes' quasimagical or magical abilities I consider out of bounds of the
>proficiency system (if I were to allow them at all; like I said I don't allow
>all classes). I also consider abilities like possession of weapon
>specialization or backstab to be out of the bounds of the proficiency system.
Actually, weapon specialization is not entirely divorced from the
proficiency system.
>>>There are also other existing abilities that can be lumped in as
>>>proficiencies just fine. IIRC, 3E has turned the thief abilities into
>>>skills.
>
>>Hey, I can play RoleMaster any time. D&D uses classes.
>
>Sure it does, but you can have a class system that is supplemented with a
>skill system that allows for some out-of-class customization without
>violating the spirit of the system itself.
Actually, Rolemaster is an example of just such a thing. Robert seems
to overlook the fact that Rolemaster uses classes and that class has a
strong effect on determining the abilities of a character in that
system, despite the fact that there is greater flexibility introduced
by its integrated skill system.
Gebhard Blucher
[snips]
> I would go farther than that. IMO a "class" is justified if the
> personality it attempts to describe is significantly different than
> that of any other class *and* it has/requires unique skills/ability
> sets. The woodsman (Ranger) is clearly a different *type* of
> character than is the generic fighter, as is the Holy Knight
> (Paladin). And the Secret Killer (assassin) is different than the
> thief.
I agree! Any system that can offer Rangers and Paladins as distinct
classes has room for the Assassin. As John V. mentions elsewhere, you
do have to draw the line somewhere... however, Assassins should stay,
imo. They were one of the "core" classes in 1st edition and many
campaigns feature them. Why not bring them back into the fold? It's
not like we're advocating the Merchant class. Or something. (like
trying to turn it into the War Hammer FRP)
> Or any other class for that matter. *Any* class can be de-constructed
> and turned into a skill list.
Don't you know? There are only four classes, templates rather. Each
character template has a distinct subset of skills. Well... There's
not really much difference between the Fighter and the Thief is
there? *And* the difference between Clerics and Magic Users is mostly
semantical, isn't it? Make that two classes, or character templates.
Hold on. What's a Magic User, but someone who knows some spells? And
anyone can fight, right? Make that just *one* type of character with
a wide variety of skills to choose from... Wait a sec...! That's
GURPS! :-)
GB <--- actually likes skill based games and hybrids like RM,
Alternity, and yes, even GURPS.
The Wraith
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> The man has a point. The way 3E works, why *not* have holy warriors
>simply be warrior priests with an exemption from the "different levels"
>multiclass xp penalty if they promise to keep their skills in a particular
>ratio (like 3:1 warrior-priest)?
Hmmm... I have a thought. Perhaps greater flexibility could be
introduced to the 3E multiclassing rules by allowing the player to
state, at character creation, what classes the character will acquire,
and in what ratio? Then, no penalties would accrue as long as the
character stuck to that plan, but the penalty would be taken if the
character deviated from the pre-specified plan - say by grabbing an
extra class, or by
Then, your paladin-like character could be created by saying
"fighter/priest, 3:1", an assassin with "thief/fighter, 2:1", and many
other types with just differing combinations.
The paladin would be required to make one of his first four levels be
the priest class, and the other three fighter, or take the penalty,
and continue similarly.
Matt Devney
>
> Attack him when he is helpless. Or make him helpless and then attack
> him. It's just that easy.
>
> You cannot possibly hope to sit there with a straight face and claim
> that a warrior with downright *godlike* reflexes is going to be a viable
> target for simply sneaking up and stabbing to death. Any attempt to kill
> such a foe *must* involve better control of the situation than a simple
> physical attack. Arm yourself with magic, poison your weapon, sabotage his
> defenses and escape routes, then strike when he is most vulnerable,
>
> Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
> intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
>
obviously didn't think enough about the situation. So why are people
arguing so much about it? By the way, I'm not being sarcastic, just in
case you're paranoid... and I wonder how many other people on this ng
would admit it when they're completely wrong (as I've just done)?
Jim Walters
: On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:30:15 +1300, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
: wrote:
:>climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)? The counter is, how
:>does it hurt anyone to have a separate class? There are some people who
:>want to use it as a separate class, so why don't everyone who doesn't think
:>it should be a class just not use it in their campaigns?
: Since assassins, by definition, are people who kill other people for a
: living, it doesn't sit well with the basic outlook of AD&D.
Killing things and taking their stuff is a very common way for PCs to make
a living in AD&D. Perhaps you meant 2nd ed's "no evil PCs" approach, but
there have always been people who have broken that "rule".
--
Jim Walters jwal...@clark.net
"My race is pacifist and does not believe in war.
We kill only out of personal spite." Brain Guy - MST3K
Sea Wasp
Either you're being sarcastic, or saying you're deaf. I was rather
vehement about my annoyance about that, too. Long threads, lots of
flamage.
The only way I can, with great pain and gritting my teeth, accept
leaving the psionicist out is that the psi represents an entirely new
and different set of powers -- requiring a section of different
mechanics, among other things -- which would expand the book beyond all
reason (according to some sources). If it turns out that this is the
case -- that they will produce a separate, high-quality, and
well-thought-out book on Psis (unlike the Marvel Ultimate Powers... er,
Complete Psionicist's Handbook, say), then it's acceptable. Or if they
plan to make psionics an inborn and pretty much unchanging power (which
would then be unacceptable to call a character class, because no
reasonable advancement would be possible), that, too, would remove them
from the PH as a class.
This is in no way comparable to the situation with assassins.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Sea Wasp
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:30:15 +1300, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)? The counter is, how
> >does it hurt anyone to have a separate class? There are some people who
> >want to use it as a separate class, so why don't everyone who doesn't think
> >it should be a class just not use it in their campaigns?
>
> Since assassins, by definition, are people who kill other people for a
> living, it doesn't sit well with the basic outlook of AD&D.
Oh? What is this basic outlook? I've seen entire campaigns revolving
around what would amount to psychopathic killers as the main characters.
Not my cuppa, but it's part and parcel of the game.
And it depends on WHY they kill people. In modern terms, you could have
a lawful good assassin: James Bond. That's what Bond DOES -- his License
to Kill basically is there because sometimes Her Majesty's Government
has a problem which can only be solved by removing certain people.
Art Wendorf
news:38050cc6...@news.netvigator.com...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:30:15 +1300, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)? The counter is,
> >how does it hurt anyone to have a separate class? There are some
> >one who doesn't thinkit should be a class just not use it in their
> > campaigns?
>
> Since assassins, by definition, are people who kill other people for a
> living, it doesn't sit well with the basic outlook of AD&D.
So, they're adventurers. You know, those people who kill others for a
profit. :)
(Adventurers kill dragon for dragon's gold. Adventurers kill orc then roll
the body.)
I thought that WAS the basic outlook of AD&D. Or don't your character's ever
kill anybody or anything for the treasure?
--
Art Wendorf | AWen...@satx.rr.com
http://home.satx.rr.com/artshideout/
RPG Stuff, Fantasy Artwork, Fiction, Opinions, and Other Crap!
Joe Marley
to correct me), but the concept of an assassin seems to be a very focused
class. Most portrayals I have seen of assassins either portray them as lone
individuals, or members of a group assassins working towards a common goal.
Based on that half-baked concept, I find it hard to understand why an
assassin would "hang out" with a larger variety of other class types, since
they would impede him working towards his goal. Plus, the assassin
(typically being cash-oriented) isn't going to want to share the results of
his hard work with others.
It just doesn't appear to be a group-oriented class to me -- unless you have
a whole squad of assassins working together, that is. And the class itself
makes it difficult for other members of the group to develop any form of
trust towards the assassin.
Example: Bob the mage has a bounty (500 gp) on his head after the party's
previous adventure and he cast Sleep on the castle guards (who couldn't
remember anyone's description but his). From this point on, Bob is not
going to rest easy, even when with the group, knowing that Bill the Assassin
may decide at any point that Bob's head is worth more than Bob's friendship.
It seems (to me) a properly played assassin would be as much of a threat to
the party that he was in as he would be to anyone else. I just see lots of
opportunity in the assassin for power-gamers to get off and true
role-players to cause internal strife to the party. (After all, almost all
assassins have their price - isn't that the concept of an assassin?)
Example 2: In the above example, the DM decides the captain of the guard is
extremely unhappy about the previous expedition, because the guards were all
executed for sleeping on the job. He adds a personal treasure, a +1 dagger,
to the bounty for the mage. Suddenly, Bill is more tempted. He looks at
what other local work is avaiable. The only work available to him with that
kind of payback (500 gp, +1 dagger) is a job to assassinate one of the
duke's rivals who is constantly guarded by 4 expert warriors. Bill has to
weigh the risks involved (hmmm... either one sleeping mage or 4 trained
warriors and a noble. Same reward), and, unless some very strong ethics are
part of his makeup, you have PC attacking PC.
(Granted, a DM would want to avoid this situation, but if the DM is
role-playing the rest of the world why wouldn't he increase the bounty -
other than to prevent a bad situation for the party?)
My two coppers
pblock
Jim Walters wrote ...
> Led Mirage wrote:
"Sheitan" wrote:
>
>
> :>climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)? The counter is,
how
> :>does it hurt anyone to have a separate class? There are some people who
think
> :>it should be a class just not use it in their campaigns?
>
> : Since assassins, by definition, are people who kill other people for a
> : living, it doesn't sit well with the basic outlook of AD&D.
>
> a living in AD&D. Perhaps you meant 2nd ed's "no evil PCs" approach, but
> there have always been people who have broken that "rule".
>
I think he meant it's more an image thing. Kind of like the half-orc, which
was removed from the core books since the only way from *any* human is
likely to procreate with an orc is to be raped. TSR didn't want to have to
deal with any potential flack, so they pulled it from the PHB & DMG.
Sure the PCs all kill things for fun & profit, but the name "assassin" could
give those cross-head guys anti-D&D ammo if they wanted it.
Besides, doesn't the Rogue clas supercede both theif & assassin? one steals
for a living, one slips in & kills for a living, they're both sneaky gits.
john v verkuilen
>(Actually, I see scope for a ranger as being a woodsman who is not a
>fighter first and foremost, one whose primary skillset is
>outdoors/survival skills rather than combat, or magic, faith or
>stealth for that matter. I do agree that the current AD&D ranger fails
>to implement this properly.)
I've done this by tweaking the bard.
>>I think there is a big difference in kind between eliminating a cleric's
>>spells and eliminating the Assassination Table. One eliminates an entire
>>range of abilities (spells), while the other (quick, stealthy kills) still
>>leaves the assassin with a perfectly viable method of quick, stealthy kill--
>>the backstab.
>Especially if the backstab bonus is customizable, the way the other
>thief skills are, as then the means exists to have a character who is
>especially skill in this area.
Hmm, that's an interesting idea. If you had to purchase backstab ability
at some level that would work pretty well. The assassin would be a thief
who has bought up backstab to a high level.
>>Classes' quasimagical or magical abilities I consider out of bounds of the
>>proficiency system (if I were to allow them at all; like I said I don't allow
>>all classes). I also consider abilities like possession of weapon
>>specialization or backstab to be out of the bounds of the proficiency system.
>Actually, weapon specialization is not entirely divorced from the
>proficiency system.
Sure, in the sense that you have to spend a proficiency to get it, but I don't
care how many proficiencies you spend if you're not a pure class fighter, you
don't get specialization.
>>Sure it does, but you can have a class system that is supplemented with a
>>skill system that allows for some out-of-class customization without
>>violating the spirit of the system itself.
>Actually, Rolemaster is an example of just such a thing. Robert seems
>to overlook the fact that Rolemaster uses classes and that class has a
>strong effect on determining the abilities of a character in that
>system, despite the fact that there is greater flexibility introduced
>by its integrated skill system.
True, RM was good that way. It was bad in the sense that there was an
overwhelming gaggle of optional rules and classes. Many of the classes
in RM *are* small changes and elaborations on the existing ones. There is
too much variation in the cost schemes and too many skills IMO as well.
So, strangely enough, it ended up with the craploads of subclasses even
though the integrated skill system would seem to offer a nice way around it.
john v verkuilen
[snip]
> Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
>intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
I seem to recall that the Assassination Table was supposed to represent
exactly this sort of planning but keep everything "off stage," as it were,
reduced to a single percentage roll. I'll have to look at the fine print in
the PHB1 and DMG1 to see for sure.
To simulate the fact that a helpless opponent is in a bad way when attacked,
I allow one to do triple maximum damage for the weapon. Thieves get their
backstab multiplier added on. So a 5th level thief attacking a sleeping man
with a shortsword would do 6x6 = 36 points of damage, in one blow. This will
not necessarily lay the dwarven lord of legendary toughness low, but he's not
going to be happy about it. A few people attacking him in simultaneous blows
will snuff him. He *should* be hard to kill.
If you feel the need to make this nastier, multiply triple max by the backstab
multiplier, giving 54 points of damage (and requiring a save vs. death not to
die if you use that rule).
If you feel even this isn't nasty enough, just rule that a helpless man-sized
opponent can be killed in one round of undisturbed action provided a suitably
vulnerable spot (carotid artery, base of the neck, heart) is accessible and
a suitable weapon is available. I used to use this but I felt that it really
violated the spirit of the hit point system and the heroic feel I was going
for, so I switched to the first system mentioned. It is enough to kill just
about anybody.
Michael Brown
> > Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
> >intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
>
> I seem to recall that the Assassination Table was supposed to represent
> exactly this sort of planning but keep everything "off stage," as it were,
> reduced to a single percentage roll.
That sounds about right; trouble is, reducing all this to a table
instead of playing it out is anethema to the spirit of the game. Make your
skill checks to sneak in, or to foible security with your disguises ... and
deal with the surprises you didn't anticipate!
> To simulate the fact that a helpless opponent is in a bad way when
attacked,
> I allow one to do triple maximum damage for the weapon.
Why not just use the "helpless = dead" rule? Nevermind! Just read the
last paragraph. But I don't see how you could think it violated the spirit
of the *hp* system, though - the whole point of hp is active defenses, if
you haven't got any, you're just meat. I do see how it's somewhat
un-*heroic*, however, to simply be snuffed at will.
The most logical alternative to insta-snuff is to multiply damage
proportionally (as described on "hit points" thread) so that however many hp
he has, he's just as effectively hurt as a 1st-level person would be if run
through with a blade. Those that are physically tough enough to survive one
good stabbing won't survive two. :)
-Michael
Dave
> >intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
>
> I seem to recall that the Assassination Table was supposed to represent
> exactly this sort of planning but keep everything "off stage," as it were,
in
> the PHB1 and DMG1 to see for sure.
Nothing in either book states the Assassination Table is used to replace the
role-playing of the assassination attempt. I'm sure some people may have
used it that way, but we have also seen evidence of DM's allowing 1st level
characters to have a 20 Strength and a lance +5.
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
Dave
news:JFmN3.207$4w1....@news.flash.net...
> Perhaps I am wrong (and if so, I'm sure there will be plenty quite willing
> to correct me), but the concept of an assassin seems to be a very focused
> class. Most portrayals I have seen of assassins either portray them as
lone
> individuals, or members of a group assassins working towards a common
goal.
>
> Based on that half-baked concept, I find it hard to understand why an
> assassin would "hang out" with a larger variety of other class types,
since
> they would impede him working towards his goal.
Your reasoning would seem to hold true for the typical ranger as well.
<snip>
> It seems (to me) a properly played assassin would be as much of a threat
to
> the party that he was in as he would be to anyone else. I just see lots
of
> opportunity in the assassin for power-gamers to get off and true
> role-players to cause internal strife to the party. (After all, almost
all
> assassins have their price - isn't that the concept of an assassin?)
What prevents players from role-playing based on their character's
personality?
Dave
> >> What is an assassin? Well basically it's someone who kills people
> >primarily
down.
> >> Many characters are nominally thieves but never steal a thing. Perhaps
> >one
> >> could go further and say that the assassin is a slightly better fighter
> >than
> >> a thief as well. The 1st Edition Assassin wasn't *that* much better
than
> >a
> >> thief.
> >
is
> >"justified" by either giving it powers that members of other class cannot
> >obtain or else give the ranger advantages in certain skills over the
other
> >classes.
>
> personality it attempts to describe is significantly different than
> that of any other class *and* it has/requires unique skills/ability
> sets. The woodsman (Ranger) is clearly a different *type* of
> character than is the generic fighter, as is the Holy Knight
> (Paladin). And the Secret Killer (assassin) is different than the
> thief.
Agreed. I am just pointing out the weakness of the argument against the
assassin class, as it easily could be implemented against other classes too.
>
> The character concept of a secret killer is valid, and there must be
> *some* method of that ability to be implemented, above and beyond what
> other classes have.
I kind of like having an Agent class, as opposed to the assassin class. It
helps broaden the class description, which will hopefully prevent people
from obsessing over the class name.
> >There are also other existing abilities that can be lumped in as
> >proficiencies just fine. IIRC, 3E has turned the thief abilities into
> >skills.
>
> Hey, I can play RoleMaster any time. D&D uses classes.
The irony is that these classes are allowed to exist while the assassin
class is removed. I would rather have the classes than some purely
skill-based system.
> >> Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can
> >dispense
> >> with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you
really
> >want
> >> to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit,
Cavalier,
> >> etc.
>
> Feh. The Archer/Archer ranger was nothing but an attempt towards
> weapon specialization. And I never saw *any* PC Bandits or Death
> Masters.
>
> >If we are to think of them as customizable templates, then why do we need
a
> >ranger or bard class?
>
> Or any other class for that matter. *Any* class can be de-constructed
> and turned into a skill list.
Exactly. That's why this business of eliminating only one class via this
argument is flawed. Either apply this standard fully or not at all.
Dave
> "Dave" <davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> >What is a ranger? Just a fighter with some outdoors skills. The class
is
> >"justified" by either giving it powers that members of other class cannot
> >obtain or else give the ranger advantages in certain skills over the
other
> >classes.
> I encourage players to use the multiclass system--which I've opened up to
> humans--to come up with characters that have multiple abilities. I don't
> need rangers and paladins since the roles of wilderness warrior with some
> supernatural powers or holy warrior can be quite adequately represented
with
> multiclass fighters.
I don't have a problem with this, as long as it is uniformly applied. When
we have the assassin class removed because it's powers were converted into
skills, it is inconsistent to still keep the bard or the ranger. If people
are that dead set on this way of thinking, then remove all these subclasses
and get down to the basic 4 classes:
Mages: Power from magic
Clerics: Power from faith
Warriors: Power from fighting skills
Thieves: Power from nonfighting skills
Of course, the Thief class should be renamed and the automatic assigning of
the various thief skills (Pick Pockets, Open Locks, etc.) should be lifted.
People can use these base classes to construct whatever character they would
like. In the past I have used fractional multi-classing, where the player
states at character creation the percentage of experience points each class
gets. So if you want a fighter with some thiefly abilities, out of every 4
experience points earned you could give 3 to your fighter side and 1 to your
thief side. This would also work for approximating paladins somewhat as
fighter/cleric's.
Joe Marley
Dave wrote in message <7u5ajv$a...@journal.concentric.net>...
><snip>
>Your reasoning would seem to hold true for the typical ranger as well.
Not nearly as much for a ranger. A ranger is (by my understanding) a
combination warrior/woodsman who has no love of cities and society, but does
come to the aid of travellers and those who cannot help themselves. There
are cases where a ranger would join a group of adventurers to defeat an evil
greater than what he would be able to destroy by himself. However, I would
agree that a ranger is unlikely to get involved in political matters and
would prefer to be in the wilds, away from cities, as much as he can (at
least IMO).
So I would classify a party with a ranger as somewhat rare, and usually the
ranger would join only because something that he wants to protect/save/etc.
is too powerful for him to attempt on his own.
The assassin might do the same (seek out an adventuring party to accomplish
a job too difficult for he alone). However, once the job is done he would
likely go his own way, or the party would go their own way, unless the two
were in agreement (another target ready to be attacked).
><snip>
>What prevents players from role-playing based on their character's
>personality?
Nothing at all!
Maybe I had best define what I assume to be the description of an assassin
(class). By my definition, an assassin is one whose primary occupation is
killing any specified single target for money.
I would think any assassin would become paranoid (or at least extremely
cautious) about who his companions were, if he were to have any. After all,
he makes a living of killing people, not all of which are aware that they
are marked. Betrayal and deception would be, I would think, regular parts
of his life. As a result, I would think he would not stay with any group
for long, and would always be suspicious of their actions.
In return, I would think any group that would allow an assassin within it
would watch him like a hawk. After all, they could be targets of an
assassination attempt, and he might even try it!
In short, I think there would have to be strong motivation for an assassin
to work within a group, and a strong motivation for the group to work with
an assassin. Maintaining that strong of a motivation (both ways) would be
difficult, I would think. Not impossible, but difficult.
Of course, I'm usually thinking of adventuring from a neutral to good point
of view. If you were running an evil campaign I could see an assassin being
a more viable class, since other evil characters would have no problem with
the motivations of the assassin and would be willing to participate for a
share of the profits. They would still watch each other for opportunities
to take advantage of each other, though!
J
Shawn Vincent
> > exactly this sort of planning but keep everything "off stage," as it were,
> > reduced to a single percentage roll. I'll have to look at the fine print
> in
> > the PHB1 and DMG1 to see for sure.
>
> Nothing in either book states the Assassination Table is used to replace the
> role-playing of the assassination attempt. I'm sure some people may have
> used it that way, but we have also seen evidence of DM's allowing 1st level
> characters to have a 20 Strength and a lance +5.
This confuses me. I looked it up, because I thought I remembered otherwise.
However, I didn't get a straight answer.
The 1st edition PHB states that if they surprise their victim, they can attack
on the assassination table (which is in the DMG). If this fails, they still do damage
from a normal weapon attack, etc.
When you go to the assassination table in the dmg, however, it says something
else: that the percentages in the table are for near optimum conditions, that they
can be adjusted if the victim is wary, takes precautions, is guarded, and that a
"complete plan of how the deed is to be done should be prepared by the player
involved, and the precautions, if any, of the target character should be compared
against the plan".
This last bit, in particular, suggests to me that the assassination table is
to be used as Jay originally suggested.
<sigh>... things like this are what make me glad that I play 2nd edition
these days. :) Plus, I'm looking forward to 3rd edition, assassins or no
assassins.
-Shawn.
Jon Hickman
#
# john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
# news:7u57ef$3n7$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
# > > Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
# > >intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
# >
# > I seem to recall that the Assassination Table was supposed to represent
# > exactly this sort of planning but keep everything "off stage," as it were,
# > reduced to a single percentage roll.
#
# That sounds about right; trouble is, reducing all this to a table
# instead of playing it out is anethema to the spirit of the game. Make your
# skill checks to sneak in, or to foible security with your disguises ... and
# deal with the surprises you didn't anticipate!
Then again... playing it all out for one assasin is anathema to the enjoyment
of the game for other players. On the surface, I agree with you... tables
shouldn't be used as a substitute for roleplaying... but an Assassin's job is
really a one-man job, unless you have a team of assasins (not necessarily
Assassins).
That has, and always will be, my primary problem with the Assassin class and
all other such "Lone Ranger" character archetypes (the idea of needing a
class or not isn't an issue... I've always thought that an Assassin class can
coexist with other assassins, just as Fighters can coexist with fighters
[anyone can focus on bashing someone] and Thieves can coexist with thieves
[anyone can steal from someone]... the only group that has some sort of
"special" moniker are Wizards... everyone else is just better at the
non-capitalized activity they perform... and even then, Bards can be
wizardly). If a character's main "job" is something that is done entirely
away from and apart from the main group, then you have a lot of potential for
trouble.
You can easily run into cries of favoritism when running a story for one PC,
not to mention that you have to either run the player his own session or you
have to watch your other players twiddle their thumbs.
It's hard for an Assassin to ply his trade while adventuring with a group.
He's nothing but a bad Thief with more weapons in an adventuring group. While
Thieves and Rangers may break off momentarily to do their things, they still
are doing something that's fairly in tune with what the group is doing... it
makes more cohesive sense to me that they'd run off and scout for
troops/traps... rather than the Assassin sneaking off for a few hours to go
kill the King. (NO.. I will NOT roll the Assassination table for this guy to
take out a guard at the end of the hall... that's not what the table is for,
IMO... to do that simply makes the Assassin unreasonably powerful.)
Not only that... Assassin's probably shouldn't go around saying, "Hey, I'm an
Assassin! Arrest me!" This means that he needs to come up with legit reasons
for his disappearances when he goes to ply his trade... unless the party is in
the know... and possesses no Rangers, Paladins, or good-aligned Priests.
Jon Hickman
# On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:30:15 +1300, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
# wrote:
#
# >The argument is, why do they need to be a separate class, rather than just a
# >rogue/wizard/warrior/whatever who kills people for money and chooses to take
# >skills/spells that help in that process (pharmacology, climb walls/spider
# >climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)?
# <snip>
#
# An argument which works equally well for eliminating thieves and
# fighters, as well. Arcane arts are somewhat special, but every thing
# thieves and fighters do can be handled by skills at varrying levels.
The argument works well for eliminating ALL classes. You can have holy people
with out spells... moldy old researchers too. Come on, if Hide in Shadows can
be puchased as a skill, so can Invocation/Evocation - Secular.
I don't have a problem either way, but people need to come to the conclusion
as to whether or not they want a class-based or a skill-based system... the
arguments for both can easily be carried out to either extreme... and using
the arguments for one simple class with out acknowledging the full
ramifications is pure naivety.
john v verkuilen
># An argument which works equally well for eliminating thieves and
># fighters, as well. Arcane arts are somewhat special, but every thing
># thieves and fighters do can be handled by skills at varrying levels.
>The argument works well for eliminating ALL classes. You can have holy people
>with out spells... moldy old researchers too. Come on, if Hide in Shadows can
>be puchased as a skill, so can Invocation/Evocation - Secular.
I think there is a huge qualitative difference between learning how to walk
without making noise and learning how to call upon the power of a god. The
latter may not be something "just anyone" can pick up.
>I don't have a problem either way, but people need to come to the conclusion
>as to whether or not they want a class-based or a skill-based system... the
>arguments for both can easily be carried out to either extreme... and using
>the arguments for one simple class with out acknowledging the full
>ramifications is pure naivety.
I agree about pushing one's arguments too far. A post I made on the parent
thread explains why I think the basic four class system (with some supplements
like the bard as really necessary) is enough to represent most characters one
would want given a reasonably flexible customization system (proficiencies for
instance). I won't repeat it ad nauseum here.
Look at it this way: it worked for the priest fairly well. GM's customize
them all the time. Why not have a basic class template--keeping the boundaries
between classes, especially magic types, reasonably tight--and allow for
customization from there? You get the simplicity of a class based system
without the straightjacket or the proliferation of ridiculous subclasses.
Proficiencies are nice for allowing one to learn skills that are a bit out of
class (e.g., a religious fighter who learned Religion) or aren't necessarily
purely the province of one class (e.g., Tracking, which might be learned by
several different character types, not necessarily just rangers).
john v verkuilen
[snip]
> And it depends on WHY they kill people. In modern terms, you could have
>a lawful good assassin: James Bond. That's what Bond DOES -- his License
>to Kill basically is there because sometimes Her Majesty's Government
>has a problem which can only be solved by removing certain people.
You really think Bond is Lawful Good? I sincerely doubt it. Bond is neutral
at best and hardly lawful. Maybe one could make a case for a kind of nasty
Chaotic Good as he does have a good streak. He's just on "our side." Bond's
motivations don't come out real well in the movies--read the books for his
serious dark side (and good stories).
john v verkuilen
>Agreed. I am just pointing out the weakness of the argument against the
>assassin class, as it easily could be implemented against other classes too.
But the flip side of your argument leads us to the Death Master. There's
a balancing act one has to maintain. I am not proposing to eliminate the
class system (as I indicated in another post). I *am* proposing that one
should take a long, hard look at any classes one considers to see if the
basic four can do the job. I am also proposing that the basic four can be
made a bit more flexible to accomodate various subclasses one might want
to add rather than adding an entirely new set of (largely ad hoc) rules
to cover the class. AD&D1's big flaws as far as I am concerned was that
everything was done in an ad hoc manner, with subclasses being but one
example.
>> >There are also other existing abilities that can be lumped in as
>> >proficiencies just fine. IIRC, 3E has turned the thief abilities into
>> >skills.
>>
>> Hey, I can play RoleMaster any time. D&D uses classes.
>The irony is that these classes are allowed to exist while the assassin
>class is removed. I would rather have the classes than some purely
>skill-based system.
Huh?
>> Or any other class for that matter. *Any* class can be de-constructed
>> and turned into a skill list.
>Exactly. That's why this business of eliminating only one class via this
>argument is flawed. Either apply this standard fully or not at all.
You and Robert have both made a straw man of my argument. With any class
system you have to decide when the difference proposed can be accomodated
without new rules. I'm only saying that the assassin isn't IMO sufficiently
different from the thief to necessitate new rules. If you do find a difference
you want to represent it's a lot better to have a small-time skill system that
works within the basic class system (hopefully in a consistent manner) to
represent this difference, NOT an entire new class for every possible
configuration of abilities. Creating false dichotomies to make a rhetorical
point is a waste of time IMO.
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > And it depends on WHY they kill people. In modern terms, you could have
> >a lawful good assassin: James Bond. That's what Bond DOES -- his License
> >to Kill basically is there because sometimes Her Majesty's Government
> >has a problem which can only be solved by removing certain people.
>
> You really think Bond is Lawful Good? I sincerely doubt it. Bond is neutral
> at best and hardly lawful. Maybe one could make a case for a kind of nasty
> Chaotic Good as he does have a good streak. He's just on "our side." Bond's
> motivations don't come out real well in the movies--read the books for his
> serious dark side (and good stories).
I HAVE read the books. All of them. (well, the originals. I stopped
reading Gardner's new ones a while ago, and I now understand yet another
author's doing 'em now).
James strikes me as LG, yes. Just not a Paladin's LG. Then, my
definition of lawful is "Follows a meaningfully restrictive code of
behavior that permits one to predict his actions" rather than following
laws of the country or something.
Gebhard Blucher
Michael Brown wrote:
> That sounds about right; trouble is, reducing all this to a table
> instead of playing it out is anethema to the spirit of the game. Make your
> skill checks to sneak in, or to foible security with your disguises ... and
> deal with the surprises you didn't anticipate!
You still had to role-play everything leading up to the actual
assassination attempt. And the escape. The assassin still had to
infiltrate, gain trust, whatever.
For example: The assassin Hazar sets off to kill Lord Gundabo. At
this time the DM secretly rolls Hazar's assassination attempt based on
Hazar's level, Gundabo's level, and any other applicable modifiers
(tight or lax security, etc.). The DM smiles enigmatically. Hazar,
disguised as a servant, sneaks into Gundabo Keep. He makes his way
towards Gundabo's private chamber. Hazar eliminates the guards and
hides the bodies in a closet. Hazar waits in Gundabo's bedroom behind
the tapestry. Gundabo enters his rooms and prepares his nightly
toilet. Hazar slinks from behind the tapestry, draws closer to the
unsuspecting Gundabo, and makes his move...!
Now supposing the assassination roll indicated success, Gundabo will
be taken completely by surprise and will be slain. Failure indicates,
the hair on Gundabo's neck sticks up and his sixth sense warns his of
danger at the last moment, or that Hazar missed the mark and only
managed to inflict normal backstab damage, or whatever.
Even if Hazar's assassination roll indicated success, Hazar still had
to successfully disguise himself and infiltrate the castle. He still
had to dispose of the guards. He still had to successfully hide in
shadows behind the tapestry and move silently behind Gundabo. He
still had to make a successful attack. And so on. And that's only in
this scenario.
The roll is just a general indicator of how the attempt will go. A
horrible failure could mean that Hazar's disguise was penetrated in
the midst of a large patrol of guards. Or that Gundabo just happened
to have a meeting in his private rooms that night with several of his
powerful retainers including many high level fighters, the keep's
chaplain, and the court wizard. Ooops.
(Alternately, you could make the assassination attempt roll at the
very moment after Hazar's successful attack.)
Nothing suggests that all this happens in the "background." Only npc
assassins vs. npc marks work that way.
GB
Gebhard Blucher
Now this I agree with. The PC assassin will not be able to ply his
"trade" in such a manner at all, unless the group is willing to help
out. In your scenario the assassin is just another adventurer with
modest thieving and fighting skills. It may not be all that
interesting imo, but if it's what the player wants (and the rest of
the party doesn't mind having such an evil character along), then so
be it. It's like the thief wanting to do a solo job of breaking into
that fat merchant's manor. Or the magic using classes fabricating
magic items and accumulating the exotic ingredients. Ideally, DMs
should set aside one-on-one playing sessions with each of the
characters for solo adventures. I wouldn't care to play an assassin
in a standard adventuring party, but that doesn't mean they can't be a
viable class.
GB
Michael Brown
The Wraith <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
> > The man has a point. The way 3E works, why *not* have holy warriors
> >simply be warrior priests with an exemption from the "different levels"
> >multiclass xp penalty if they promise to keep their skills in a
particular
> >ratio (like 3:1 warrior-priest)?
>
> Hmmm... I have a thought. Perhaps greater flexibility could be
> introduced to the 3E multiclassing rules by allowing the player to
> state, at character creation, what classes the character will acquire,
> and in what ratio? Then, no penalties would accrue as long as the
> character stuck to that plan
Hot damnn! That's brilliant. <applause>
-Michael
Bruce Grubb
verkuilen) wrote:
>ji...@hotmail.com (Jon Hickman) writes:
>
>>I don't have a problem either way, but people need to come to the conclusion
>>as to whether or not they want a class-based or a skill-based system... the
>>arguments for both can easily be carried out to either extreme... and using
>>the arguments for one simple class with out acknowledging the full
>>ramifications is pure naivety.
>
>I agree about pushing one's arguments too far. A post I made on the parent
>thread explains why I think the basic four class system (with some supplements
>like the bard as really necessary) is enough to represent most characters one
>would want given a reasonably flexible customization system (proficiencies for
>instance). I won't repeat it ad nauseum here.
>
>Look at it this way: it worked for the priest fairly well. GM's customize
>them all the time. Why not have a basic class template--keeping the boundaries
>between classes, especially magic types, reasonably tight--and allow for
>customization from there?
The problem there is can such boundaries be maintained without opening the
dual class/multiclass and proficiency proliferation can of worms? As
shown in Dragon #36 even Gygax had problems fitting fictional chararaters
(Consn in this case) into the AD&D1 framework. Then there are the class
specific abilities that simply make no sence (the Thief's read languages
and read magic skills for example).
>You get the simplicity of a class based system
>without the straightjacket or the proliferation of ridiculous subclasses.
Templates are used in skill baced system to vastly simply things. But
this raises the question of once one has the proficiencies and the
templates does one really need the classes (except as names for the
templates) anymore?
>Proficiencies are nice for allowing one to learn skills that are a bit out of
>class (e.g., a religious fighter who learned Religion) or aren't necessarily
>purely the province of one class (e.g., Tracking, which might be learned by
>several different character types, not necessarily just rangers).
I agree with this but it raises the question again of other than as
templates what good are the classes.
Bruce Grubb
verkuilen) wrote:
>The thief and fighter/thief make good assassins depending on allocation of
>thief points (certainly any thief multiclass works but these represent the
>spirit of the original the best). Insto-kill is against the spirit of the
>basic hit point system and is adequately represented by backstab (which is a
>pretty damn good way of killing people in one blow I might point out :) than
>that stupid Assassination Table. Other than that, the assassin had a few
>perks--spying abilities, languages, some "tradecraft"--that can be soaked up
>with appropriate choice of proficiencies just fine. Just assume that
>learning things like Poison Lore or the like requires specialized training
>from a Guild of Assassins and you're in business. You want to run it like
>the 1st Edition guild, go for it. But you certainly don't need an entire
>class to do the job.
I agree and IMHO it was classes like the assassin and Druid that created
much of the class for everything and everything with its class mentality
seen in AD&D1 days. Nearly all the classes that Dragon and White Dwarf
talked about were NPCs mainly because they were either 1) unplayable as
adventurers (Alchemist - Dragon #2) or were balance nightmares that would
mess up a campaign faster than you could say "Welcome to Munchkinland" if
you ever let a PC use one (Anti-palidin, Death mage, and Armorsmith)
>Same goes for the barbarian IMO. Just take a fighter, given some appropriate
>proficiencies, and you're on your way.
This was AD&D2 take on the barbarian and bunch of other sub-classes from
AD&D1 days both official and unofficial. Personally I consider most of
the UA's classes balance fiascos or fluff.
>Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can dispense
>with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you really want
>to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit, Cavalier,
>etc.
For some of these only the munchkin minded would want them back. :-)
Jim Walters
: Jim Walters wrote ...
:> Led Mirage wrote:
: "Sheitan" wrote:
:>
:>
:> :>climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)? The counter is,
This supports my point. "The basic outlook of AD&D" has nothing to do
with why assassins were removed from 2nd ed.
--
Jim Walters jwal...@clark.net
"My race is pacifist and does not believe in war.
We kill only out of personal spite." Brain Guy - MST3K
Robert Baldwin
>rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert Baldwin) writes:
>
>>>> What is an assassin? Well basically it's someone who kills people
>>>primarily
>>>> with stealth.
>
>>>What is a ranger? Just a fighter with some outdoors skills. The class is
>>>"justified" by either giving it powers that members of other class cannot
>>>obtain or else give the ranger advantages in certain skills over the other
>>>classes.
>
>>I would go farther than that. IMO a "class" is justified if the
>>personality it attempts to describe is significantly different than
>>that of any other class *and* it has/requires unique skills/ability
>>sets. The woodsman (Ranger) is clearly a different *type* of
>>character than is the generic fighter,
>Sure, but do you want to have all woodsmen pigeon-holed in the way that the
>AD&D ranger is?
>as is the Holy Knight
>>(Paladin).
>Or "religious warriors" pigeon-holed the way the AD&D paladin is?
I don't concede that all rangers or all paladins are "pigeon-holed".
IME I've seen a lot of both, and a *wide* variety or personalities
*within* tha basic framework of each class.
>And the Secret Killer (assassin) is different than the
>>thief.
>
>Sure, but at some level you have to draw the line as to where you say,
>all right, this isn't worthy of a class but should be accounted for by
>a system that allows for customization within the class boundaries.
Indeed. Hence my point that a new class must be justified on *both*
skill-set *and* role-play considerations. No new class just to add a
tweak on an ability. So, add weapon specialization and do *not*
create the "archer-ranger". But a cavalier is more than just a
fighter with some different stats. The cav. *also* has justification
as a distinct personality type.
>>>> The thief and fighter/thief make good assassins depending on allocation of
>>>> thief points (certainly any thief multiclass works but these represent the
>>>> spirit of the original the best). Insto-kill is against the spirit of the
>>>> basic hit point system and is adequately represented by backstab (which is
>>>a
>>>> pretty damn good way of killing people in one blow I might point out :)
>>>than
>>>> that stupid Assassination Table.
>
>>Here I disagree. The entire *point* of the assassin is the extreme
>>skill at killing. This is represented by the ability to by-pass the
>>usual HP model. Reverting to the backstab mechanic as it exists now
>>is simply eliminating the mechanic which implements the class. We
>>might as well eliminate clerical spells as an ability and say that
>>clerics can still pray. The point of the cleric would be lost.
>
>I think there is a big difference in kind between eliminating a cleric's
>spells and eliminating the Assassination Table. One eliminates an entire
>range of abilities (spells), while the other (quick, stealthy kills) still
>leaves the assassin with a perfectly viable method of quick, stealthy kill--
>the backstab.
Then he's just a thief. And the backstab is grossly inadequate as a
method of performing quick kills in the current hp system. Do the
math. At 12th level a thief, assuming no other modifiers, using a
short-sword for a backstab does an average of 14 (3.5x4) points of
damage. No way that has any reasonable chance ok killing a 12th level
fighter with an average of 81 hp's (5.5x9+9).
<snip>
>Bottom Line: If, using, the existing rules, I can construct a credible
>character that fulfills the role, I don't need a subclass.
And a skill system certainly gets us to the ranger or paladin, so
they're out. And there is no *real* justification for either the
thief or fighter, except that you want them. They can be duplicated
with a skill system, however.
IMO, skills should *only* provide for customization *within* a class,
and if there are significant personality *and* skill differences then
a new class or sub-class is justified.
<snip>
>>>> Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can
>>>dispense
>>>> with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you really
>>>want
>>>> to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit, Cavalier,
>>>> etc.
>
>>Feh. The Archer/Archer ranger was nothing but an attempt towards
>>weapon specialization. And I never saw *any* PC Bandits or Death
>>Masters.
>
>Sure, but (as you have basically made a straw man of my position) these
>*are* the logical extremes of your position. I trust you can recognize
>this?
Not at all. I do not see that these are *logical* positions because I
have allready explained that the Archer Ranger is a simple skill
addition to the ranger.
>>>If we are to think of them as customizable templates, then why do we need a
>>>ranger or bard class?
>
>>Or any other class for that matter. *Any* class can be de-constructed
>>and turned into a skill list.
>
>But you're reading way too much into what I'm saying and/or are making a straw
>man argument. I'm *not* proposing deconstructing every class or even the
>class system. Skills & Powers did this FAR more than my own house rules.
>It remains to be seen what 3E will do.
I *am* certainly taking the "loose the assassin" argument to an
unreasonable conclusion, because it is an unreasonable argument in and
of itself (that the assassin is just a person who kills for money and
thus should not be a class). The assassin is as justifiable as the
ranger or the paladin, and ultimately the fighter and thief.
Arguments against one work equally well against the others.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>Matt Devney <mde...@ford.com> wrote in message
>news:380590CE...@ford.com...
>> Imagine a scenario where an assassin wants to 'secretly kill' a high
>> level fighter (round about 100hp) exactly HOW can he do this with a
>> single backstab (needed if he wants to maintain his secrecy)????
>
> Attack him when he is helpless. Or make him helpless and then attack
>him. It's just that easy.
>
> You cannot possibly hope to sit there with a straight face and claim
>that a warrior with downright *godlike* reflexes is going to be a viable
>target for simply sneaking up and stabbing to death.
Assuming a an assassin of *equally* god-like skills, specializing in
doing *exactly* that? Yes, I will.
<snip>
> Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
>intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
And a particular view of the "attacking a helpless target" rule. All
my approach does is give the assassin what amounts to an enhanced
opportunity to achieve that state of affairs. *Any* creature can kill
Mongo the 100HP fighter if Mongo is considered helpless. The
assassin's skills/abilities make him *notably* better at getting there
than other characters, the thief included. Allowing the assassin an
attack which by-passes the stanard hp system is a legitimate way of
accomplishing that.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Michael Brown wrote:
>>
>> Attack him when he is helpless. Or make him helpless and then attack
>> him. It's just that easy.
>>
>> You cannot possibly hope to sit there with a straight face and claim
>> that a warrior with downright *godlike* reflexes is going to be a viable
>> target for simply sneaking up and stabbing to death. Any attempt to kill
>> such a foe *must* involve better control of the situation than a simple
>> physical attack. Arm yourself with magic, poison your weapon, sabotage his
>> defenses and escape routes, then strike when he is most vulnerable,
>>
>> Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
>> intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
>>
>Good points one and all - I completely retract my previous statements. I
>obviously didn't think enough about the situation. So why are people
>arguing so much about it? By the way, I'm not being sarcastic, just in
>case you're paranoid... and I wonder how many other people on this ng
>would admit it when they're completely wrong (as I've just done)?
Hey, I've already admitted to being wrong as to accepting the original
Assassin's mechanics. But I *do* believe that the class concept is
viable, and not adequately implementable in the current rules without
accepting more of a skill-based system, than I want.
Robert Baldwin
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>news:7u2doi$9ss$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>> abilities that the assassin doesn't have. I have all-but eliminated the
>> ranger and paladin from my camapaign. Since humans can multiclass, a
>> fighter/thief or fighter/priest (for the ranger) and a fighter/priest for
>> the paladin works just fine. Also solves the IMO stupid "paladins of
>non-LG
>> alignment" problem too.
>
> The man has a point. The way 3E works, why *not* have holy warriors
>simply be warrior priests with an exemption from the "different levels"
>multiclass xp penalty if they promise to keep their skills in a particular
>ratio (like 3:1 warrior-priest)? This would trivially satisfy the slower
>advancement for the "paladin" as well, because every few levels he has to
>take some time off and refocus his priestly abilities.
> He could start out at L1 as a plain fighter, and would have to *earn*
>the privelege of a dieity's blessing, or he might start as a militant priest
>and change course for some heavy battle training.
>
> The elegant multiclassing rules elminate the need for a lot of the
>"fudge" crossover classes.
Hell, why not just give every skill set a cost factor (points) and
create each character from a menu of abilities? Why use classes at
all?
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>On 14 Oct 1999 06:48:15 GMT, ja...@uiuc.edu (john v verkuilen) wrote:
>>rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert Baldwin) writes:
>>
>>>The woodsman (Ranger) is clearly a different *type* of
>>>character than is the generic fighter,
>>
>>Sure, but do you want to have all woodsmen pigeon-holed in the way that the
>>AD&D ranger is?
>
>(Actually, I see scope for a ranger as being a woodsman who is not a
>fighter first and foremost, one whose primary skillset is
>outdoors/survival skills rather than combat, or magic, faith or
>stealth for that matter. I do agree that the current AD&D ranger fails
>to implement this properly.)
Agreed. The D&D Ranger is not a woodsman, he's a Dunedan.
<snip>
>>>Hey, I can play RoleMaster any time. D&D uses classes.
>>
>>Sure it does, but you can have a class system that is supplemented with a
>>skill system that allows for some out-of-class customization without
>>violating the spirit of the system itself.
>
>Actually, Rolemaster is an example of just such a thing. Robert seems
>to overlook the fact that Rolemaster uses classes and that class has a
>strong effect on determining the abilities of a character in that
>system, despite the fact that there is greater flexibility introduced
>by its integrated skill system.
Nope, I know exactly how RM works (ok, the next-to-most-recent
version). And yes, there is a class system, which establishes the
costing factors for skill acquisition. Point being that RM classes
are "soft" rther than "hard". You *can* have a fighter acquire thief
skills or spells, etc. I see no reason to adopt that concept into
AD&D.
Judy Harrison
> Then he's just a thief. And the backstab is grossly inadequate as a
> method of performing quick kills in the current hp system. Do the
> math. At 12th level a thief, assuming no other modifiers, using a
> short-sword for a backstab does an average of 14 (3.5x4) points of
> damage. No way that has any reasonable chance ok killing a 12th level
> fighter with an average of 81 hp's (5.5x9+9).
Good point. But there is always extremely lethal poison...
Ryan Harrison
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
>> Then he's just a thief. And the backstab is grossly inadequate as a
>> method of performing quick kills in the current hp system. Do the
>> math. At 12th level a thief, assuming no other modifiers, using a
>> short-sword for a backstab does an average of 14 (3.5x4) points of
>> damage. No way that has any reasonable chance ok killing a 12th level
>> fighter with an average of 81 hp's (5.5x9+9).
>
>Good point. But there is always extremely lethal poison...
Also usable by the mage. Why have a fighter when the magic-user can
just poison-dagger everyone?
There remains a need, IMO, for a class with an ability to effectively
land a potentially lethal blow. One shot, one kill. Not always, and
under prescribed circumstances, and even only against a limited group
of targets (generally humanoid in physiology). And the standard
"helpless" rule is inadequate.
Robert Baldwin
<davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:3804bc4c...@news.rio.com...
>> On 12 Oct 1999 19:14:00 PDT, "Dave" wrote:
>> >john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:7u0j7k$chn$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>> >> What is an assassin? Well basically it's someone who kills people
>> >primarily
>> >> with stealth. In AD&D the thief class--broadly defined--has stealth
>down.
>> >> Many characters are nominally thieves but never steal a thing. Perhaps
>> >one
>> >> could go further and say that the assassin is a slightly better fighter
>> >than
>> >> a thief as well. The 1st Edition Assassin wasn't *that* much better
>than
>> >a
>> >> thief.
>> >
>> >What is a ranger? Just a fighter with some outdoors skills. The class
>is
>> >"justified" by either giving it powers that members of other class cannot
>> >obtain or else give the ranger advantages in certain skills over the
>other
>> >classes.
>>
>> I would go farther than that. IMO a "class" is justified if the
>> personality it attempts to describe is significantly different than
>> that of any other class *and* it has/requires unique skills/ability
>> sets. The woodsman (Ranger) is clearly a different *type* of
>> character than is the generic fighter, as is the Holy Knight
>> (Paladin). And the Secret Killer (assassin) is different than the
>> thief.
>
>Agreed. I am just pointing out the weakness of the argument against the
>assassin class, as it easily could be implemented against other classes too.
?
We seem to be agreeing then. My effort has been to discredit the
anti-assassin position by showing that it certainly applies to the
paladin and ranger, and arguably against the fighter and thief
groupings entirely. Loose one, loose 'em all.
>> The character concept of a secret killer is valid, and there must be
>> *some* method of that ability to be implemented, above and beyond what
>> other classes have.
>
>I kind of like having an Agent class, as opposed to the assassin class. It
>helps broaden the class description, which will hopefully prevent people
>from obsessing over the class name.
No prob. I even go as far as to restructure it as a fighter
sub-class. I think it occupies the same place WRT fighters and
thieves as the bard does WRT mages and thieves.
>> >There are also other existing abilities that can be lumped in as
>> >proficiencies just fine. IIRC, 3E has turned the thief abilities into
>> >skills.
>>
>> Hey, I can play RoleMaster any time. D&D uses classes.
>
>The irony is that these classes are allowed to exist while the assassin
>class is removed. I would rather have the classes than some purely
>skill-based system.
Skills *within* a class are good; skills *acroos* the classes are bad.
>> >> Just think of the basic classes as customizable templates and you can
>> >dispense
>> >> with the entire "TSR removed my favorite class" whine. Unless you
>really
>> >want
>> >> to bring back the Death Master, Archer, Archer-Ranger, Bandit,
>Cavalier,
>> >> etc.
>>
>> Feh. The Archer/Archer ranger was nothing but an attempt towards
>> weapon specialization. And I never saw *any* PC Bandits or Death
>> Masters.
>>
>> >If we are to think of them as customizable templates, then why do we need
>a
>> >ranger or bard class?
>>
>> Or any other class for that matter. *Any* class can be de-constructed
>> and turned into a skill list.
>
>Exactly. That's why this business of eliminating only one class via this
>argument is flawed. Either apply this standard fully or not at all.
Why play *anything* but a mage/cleric anyway?
;-)
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Thanks for the reply.
>
>Dave wrote in message <7u5ajv$a...@journal.concentric.net>...
>><snip>
>>Your reasoning would seem to hold true for the typical ranger as well.
>
<snip>
>So I would classify a party with a ranger as somewhat rare, and usually the
>ranger would join only because something that he wants to protect/save/etc.
>is too powerful for him to attempt on his own.
>
>The assassin might do the same (seek out an adventuring party to accomplish
>a job too difficult for he alone). However, once the job is done he would
>likely go his own way, or the party would go their own way, unless the two
>were in agreement (another target ready to be attacked).
<snip>
Why wouldn't the ranger leave as well? Why would a nature loving
ranger spend great deasl of time in cities, ruins, underground lairs,
etc?
I have yet to see an argument which cuts against the assassin without
hitting the paladin and ranger as well. Druid too, if it comes down
to it. Any nature priest can stand as the druid.
Robert Baldwin
<davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Joe Marley <jma...@prevuenet.com> wrote in message
>news:JFmN3.207$4w1....@news.flash.net...
>> Perhaps I am wrong (and if so, I'm sure there will be plenty quite willing
>> to correct me), but the concept of an assassin seems to be a very focused
>> class. Most portrayals I have seen of assassins either portray them as
>lone
>> individuals, or members of a group assassins working towards a common
>goal.
>>
>> Based on that half-baked concept, I find it hard to understand why an
>> assassin would "hang out" with a larger variety of other class types,
>since
>> they would impede him working towards his goal.
>
>Your reasoning would seem to hold true for the typical ranger as well.
And the paladin. Why would they work, long term, with anyone who
doesn't share their religion?
><snip>
>
>> It seems (to me) a properly played assassin would be as much of a threat
>to
>> the party that he was in as he would be to anyone else. I just see lots
>of
>> opportunity in the assassin for power-gamers to get off and true
>> role-players to cause internal strife to the party. (After all, almost
>all
>> assassins have their price - isn't that the concept of an assassin?)
And there is ample opportunity for a paladin to decide the other
members of the party are in need of some "assertive religious
training". Conversely, there is no good reason a Lawfull assassin
can't be as loyal as any other character. Aren't *many* pc's out for
loot? So, the assassin is more direct about his goal.
>What prevents players from role-playing based on their character's
>personality?
Nothing. Some of us realize it's a game, and the primary objective is
having fun. If playing a religious fanatic paladin, an isolationistic
anti-social ranger or a backstabbing assassin detract from that, we
don't do it.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>john v verkuilen wrote:
>>
>> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > And it depends on WHY they kill people. In modern terms, you could have
>> >a lawful good assassin: James Bond. That's what Bond DOES -- his License
>> >to Kill basically is there because sometimes Her Majesty's Government
>> >has a problem which can only be solved by removing certain people.
>>
>> You really think Bond is Lawful Good? I sincerely doubt it. Bond is neutral
>> at best and hardly lawful. Maybe one could make a case for a kind of nasty
>> Chaotic Good as he does have a good streak. He's just on "our side." Bond's
>> motivations don't come out real well in the movies--read the books for his
>> serious dark side (and good stories).
>
> I HAVE read the books. All of them. (well, the originals. I stopped
>reading Gardner's new ones a while ago, and I now understand yet another
>author's doing 'em now).
> James strikes me as LG, yes. Just not a Paladin's LG. Then, my
>definition of lawful is "Follows a meaningfully restrictive code of
>behavior that permits one to predict his actions" rather than following
>laws of the country or something.
And even by the classic D&D definition Bond is LG. He is *not* out
killing just to get his jollies, or for personal revenge. He is
clearly advancing societal values over the individual's liberty.
That's Law.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>In article <3803667b...@news.rio.com>, rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com wrote:
># On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:30:15 +1300, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
># wrote:
>#
># >The argument is, why do they need to be a separate class, rather than just a
># >rogue/wizard/warrior/whatever who kills people for money and chooses to take
># >skills/spells that help in that process (pharmacology, climb walls/spider
># >climb, hide in shadows/invisibility, tracking, etc.)?
># <snip>
>#
># An argument which works equally well for eliminating thieves and
># fighters, as well. Arcane arts are somewhat special, but every thing
># thieves and fighters do can be handled by skills at varrying levels.
>
>The argument works well for eliminating ALL classes. You can have holy people
>with out spells... moldy old researchers too. Come on, if Hide in Shadows can
>be puchased as a skill, so can Invocation/Evocation - Secular.
Well, one *can* have a system in which some people simply lack the
cpacity to cast spells, period. But saying that someone can not
*attempt* to move silently is silly, whatever system one uses. And
gods may only answer the calls of their chosen priests, but *anyone*
can pick up a sword and swing it. How *well* they swing it is a
different matter.
>I don't have a problem either way, but people need to come to the conclusion
>as to whether or not they want a class-based or a skill-based system... the
>arguments for both can easily be carried out to either extreme... and using
>the arguments for one simple class with out acknowledging the full
>ramifications is pure naivety.
I am *not* arguing for one class. I am pointing out that the
anti-assassin argument is also anti-ranger, anti-paladin, anti-druid,
etc.
Robert Baldwin
>ji...@hotmail.com (Jon Hickman) writes:
>
>># An argument which works equally well for eliminating thieves and
>># fighters, as well. Arcane arts are somewhat special, but every thing
>># thieves and fighters do can be handled by skills at varrying levels.
>
>>The argument works well for eliminating ALL classes. You can have holy people
>>with out spells... moldy old researchers too. Come on, if Hide in Shadows can
>>be puchased as a skill, so can Invocation/Evocation - Secular.
>
>I think there is a huge qualitative difference between learning how to walk
>without making noise and learning how to call upon the power of a god. The
>latter may not be something "just anyone" can pick up.
<snip>
But, indeed, anyone *can* attempt the various thievish abilities.
Led Mirage
wrote:
> Oh? What is this basic outlook? I've seen entire campaigns revolving
>around what would amount to psychopathic killers as the main characters.
>Not my cuppa, but it's part and parcel of the game.
You may notice that in the discussions about 3e, or maybe in the PHB
and DMG that AD&D is about heroic fantasies. TSR certainly has
trumpeted the term "hero" often enough. What you personally do with
their rules is your business and has nothing to do with their
"official" outlook of the game.
> And it depends on WHY they kill people. In modern terms, you could have
>a lawful good assassin: James Bond. That's what Bond DOES -- his License
>to Kill basically is there because sometimes Her Majesty's Government
>has a problem which can only be solved by removing certain people.
And maybe the drow should be basic PC class because there are a couple
of good drow characters in novels.
Led Mirage
<jwal...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
>Killing things and taking their stuff is a very common way for PCs to make
>a living in AD&D. Perhaps you meant 2nd ed's "no evil PCs" approach, but
>there have always been people who have broken that "rule".
What you do with their rules is your own business, but "officially",
TSR wouldn't want assassins as one of the primary PC class. Also,
"killing things" and outright, cold blooded murder are two different
things.
The Wraith
>wra...@powerup.com.au (The Wraith) writes:
>
>>(Actually, I see scope for a ranger as being a woodsman who is not a
>>fighter first and foremost, one whose primary skillset is
>>outdoors/survival skills rather than combat, or magic, faith or
>>stealth for that matter. I do agree that the current AD&D ranger fails
>>to implement this properly.)
>
Now that's rather lateral. When I've considered doing it, I've tended
to work on tweaking the existing ranger, but I suppose you could start
with another class.
>>Especially if the backstab bonus is customizable, the way the other
>>thief skills are, as then the means exists to have a character who is
>>especially skill in this area.
>
>Hmm, that's an interesting idea. If you had to purchase backstab ability
>at some level that would work pretty well. The assassin would be a thief
>who has bought up backstab to a high level.
It's an idea which has popped up in the last few iterations of this
debate.
>>Actually, weapon specialization is not entirely divorced from the
>>proficiency system.
>
>Sure, in the sense that you have to spend a proficiency to get it, but I don't
>care how many proficiencies you spend if you're not a pure class fighter, you
>don't get specialization.
No argument there. Unless you start using the C&T system, in which
case a form of specialization can be purchased by others.
>True, RM was good that way. It was bad in the sense that there was an
>overwhelming gaggle of optional rules and classes. Many of the classes
>in RM *are* small changes and elaborations on the existing ones. There is
>too much variation in the cost schemes and too many skills IMO as well.
>So, strangely enough, it ended up with the craploads of subclasses even
>though the integrated skill system would seem to offer a nice way around it.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. I consider the system to be much more
workable if the extra classes from the various expansions are ignored.
The 18 or so classes in the basic book (of the edition I am most
familiar with) plus the optional archmage seem to cover pretty much
everything adequately.
Of course, the game still has way too many charts and fiddly rules for
my liking.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
The Wraith
>"Michael Brown" <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>> Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
>>intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
>
>exactly this sort of planning but keep everything "off stage," as it were,
>the PHB1 and DMG1 to see for sure.
According to at least some of the text in those books, this is the
case. However, if this is being done, you are replacing what really
should be handled through good play and careful thought on the part of
the player with a roll of a die. What's so interesting about that?
Michael Brown
> method of performing quick kills in the current hp system. Do the
> math. At 12th level a thief, assuming no other modifiers, using a
> short-sword for a backstab does an average of 14 (3.5x4) points of
> damage. No way that has any reasonable chance ok killing a 12th level
> fighter with an average of 81 hp's (5.5x9+9).
Sigh. Another analysis error repeated again. The backstab is not
adequate TO KILL 12TH LEVEL WARRIORS. They're just about impossible to
kill when they're not helpless. Period.
This is not a black mark on the effectiveness of backstab mechanic for
killing people. 14 points of damage is a 3HD monster dead outright, and on
lucky rolls the stabbing attack can do up to 30 hp and snarf 6HD foes. That
damage range of 5-30 is rather devastating for *one hit*. In comparison,
a 12th level warrior hits with his shortsword for 1-6. 3-8 if he's
specialized.
Trying to design a class around the idea that "it should be able to snuff an
equal level warrior in one blow" is bunk.
-michael
Michael Brown
> >that a warrior with downright *godlike* reflexes is going to be a viable
> >target for simply sneaking up and stabbing to death.
>
> doing *exactly* that? Yes, I will.
Except that proposed assassins *won't* have equally godlike skill with
their blades. They don't specialize, they have rogue thaco, 2 ranks lower
HD ... thus the presumption that an equal-level assassin will be as good on
even his stealthy offense as the warrior is on defense doesn't seem to
follow well. The rogue is roughly *half* as good at combative activities as
the warrior, which suggests that it takes double the rogue levels to be
confident of beating a warrior *in a straight attack* like this poor tactic
you're presuming.
> > Assassination doesn't require any "extra killing ability", just
> >intelligent application of stealth, disguise, and poison.
>
> And a particular view of the "attacking a helpless target" rule.
The one in the rulebooks!
>All my approach does is give the assassin what amounts to an enhanced
> opportunity to achieve that state of affairs.
Which isn't justifiable *when the target is conscious*. He's not
helpless. It's just that simple.
If you want to enhance someone's ability to achieve the state of 'being
there when the victim is helpless', then you give them access to stealth,
disguise, and hope they are creative planners. If they need to rely on the
brute force of backstabbing approaches, then in order for them to be
effective killers, they just need to reach *high level* - not have their
backstabbing upgraded to any-instakill.
-Michael
-Michael
Michael Brown
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message > >Good point.
But there is always extremely lethal poison...
>
> Also usable by the mage. Why have a fighter when the magic-user can
> just poison-dagger everyone?
Having a poison dagger and having one *in your target* are two entirely
different balls of wax.
Guess which classes' skills are best suited for delivering such packages
discreetly?
> There remains a need, IMO, for a class with an ability to effectively
> land a potentially lethal blow. One shot, one kill.
Gack. Bah. Ick. What *need*?
I think your focus on assassination as a crude and completely
unaugmented strike is hampering your ability to conceive of a fair and
attractive assassin class. If you want someone dead, you use nasty poisons,
magical items, and find a way to bring them to bear on your target. *This*
is where the art of assassination lies (bringing things to bear) and where
it could be definitive; not in some raw-skill instakill.
-Michael
Sea Wasp
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 07:54:47 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh? What is this basic outlook? I've seen entire campaigns revolving
> >around what would amount to psychopathic killers as the main characters.
> >Not my cuppa, but it's part and parcel of the game.
>
> You may notice that in the discussions about 3e, or maybe in the PHB
> and DMG that AD&D is about heroic fantasies. TSR certainly has
> trumpeted the term "hero" often enough. What you personally do with
> their rules is your business and has nothing to do with their
> "official" outlook of the game.
However, there's a way ... that unfortunately I can't detail... that
they came up with that made an assassin-type character a wonderfully
heroic one. That particular option was chosen by two of my playtesting
group. This would be one reason, if the rumor of the removal of the
class is true (and I cannot confirm or deny that), I would be rather
peeved, since that would make two of the PCs technically no longer
usable for playtesting.
>
> > And it depends on WHY they kill people. In modern terms, you could have
> >a lawful good assassin: James Bond. That's what Bond DOES -- his License
> >to Kill basically is there because sometimes Her Majesty's Government
> >has a problem which can only be solved by removing certain people.
>
> And maybe the drow should be basic PC class because there are a couple
> of good drow characters in novels.
Class? No. Race? Sure. Though I agree, reluctantly, with their logic
behind the race choices: since they will be providing rules that permit
quick and easy conversion of ANYTHING to a PC race, stick with the
standard races...
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Jon Hickman
# Well, one *can* have a system in which some people simply lack the
# cpacity to cast spells, period. But saying that someone can not
# *attempt* to move silently is silly, whatever system one uses. And
# gods may only answer the calls of their chosen priests, but *anyone*
# can pick up a sword and swing it. How *well* they swing it is a
# different matter.
Why would a god only answer the calls of their chosen priests? You can still
*try* that too. It may not work worth a flip, but, who knows... it's up to
the DM.
# >I don't have a problem either way, but people need to come to the conclusion
# >as to whether or not they want a class-based or a skill-based system... the
# >arguments for both can easily be carried out to either extreme... and using
# >the arguments for one simple class with out acknowledging the full
# >ramifications is pure naivety.
#
# I am *not* arguing for one class. I am pointing out that the
# anti-assassin argument is also anti-ranger, anti-paladin, anti-druid,
# etc.
I'm not saying you are arguing for one class. I'm also agreeing with
you about the anti-argument's meaning. The thing is, the anti-argument can
really be carried out logically to the elimination of all classes except maybe
wizards and priests... and even then, it's not a huge stretch to keep going.
Skill-based systems do it all the time. The mechanics of it are the same as
any other additional skill... it's just justifying it RP-wise when it comes to
play time that's the problem. It makes a little more logical sense that
someone could pick up sneaking about... rather than picking up thaumaturgy.
(This is where DM's do their job and slap a player or two around ;) )
I'm also not arguing for one class, BTW... I think it would be a completely
different game w/o classes... definitely not D&D. I am also saying that the
anti-Assassin argument needs to be better justified than "we don't need a
class for a thief with more skills." Again, this argument can be carried out
to include anything... it's too weak on its own.
Pierre
dans le message : 38062c6a...@news.rio.com...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:36:35 -0700, "Michael Brown"
> <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Hell, why not just give every skill set a cost factor (points)
> and create each character from a menu of abilities?
> Why use classes at all ?
A few years ago, I tried a campaign of GURPS, the RPG without
classes, just to see that how walks... The player's first reflex is to
recreate his favorite class.
A few months ago, I bought the "CORE RULES 2.0" cd-rom as
wondering how WoC manages the NPCs created with " S&K "...
all NPCs are created with the classic "system" of the 2nd edition,
"S&K" is not used...
No system is perfected.
--
"Can the arrow of Trucidel Oxidor to burst the second eye of Grummsh"
Oxidor Trucidel
This text has been translated by an electronic translator.
Please, don't correct my mistakes in the forum.
Jon Hickman
# I think there is a huge qualitative difference between learning how to walk
# without making noise and learning how to call upon the power of a god. The
# latter may not be something "just anyone" can pick up.
RP-wise, yes there's a difference. Mechanically, there is no difference.
It's just numbers on a sheet. That's a problem skill-based systems have had
to deal with since the beginning: How to justify the characters of players
who want to play a polymath?
You either find a way to justify it, or you say "no." There is no difference.
You can make one just "cost" more than the other, but that's still no real
difference than just adding a skill/attribute here and there. I guarantee
you, I could recreate the entire class system as it exists with a one-class
system... all you need to do is come up with balancing costs for the skills
and maybe create skill packages. Hell, the Player Option books have more or
less already done this. Mind you, I'm not saying I want this...
That's part of the problem I have with this particular anti-Assassin
argument... it argues simple mechanics while bringing up RP-issues when an
Assassin has far more RP-related strikes against it than it does mechanical
problems, problems that are typically ignored by the "it's just a thief with
skills" argument.
Jon Hickman
# Now this I agree with. The PC assassin will not be able to ply his
# "trade" in such a manner at all, unless the group is willing to help
# out. In your scenario the assassin is just another adventurer with
# modest thieving and fighting skills. It may not be all that
# interesting imo, but if it's what the player wants (and the rest of
# the party doesn't mind having such an evil character along), then so
# be it. It's like the thief wanting to do a solo job of breaking into
# that fat merchant's manor. Or the magic using classes fabricating
# magic items and accumulating the exotic ingredients. Ideally, DMs
# should set aside one-on-one playing sessions with each of the
# characters for solo adventures. I wouldn't care to play an assassin
# in a standard adventuring party, but that doesn't mean they can't be a
# viable class.
I agree with the solo-sessions part, though I feel that you have to address
*everyones* character doing that. If you have a large group, then that
becomes problematic and time-consuming. Even so, you cannot do solo-sessions
too much... otherwise you lose the party-based atmosphere.
I don't think Assassins are not a viable class... I just see problems with
them working out in a group as a whole. Sure, you can have the other
characters assist the Assassin in his job, but the other characters *must* be
able to do the job too, and must be given the kill shot on other jobs... or at
least must be given jobs/quests that utilize their special talents with the
other PCs as assistants. Otherwise, the other characters are just sidekicks.
While playing a sidekick can be fun... it's not for everyone... and players
sometimes take affront to being the Slim Pickens of the group.
Art Wendorf
news:380ab1ee...@news.netvigator.com...
Unless you're defending yourself or going to eat what you kill, you're
murdering someone or something. Invading an orc hole, slaughtering that evil
wizard's soldiers, decapitating that dragon and exterminating that pesky
gnoll tribe are murder, pure and simple.
---
Art Wendorf
The wonderful thing about tiggers is: THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
--- Tigger the
Highlander
AWen...@satx.rr.com | http://home.satx.rr.com/artshideout/
The Wraith
wrote:
>> john v verkuilen <ja...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
>> > I seem to recall that the Assassination Table was supposed to represent
>> > exactly this sort of planning but keep everything "off stage," as it were,
>> > reduced to a single percentage roll.
>
>Michael Brown wrote:
>> That sounds about right; trouble is, reducing all this to a table
>> instead of playing it out is anethema to the spirit of the game. Make your
>> skill checks to sneak in, or to foible security with your disguises ... and
>> deal with the surprises you didn't anticipate!
>
>You still had to role-play everything leading up to the actual
>assassination attempt. And the escape. The assassin still had to
>infiltrate, gain trust, whatever.
[snip description of assassination attempt]
>
>Now supposing the assassination roll indicated success, Gundabo will
>be taken completely by surprise and will be slain. Failure indicates,
>the hair on Gundabo's neck sticks up and his sixth sense warns his of
>danger at the last moment, or that Hazar missed the mark and only
>managed to inflict normal backstab damage, or whatever.
But if this is how the rule is being applied, why is this mechanic
used to determine this, rather than a surprise roll (with appropriate
modifiers) just like every other similar situation?
The mechanics already exist for playing out the attempt. Why the
additional mechanic? Why is the character not merely made better in
the skills necessary to carry out the assassination?