Assassins as a character class in 2nd Edition AD&D
Dave
|Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin kit;
|the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
|anyways.
|
|(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
|not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
If you're that concerned about such a flamefest occurring, why is this
at least the second time you have tried to start one on this topic?
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
Josh Jasper
>
> I've stared a few friends off in a 1st Edition game after a long time,
> just picked up the Core Rules 2.0 CD a few weeks ago and have been
> leafing through some of the news stuff, I like the way some of the
> proficiencies are handled and LOVE Combat & Tactics but they've killed
> off the Assassin class in 2nd ED!?! This will make my Half-Orc
> Cleric/Assassin very unhappy if I decide to switch over. Have there
> been any rules put out to re-introduce the Assassin as a character
> class in 2nd Ed AD&D?
>
> Any help is appriciated.
If you LIKE the class, KEEP it. I don't think it'll be all that
hard to do. What would possibly prevent you from simply using
the class as stated, but transfering all the 2n'd ed rules?
Wirehead
Alan D Kohler
Already has. In the Greyhawk book on the scarlet brotherhood.
Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin kit;
the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
anyways.
(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
Alan D. Kohler(hawk...@NOSPAM.olg.com)
There is more to life... and computing...
than Quake II framerates.
Elmayser
>been any rules put out to re-introduce the Assassin as a character
>class in 2nd Ed AD&D?
Yes, there is..check out the Complete Thief's Handbook, page 26.
The assassin has basically become a kit for thieves.
Elmayser, Necromancer to the Stars
Aristotle
>Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin kit;
>the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
>anyways.
>
>(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
>not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
Then why the hell did you start such an issue?
Do you think only YOUR opinion should be voiced?
The enormous debate over the issue clearly demonstrates that a lot of people
feel there is enormous value in a distinctive assassin class that can TRULY
assasinate in a single strike.
Even if you disagree with the logic, there is no ignoring the fact that the
class is something many people find very useful and appropriate.
-Aristotle (thre...@threshold-rpg.com)
======================================================================
Join us at Threshold!
~*~ High Fantasy Multi-User Online Role Playing Game ~*~
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -or- telnet threshold-rpg.com 23
Wirehead
wrote:
>Wirehead wrote:
>>
>> I've stared a few friends off in a 1st Edition game after a long time,
>> just picked up the Core Rules 2.0 CD a few weeks ago and have been
>> leafing through some of the news stuff, I like the way some of the
>> proficiencies are handled and LOVE Combat & Tactics but they've killed
>> off the Assassin class in 2nd ED!?! This will make my Half-Orc
>> Cleric/Assassin very unhappy if I decide to switch over. Have there
>> been any rules put out to re-introduce the Assassin as a character
>> class in 2nd Ed AD&D?
>>
>> Any help is appriciated.
>
>If you LIKE the class, KEEP it. I don't think it'll be all that
>hard to do. What would possibly prevent you from simply using
>the class as stated, but transfering all the 2n'd ed rules?
Just wondering if anyone has done all the hard work dealing with all
the proficiency and character points, etc. I'm going to take a look
at the assassins kit in the complete thieves handbook as was
recommended by someone else the next time I'm at a games store and see
if it fits my idea.
I don't have a problem doing the work myself but if somebody has
already given me a good head start I'll take it ;)
Heylel74
>the proficiency and character points, etc. I'm going to take a look
>at the assassins kit in the complete thieves handbook as was
>recommended by someone else the next time I'm at a games store and see
>if it fits my idea.
I did the conversion a while back, but I'll have to look for it. As for
proficiencies, Assassins were treated the same as thieves, but I believe I gave
them access to the Warrior group.
>I don't have a problem doing the work myself but if somebody has
>already given me a good head start I'll take it ;)
Can't blame you there. :)
Kyn
<Heyl...@aol.com>
覧覧覧覧覧
"Veni, Vidi, Vomui"
Imaginactra
> In article <3709982b...@news.olg.com>, hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
> >Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin kit;
> >the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
> >anyways.
> >
> >(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
> >not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
>
> Then why the hell did you start such an issue?
>
> Do you think only YOUR opinion should be voiced?
>
> The enormous debate over the issue clearly demonstrates that a lot of people
> feel there is enormous value in a distinctive assassin class that can TRULY
> assasinate in a single strike.
Ok, not here to flame, but to honestly debate. As a DM, I have had players take the assassin class
just so they could be able to KILL anything in a single strike, they truly did not understand the
concept of assassination and believed they could just role the percent dice and slay anything. They
truly troublesome ones were the idiots who simply liked to kill anything, including the important
NPC's, just because they could.
Assassins should not be a class because assassin is a profession. Anyone can kill for money, and
there are quite a few normal classes that have more than enough ability to kill on their own without
any kind of chart saying "ok, you kill him on a role of 2 or better on a d100". It's something that
should be role played, not randomised. An assassin kit is a perfectly good substitute for someone
who wants to truly role play assassinations.
> Even if you disagree with the logic, there is no ignoring the fact that the
> class is something many people find very useful and appropriate.
Which is why I love the fact that it is not a class, but a kit. Think about it, you can still be
assassins, but you simply have to role play the kill. Is that so bad? This is a role playing game.
Let your fighter/mage/thief be an assassin now, or your cleric of death, or whatever you can create
that can be a good role playable killing machine.
Emirikol7
Jay B.S, D.C.
(remove 'nospam' to email)
Welcome to the Minnesota river. The most polluted river in the midwest. See
our unique 7-legged deformed frogs! There isn't one industry on the whole
river..only farms... Shit Bob. What could be causing this?
Aristotle
>Ok, not here to flame, but to honestly debate. As a DM, I have had players take
> the assassin class
>just so they could be able to KILL anything in a single strike, they truly did
> not understand the
>concept of assassination and believed they could just role the percent dice and
> slay anything. They
>truly troublesome ones were the idiots who simply liked to kill anything,
> including the important
>NPC's, just because they could.
Any twink can play a class and abuse its benefits/abilities. The above is a
non-argument.
>Assassins should not be a class because assassin is a profession.
Being a mage is a profession. Being a fighter is a profession.
Next argument..
>Anyone can kill for money,
But not everyone has the skills to do it like an assassin.
Anyone can wade into melee (fighter), try to sneak around or rob someone
(thief), etc.
>Which is why I love the fact that it is not a class, but a kit. Think about it,
> you can still be
>assassins, but you simply have to role play the kill. Is that so bad? This is a
> role playing game.
You always had to RP the kill- especially if you had a decent DM.
No, instead, assassination is totally removed now.
Imaginactra
> In article <370A127C...@NS.zoomnet.net>, Imaginactra <rus...@NS.zoomnet.net> wrote:
> >Ok, not here to flame, but to honestly debate. As a DM, I have had players take
> > the assassin class
> >just so they could be able to KILL anything in a single strike, they truly did
> > not understand the
> >concept of assassination and believed they could just role the percent dice and
> > slay anything. They
> >truly troublesome ones were the idiots who simply liked to kill anything,
> > including the important
> >NPC's, just because they could.
>
> Any twink can play a class and abuse its benefits/abilities. The above is a
> non-argument.
Only a non-argument if you don't see the point or like what is said.
>
> >Assassins should not be a class because assassin is a profession.
>
> Being a mage is a profession. Being a fighter is a profession.
Correct
> >Anyone can kill for money,
>
> But not everyone has the skills to do it like an assassin.
>
> Anyone can wade into melee (fighter), try to sneak around or rob someone
> (thief), etc.
Correct
Now argue why it's any different as a kit than a class.
> >Which is why I love the fact that it is not a class, but a kit. Think about it,
> > you can still be
> >assassins, but you simply have to role play the kill. Is that so bad? This is a
> > role playing game.
>
> You always had to RP the kill- especially if you had a decent DM.
To many times the RP ends up being "I roled good, your dead."
>
> No, instead, assassination is totally removed now.
>
Incorrect, their a kit in the thiefs handbook.
Josh Jasper
> at the assassins kit in the complete thieves handbook as was
> recommended by someone else the next time I'm at a games store and see
> if it fits my idea.
It didn't for mine.
>
> I don't have a problem doing the work myself but if somebody has
> already given me a good head start I'll take it ;)
(*)OH, you meant S&P and that sort of thing? I thought you just meant
basic 2nd ed stuff. THAT would take some work, I suspect. What I'd
do is figure out what abilitys the 1'st ed assasin had and translate
them, using the thief as a template.
As a side note, we *never* allow assasins to use thier "instant kill"
ability in combat unless there is complete surprise. A 1'st ed.
monk is more dangerous in a way. One "stun" shot and killing said
oponent is a snap. At a certain level, you *can* kill instantly.
A Mage with a "sleep" spell is just as dangerous if the oponents
fail to save.
Other than the "instant kill" option, what else makes assasins cool?
Languages weapons and armor ability. Poison. Lots of poison.
To round out the spy abilitys of assasins, our campaign has allowed
disguise bonuses and forgery proficiency bonus.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
I'm gonna have to go with Aristotle on this one. An assassin had
abilities that were *special* and could only be obtained by training and
practice. Reducing the assassin to a kit is taking too much away from what
an assassin is. A cleric can fight almost as well as a fighter and gets to
use all armors and a lot of weapons....shouldn't cleric then be just a
fighter kit? After all, anyone can worship a deity faithfully, right?...
The thing is, assassins were specially trained individuals. Anyone can
claim they are an "assassin"...but in 'reality' they are just murderers for
hire. They have no real trainging in espionage, spying, poisons and how to
kill in one blow an unaware person. IMHO, assassins are a class because
they DID have special abilites that no one else could learn and were more
than simple proficiencies.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage.
Agamon Zheferinson
Assassin and Monk back as 2nd Edition versions. I havent had much of a
chance to read them over yet, I assume they have made some change from
1st.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> It's not my fault that people can't accept opinions for what they are
> and not try to debunk them.
>
> Alan D. Kohler(hawk...@NOSPAM.olg.com)
> There is more to life... and computing...
> than Quake II framerates.
If you wish to post an opinion that is not IYO to be discussed
(debunked) you are in effect spaming the newgroup, which is for
discussions, not statements of opinins that should not be replied to.
*shrugs* prehaps you mean something else?
Wirehead
>>Any twink can play a class and abuse its benefits/abilities. The above is a
>>non-argument.
>
>because its nature lends itself to abuse.
>
Every class lends itself to abuse if the DM lets it happen. My
question was a simple request for information on IF someone had done a
class conversion specifically with proficiency and skills & powers not
if the class SHOULD exist in 2ND ed. I couldn't care less what you
run in your games, I'll run what I like in mine.
Dave
|On 05 Apr 1999 20:23:48 PDT, "Dave"
|<davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
|
|>Alan D Kohler wrote in message <3709982b...@news.olg.com>...
kit;
|>|the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
|>|anyways.
|>|
|>|(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
|>|not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
|>
|>
this
|>at least the second time you have tried to start one on this topic?
|
|and not try to debunk them.
Yes, it's very strange for people to discuss D&D in a D&D discussion
group. Instead of focusing on what's wrong with *everybody else* in
this group, why don't you focus on what *you* can do to make this NG a
better place?
Dave
|>the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
|>anyways.
|>
|>(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
|>not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
|
Probably for the same reason he started the "Assassins (spitooey!)
good riddance! " thread in January. He wrings his hands over the
eventual "flamefest", while conveniently ignoring the fact that it was
*he* who was instigating them. Troll? Ignorant? Hypocrite? All of
the above?
Agamon Zheferinson
always adapt the Scarlet Brotherhood to your campaign. Thats what I intend
to do, when I get it all read, I dont use Greyhawk either. I like the Monk
class and was glad to see it back.
Wirehead wrote:
>
> > Well, in the new Greyhawk The Scarlet Brotherhood they have the
> >Assassin and Monk back as 2nd Edition versions. I havent had much of a
> >chance to read them over yet, I assume they have made some change from
> >1st.
>
> I don't play in Greyhawk, is there other material in there worth the
> cost of the package besides the two classes? Hope you get a chance to
> do some reading soon ;)
Alan D Kohler
(Aristotle) wrote:
>In article <370A127C...@NS.zoomnet.net>, Imaginactra <rus...@NS.zoomnet.net> wrote:
>>Ok, not here to flame, but to honestly debate. As a DM, I have had players take
>> the assassin class
>>just so they could be able to KILL anything in a single strike, they truly did
>> not understand the
>>concept of assassination and believed they could just role the percent dice and
>> slay anything. They
>>truly troublesome ones were the idiots who simply liked to kill anything,
>> including the important
>>NPC's, just because they could.
>
>Any twink can play a class and abuse its benefits/abilities. The above is a
>non-argument.
Declaring it a non argument does not make it so. The class is abusive
because its nature lends itself to abuse.
#include class_profession_arg
Alan D Kohler
<davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Alan D Kohler wrote in message <3709982b...@news.olg.com>...
>|Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin kit;
>|the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
>|anyways.
>|
>|(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
>|not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
>
>
>If you're that concerned about such a flamefest occurring, why is this
>at least the second time you have tried to start one on this topic?
It's not my fault that people can't accept opinions for what they are
and not try to debunk them.
Alan D Kohler
(Aristotle) wrote:
>In article <3709982b...@news.olg.com>, hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
>>Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin kit;
>>the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
>>anyways.
>>
>>(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
>>not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
>
>Then why the hell did you start such an issue?
>
>Do you think only YOUR opinion should be voiced?
Screw you. You have an opinion to share, share it; I'm not stopping
you. Otherwise, shut up and cut the personal attacks. I'm not going to
NOT mention it just because I know that you and your ilk will flame
me.
Wirehead
Aristotle
>Aristotle wrote:
>
>> Any twink can play a class and abuse its benefits/abilities. The above is a
>> non-argument.
>
It is a non argument because almost ANYTHING can be abused/misused. You can
ignore casting times, spell component requirements, memorization rules, damage
maximums and such on spells if you want, and whadda-ya-know, suddenly mages
are outrageously overpowered.
Just because twinks can play a class without following the rules (and
therefore making the class way overpowered) is not a flaw in the class. That
is a flaw in the players and the DM who allows it.
Aristotle
>On 05 Apr 1999 20:23:48 PDT, "Dave"
><davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Alan D Kohler wrote in message <3709982b...@news.olg.com>...
>>|the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
>>|anyways.
>>|
>>|(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
>>|not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
>>
>>
>>at least the second time you have tried to start one on this topic?
>
>It's not my fault that people can't accept opinions for what they are
>and not try to debunk them.
However, it *is* your fault that those opinions are so easy to debunk.
And if you didn't want them to be debunked, then do not offer them in a public
forum.
Aristotle
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 08:22:54 GMT, thre...@threshold-rpg.com
>(Aristotle) wrote:
>
> (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
>>>Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin kit;
>>>the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
>>>anyways.
>>>
>>>(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
>>>not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
>>
>>
>>Do you think only YOUR opinion should be voiced?
>
>Screw you. You have an opinion to share, share it; I'm not stopping
>you. Otherwise, shut up and cut the personal attacks. I'm not going to
>NOT mention it just because I know that you and your ilk will flame
>me.
If you really had any interest in hearing other people's opinions you wouldn't
declare from the outset that although you were posting YOUR opinion, you
planned to killfile anyone else's (although it is quite clear you had no
intention of holding true to your word).
It is plainly evident you ENJOY this particular "flamefest" and that is why
you REPEATEDLY start the exact same flame war.
The original poster was asking for help if anyone HAD made an assassin class.
He didn't ask for opinions on whether or not it should exist. You simply used
that person's post as an opportunity for you to jump back on a soap box that
you have been quite deftly knocked off of many times by many people.
Imaginactra
> In article <370A516C...@NS.zoomnet.net>, Imaginactra <rus...@NS.zoomnet.net> wrote:
> >Aristotle wrote:
> >
> >> Any twink can play a class and abuse its benefits/abilities. The above is a
> >> non-argument.
> >
> >Only a non-argument if you don't see the point or like what is said.
>
> It is a non argument because almost ANYTHING can be abused/misused. You can
> ignore casting times, spell component requirements, memorization rules, damage
> maximums and such on spells if you want, and whadda-ya-know, suddenly mages
> are outrageously overpowered.
>
> Just because twinks can play a class without following the rules (and
> therefore making the class way overpowered) is not a flaw in the class. That
> is a flaw in the players and the DM who allows it.
>
Ok, now that you've made your point on that clear, answer the other question "Why are
assassins any different as a kit for a rogue instead of being a seperate class?"
towo...@concentric.net
>>>>(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
>>>>not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
>If you really had any interest in hearing other people's opinions you wouldn't
>declare from the outset that although you were posting YOUR opinion, you
>planned to killfile anyone else's (although it is quite clear you had no
Considering that that IS NOT WHAT HE SAID, why dont' you go ahead and
post? He stated that he'd kill it once the "flamefest" started; not "as
soon as someone else posts their opinion."
>The original poster was asking for help if anyone HAD made an assassin class.
>He didn't ask for opinions on whether or not it should exist. You simply used
>that person's post as an opportunity for you to jump back on a soap box that
>you have been quite deftly knocked off of many times by many people.
I'd argue the "deftly" part, but I agree, what he posted WASN'T what the
original poster asked for.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Dave
|On 06 Apr 1999 17:59:49 PDT, "Dave"
|>hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
|>|>Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin
kit;
|>|>the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
|>|>anyways.
|>|>
|>|>not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
|>|
|>
|>good riddance! " thread in January. He wrings his hands over the
|>eventual "flamefest", while conveniently ignoring the fact that it
was
|>*he* who was instigating them. Troll? Ignorant? Hypocrite? All
of
|>the above?
|
|in the mirror and think again.
Take a look at your posts in DejaNews. It's too bad that you "can't
accept opinions for what they are
and not try to debunk them."
|All I did was state my stance, not
|resort to personal attacks as you and dave have.
Incorrect attribution.
|And was I not right about the instant flare up? Hmm? Sure was.
LOL
Not even close. Try reading your original contribution to this thread
once more. Do the words 'inevitable "does not!/does too!" flamefest'
ring a bell? This clearly has nothing to do with the "does not!/does
too! flamefest" you prophesized (much to your disappointment, no
doubt).
|You'll
|not here from me in this thread after tonite as you flame-throwers
|have taken the exact course I have predicted you would.
We'll hear no more from you because this is the exact same course you
took *last* time you did your best to start a flamefest. You are
probably disappointed that your pathetic attempt to fill the NG with
another glorious flamefest has yet to happen. I predict you'll try
this same crap sometime in the future because you are a troll. We'll
see if my prediction fares better than your prediction did.
Alan D Kohler
wrote:
>Alan D Kohler wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not my fault that people can't accept opinions for what they are
>> and not try to debunk them.
>>
>> Alan D. Kohler(hawk...@NOSPAM.olg.com)
>> There is more to life... and computing...
>> than Quake II framerates.
>
>
>If you wish to post an opinion that is not IYO to be discussed
>(debunked) you are in effect spaming the newgroup,
Yeah right! Opinions are by there nature not disprovable, therefore
debunking them is folly; however the content of my post was perfectly
on topic, therefore not spam.
Get a grip.
Alan D Kohler
(Aristotle) wrote:
>In article <370aa073...@news.olg.com>, hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
>>On 05 Apr 1999 20:23:48 PDT, "Dave"
>><davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>It's not my fault that people can't accept opinions for what they are
>>and not try to debunk them.
>
>However, it *is* your fault that those opinions are so easy to debunk.
>
>And if you didn't want them to be debunked, then do not offer them in a public
>forum.
So easy to debunk? In your mind, maybe. Thankfully, your opinion of my
opinion is not fact, ergo does not constitute debunking.
Alan D Kohler
<davrion.97%spam...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Aristotle wrote in message ...
>|In article <3709982b...@news.olg.com>,
>hawk...@REMOVE2REPLY.olg.com (Alan D Kohler) wrote:
>|>Of course, you could always just play a thief with the assassin kit;
>|>the assassin was never distinctive enough to deserve its own class
>|>anyways.
>|>
>|>(Preparing to killfile thread as soon as the inevitable "does
>|>not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
>|
>|Then why the hell did you start such an issue?
>
>
>Probably for the same reason he started the "Assassins (spitooey!)
>good riddance! " thread in January. He wrings his hands over the
>eventual "flamefest", while conveniently ignoring the fact that it was
>*he* who was instigating them. Troll? Ignorant? Hypocrite? All of
>the above?
Ah, namecalling. And it is me that is fanning the flames? Take a look
in the mirror and think again. All I did was state my stance, not
resort to personal attacks as you and dave have.
And was I not right about the instant flare up? Hmm? Sure was. You'll
not here from me in this thread after tonite as you flame-throwers
have taken the exact course I have predicted you would.
RedD...@aol.com
wire...@h0me.com (Wirehead) wrote:
> I've stared a few friends off in a 1st Edition game after a long time,
> proficiencies are handled and LOVE Combat & Tactics but they've killed
> off the Assassin class in 2nd ED!?! This will make my Half-Orc
> Cleric/Assassin very unhappy if I decide to switch over. Have there
You can of course do anything you want in your own game. However, the
assassin class doesn't seem to make a very good PC class in our games.
The whole concept is just a little evil, just as running a necromancer
would be. That doesn't happen to be the kind of game I run or play in.
That said, I believe on Greyawk, the Assassins were all changed into
fighters or thieves by Istus and the other gods following the adventure
campaign "The Fate of Istus." As far as I know, this hasn't been repealed
in the new Greyhawk materials (correct me if I'm wrong), so running
an assassin in Greyhawk would make it a sort of variant Greyhawk with
a different history.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Chris Adams
>assassin class doesn't seem to make a very good PC class in our games.
>The whole concept is just a little evil, just as running a necromancer
>would be. That doesn't happen to be the kind of game I run or play in.
Just to be Devil's Advocate, and because I love well-conceived
necromancers, I'd like to point out that you can have a good or neutral
necromancer. Granted, it takes more work to make them as interesting or as
fun as evil necromancers, but it can be done.
Christopher Adams
Did you like those words? Xanxost got them from
an elf on the Outlands before his head came off
his body . . .
- Xanxost, Slaadi Legend
This living hand, now warm and capable
Of earnest grasping, would if it were cold
And in the icy silence of the tomb,
So haunt thy days and chill thy dreaming nights
That thou wouldst wish thy own heart dry of blood
So in my veins red life might stream again
And thou be conscience-calmed - see here it is -
I hold it towards you.
- John Keats
Aristotle
>Aristotle <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> might have said:
>>>>>not!/does too!" flamefest that is sure to follow ensues)
>>If you really had any interest in hearing other people's opinions you wouldn't
>
>>declare from the outset that although you were posting YOUR opinion, you
>>planned to killfile anyone else's (although it is quite clear you had no
>
>
>Considering that that IS NOT WHAT HE SAID, why dont' you go ahead and
>post? He stated that he'd kill it once the "flamefest" started; not "as
>soon as someone else posts their opinion."
You should read it yourself. He didn't say 'if', he said 'as soon as'. Thus,
his intention was to killfile it from the beginning. Not "if" it became a
flamefest. Thus, any debunking of his opinion is conveniently called a
'flamefest' which he prompted claims to killfile. Of course, like most twinks
who pretend to killfile people, no killfiinge ever actually occurs.
Arcturus
>
> >You can of course do anything you want in your own game. However, the
> >assassin class doesn't seem to make a very good PC class in our games.
> >The whole concept is just a little evil, just as running a necromancer
> >would be. That doesn't happen to be the kind of game I run or play in.
>
Just for fun, I'm posting the version of Assassin my players and I
came up with for 2nd ed. AD&D rules. It was created for our "The World
of Greyhawk" because the Priests of Hextor are listed as having some
assassin abilities.
It used to be on my website, but I'm doing a reconstruction right now
and most of the stuff has been removed.
-----------------
THE WORLD OF GREYHAWKâ„¢ ASSASSIN CLASS
The Assassin Class is once again available to PCs. It is not truly
a Class in that any class (except Paladins and Rangers, of course) can
be an Assassin. Instead it is represented as an NWP. It requires using
spaces on the Proficiencies chart. A PC cannot become an Assassin until
second level. However, the PC must decide at 1st level to become an
assassin and assign the proper slots at that time (simulating
pre-assassin training). It takes 1 weapon slot and 2 non-weapon slots to
become proficient in assassination.
For every extra weapon slot spent on assassination, the PC gains an
additional -1% on Critical Hit rolls (expalined below), PLUS an
additional 1 adjustment on Critical Hit Charts. For every Non-weapon
proficiency slot spent on assassination, the PC gains an additional 1
adjustment on Critical Hit Charts ONLY*.
*DMs please note, that you must be using Critical Hits in your game to
use PC assassins.
The relative ability for assassination is DEX, and the check modifier is
+1.
To become an Assassin, the PC must spend 3d4 months in training. These
highly specialized skills must be learned from an expert, and the PC
must join the local Assassin's guild. If there is none locally, the PC
must travel to where one is.
BENEFITS OF BEING AN ASSASSIN:
An Assassin must choose when s/he is going to attempt to badly injure or
even kill a humanoid. This intention must be announced before the combat
round. A call of "Skills" or some other code word can be set up between
the DM (Dungeon Master) and the Player, to keep from alerting the other
PCs of the Assassin in their midst. Passing notes also works, but tends
to make the other players suspicious.
When an Assassin chooses to attempt this, hir rolls to hit on a humanoid
victim (i.e. having an anatomy like a
human), are adjusted by subtracting 01% per Assassin Level* from the
%age critical roll. This gives the Assassin an incrementally greater
chance to critically hit an opponent.
When/if a critical hit is rolled, the Assassin PC then rolls on the
critical hit chart which applies to the weapon type used. The Assassin
then adjusts the roll by 1 per Assassin level both up and down. This
gives the PC a range of Criticals to use, and the Assassin PC can choose
whatever result they wish within the range.
The last step is to roll a proficiency check. This check is based on the
Assassin's DEX +1. If the proficiency check is blown, the cleverly
planned Critical Hit is thwarted, and the Assassin actually misses
completely! This latter rule, aside from being a realistic
representation of what occurs when a delicate manuever is attempted by a
clumsy artist, makes assassination something which won't come into play
on every thrust in every battle.
Note that Assassins do not have an increased chance of a critical miss.
In the case of a miss, a critical is handled in the usual way.
*Assassin Level refers to the level the PC is at as far as
assassinations go. This level is the PCs other class level minus one
less than the level they became an Assassin. For instance, if the PC
became an Assassin when he was a 5th level Fighter, then his Assassin
level will always be (Main Class Level-4=Assassin Level).
Greyhawk™ Footnote: Note also that evil Clerics of Hextor© are trained
in the art of assassination, and require
only 2 slots to train in it, since their God has an evil bent already.
These 2 slots can be weapon or non-weapon, or one of each. Additional
slots can still be spent to gain additional percentage pluses on the hit
or the result.
--
-*- Arcturus -*-
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1
GSS/GFA/GCS/GO>$ d- s-:+>- a>+ C++>$ U-- P L E? W++ N++ o? K? w+ O-- M-
V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP- t+ 5++ X- R++ tv-- b++ DI++ D G e++ h---- r+++ y++++*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Jason Orman
know the monk is back also?
Alan D Kohler
The monk's BEEN back. Since S&M. In arguably less quirky, more
playable form.
Alan D. Kohler(hawk...@NOSPAM.olg.com)
The preceding are my own opinions, at least until my evil
plot to control the world with mind control satellites nears
completion, when they'll be your opinions too... mwahahahaha!
Michael Scott Brown
>The monk's BEEN back. Since S&M. In arguably less quirky, more
>playable form.
Aye; the newer version is far more sane. It also appears
in the FR-dieties books (powers and pantheons?).
-Michael
Ian R Malcomson
>The monk's BEEN back. Since S&M. In arguably less quirky, more
>playable form.
You could also say that the Monk's been back since PHBR3...
...but I still prefer the OA version :-)
--
Ian R Malcomson
"Children weep and widows wail; our education systems fail; to hide our guilt we
build more jails; and we shall build still more" - Motorhead, "March or Die"
Domicus Website, for all things Ian R Malcomson: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
Jason Orman
i...@domicus.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >The monk's BEEN back. Since S&M. In arguably less quirky, more
> >playable form.
>
> You could also say that the Monk's been back since PHBR3...
>
> ...but I still prefer the OA version :-)
>
>
priests hand book (what a crappy book). The real 1st edition monk is back
as of the Scarlet Brotherhood book in Greyhawk. Imo, it's about time.
Dragonscroll
val...@earthlink.net.nospam (Jason Orman) wrote:
> Why not just use the re-released official assasin class?
I've always felt that the Assassin was a poor character class. Anyone
can be an assassin; it's a choice, not a set of skills. You don't have
to use backstabbing, or poison, or sneaking about. You can do it
sniper-style, with arrows and called shots to the head; or as a mage,
with big damage spells; or simply take them by surprise with a standard
weapon as a fighter.
Assassin is a profession, not a class.
James
Dragonscroll
--
Dragonscroll is your source for fantasy, sci fi and RPGs at 20-40% off!
http://www.dragonscroll.com
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
towo...@concentric.net
>Assassin is a profession, not a class.
Just a question: what else IS a class, if not a profession?
Juliet
>>> Why not just use the re-released official assasin class?
>>
>>I've always felt that the Assassin was a poor character class. Anyone
>>can be an assassin; it's a choice, not a set of skills. You don't
have
>>to use backstabbing, or poison, or sneaking about. You can do it
>>sniper-style, with arrows and called shots to the head; or as a mage,
>>with big damage spells; or simply take them by surprise with a
standard
>>weapon as a fighter.
>>
>
>
>Your logic for why assassin is not a good class is very flawed.
Though if you want to be technical, thief and fighter can also be a
choice, rather than a set of skills. If I choose to use my unseen
servant and invisibility to steal, I am a thief. If I choose to pick up
a staff and fight, I am a fighter.
Aristotle@Threshold
>In article <MPG.11a58225bded6f6998968e@news>,
> val...@earthlink.net.nospam (Jason Orman) wrote:
>
>I've always felt that the Assassin was a poor character class. Anyone
>can be an assassin; it's a choice, not a set of skills. You don't have
>to use backstabbing, or poison, or sneaking about. You can do it
>sniper-style, with arrows and called shots to the head; or as a mage,
>with big damage spells; or simply take them by surprise with a standard
>weapon as a fighter.
>
>Assassin is a profession, not a class.
Thief is a profession. Cleric is a professsion. Mage is a profession.
Your logic for why assassin is not a good class is very flawed.
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, mature, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
Michael Scott Brown
>>Assassin is a profession, not a class.
>
>Thief is a profession. Cleric is a professsion. Mage is a profession.
>Your logic for why assassin is not a good class is very flawed.
Your logic isn't too spiffy there either, bucko.
The analysis is simple: members of every existing class can
perform the role of "assassin" *very well* in a variety of
different ways (thug warriors, stalking 'rangers', holy-warrior
assassins, spellcasting slinks, stealthy rogues, death-cult priests..).
The reverse does not, however, follow. Warriors make poor wizards-
and vice versa. Yet both make good assassins.
-Michael
Emirikol7
Anyone can be a fighter too. WHy not do away with that class in addition?
;)
jayh
Emirikol7
idea, as is the monk. I wish that they'd done more with the theif though. The
last echelon of the organization was underrepresented in the product.
Dr. Jay H, D.C., B.Sc.
(less 'spolys' to email)
Down with elves! Down with longswords! Down with all the AD&D cliche's!
Paul Suliin
> Assassin is a profession, not a class.
I'd agree James. Anyone can be an assassin. Basically an assassin is
someone who kills for a living, with the idea that he will expose himself
to minimum risk so he can spend his fee. A wizard can do this (conjured
monsters make great assassination tools), as can a fighter, a priest, or
a thief.
OTOH, I'm *not* convinced that an assassin has to be evil. A sniper is
an assassin. So is James Bond ("licensed to kill"), to use a literary
example. A ranger or good-aligned thief who sneaks in to kill an evil
leader would be committing assassination. I think it's possible for
someone to practice stealthy killing for a good *cause*, rather than for
money, and still work in all other respects as an assassin.
--Paul
--
Fred Flintstone was a Hanna-Barbarian.
Paul Suliin
emir...@aol.comspolysis says...
> <<<Anyone can be an assassin;>>>
>
> Anyone can be a fighter too. WHy not do away with that class in addition?
Anyone can *act* as a fighter, but they generally won't do as well as an
actual class fighter at the things a fighter *does* -- stand toe-to-toe
with the foe.
There are exceptions of course -- I have a battlemage who does a pretty
good imitation of a fighter, and a cleric of a warlike deity might be a
fierce opponent in a straight-up fight. But in general I find that
"makeshift" fighters like this will be more or less as good as an average
fighter, but not as good as the more exceptional fighters who tend to be
run as PCs.
OTOH, *any* class can be brutally effective as an assassin. The goal of
assassination is simply to get the other guy *dead* with a minimum of
risk, fuss, and exposure. Wizards, fighters, thieves and clerics can all
do that.
Paul Suliin
i...@domicus.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >Conversely, a character can perform the duties of an assassin without
> >having to use the standard set of skills typically assigned to this
> >"class", or any standard set of skills for that matter. The "assassin"
> >as presented is merely one who uses Rogue and Rogue-like skills to do
> >this - a character kit of the Thief at best.
>
> But then we get into the realms of individuals who highly specialise in
> stealthy killing. A fighter can kill someone, but he will not generally
> be able to do this through the arts of poisoning or covert attacks to
> vital areas of the body. He'd probably get caught the first time he
> tried operating as an assassin (*not* the same as simply "hired
> killer").
Well, stealth or poison are only two ways to assassinate. We've been
talking about a fighter dart specialist in another thread, and the damage
potential of these characters is truly awesome. A dart or archery
specialist might make an assassin who kills at range (with or without
poison), and be a pure fighter. A fighter could also become an assassin
by specializing in sword, and working as a "duelist for hire" who
challenges his victims and cuts them to pieces. This could make a very
subtle assassin who either kills a character or destroys his reputation
if the character refuses to fight.
The potential of a wizard-assassin is enormous -- invisibility,
wraithform, hold person, death spell, explosive runes, symbols and power
words, invisible stalkers -- the ways for a wizard to kill a foe with
stealth are almost uncountable.
Clerics are almost as bad, especially if they worship a deity of death or
stealth.
And psionicists -- yeesh. I have a whole order of psionic assassins IMC.
The assassin can come from any class, I think.
Paul Suliin
i...@domicus.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >OTOH, *any* class can be brutally effective as an assassin. The goal of
> >assassination is simply to get the other guy *dead* with a minimum of
> >risk, fuss, and exposure. Wizards, fighters, thieves and clerics can all
> >do that.
>
> someone, but only assassins can do it *properly* (like your fighter
> example....). And I'd disagree that the other classes can be as
> "brutally effective" as an assassin as an assassin.
"Properly," Ian? Of all things, assassination is the last I'd expect
have standards. Assassins are interested in results. They don't care
about methods. Is my target dead? Am I in the clear? Great. That was
a "proper" assassination.
As for effectiveness, well, if a wizard uses invisibility and wraithform
to creep into the king's bedroom at night, then slits his throat and
teleports away, how is that any less effective than an assassin with
disguise, silent movement, and a poisoned dagger? The king can't get any
deader. The wizard can even use poison -- that's just a skill that
anyone can learn.
Paul Suliin
q960...@topaz.cqu.edu.au says...
>
>
> Dragonscroll wrote:
>
> > My reasoning is that all the other character classes (with the possible
> > exception of Rogue) require and contain a standard set of skills in
> > order to be considered a member of that class. A warrior must be
> > primarily a user of melee weapons and train specially for this purpose;
> > a priest is a member of the clergy and has trained in the use of
> > priestly magic; a wizard has trained in the casting of spells and
> > enchantments.
> >
> > Conversely, a character can perform the duties of an assassin without
> > having to use the standard set of skills typically assigned to this
> > "class", or any standard set of skills for that matter.
>
> kill one specific target and only that target. Often they maybe employed
> to do it and make it untracable or to simply make the person dissappear
> without a trace. To be effective as an assassin he must stealthy, devious
> and able to kill a single opponent with little fuss.
>
Agreed about an assassin's role, but what makes you think that only a
Rogue can do that? A mage who disintegrates a target has certainly made
him disappear without a trace.
Paul Suliin
i...@domicus.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >> Assassin is a profession, not a class.
> >
> >I'd agree James. Anyone can be an assassin. Basically an assassin is
> >someone who kills for a living, with the idea that he will expose himself
> >to minimum risk so he can spend his fee. A wizard can do this (conjured
> >monsters make great assassination tools), as can a fighter, a priest, or
> >a thief.
>
> art of killing - wizards learn spells, priests worship their deities,
> thieves practice the arts of skulduggery, fighters train to fight (which
> is not the same as killing - a fighter didn't just spend all those years
> learning how to use a longsword effectively just to sneak up and cut
> someone's throat).
>
The *classes* don't hone every skill to killing, but individual members
of each class can. A fighter can practice long hours to make called kill
shots at long range with poisoned arrows. A mage can take special pains
to learn spells of illusion, enchantment and death to let him get close
to his targets and kill them. A specialty priesthood can be specifically
designed by the GM to work as assassins in the service of a God of
Destruction. Psionicists can slant their powers toward infiltration and
murder as well. Rogues -- well, rogues are obvious.
> >OTOH, I'm *not* convinced that an assassin has to be evil. A sniper is
> >an assassin. So is James Bond ("licensed to kill"), to use a literary
> >example.
>
> Bond is a *spy*. His "license to kill" gives him the freedom to shoot
> the bad guys without fear of repurcussions from his government - not the
> description of what he does for a living.
>
But more than that, Ian, Bond and other 00x operatives are generally sent
in when MI6 believes that the *best* solution is to kill the bad guy.
He's a spy, but he's most often used as a professional killer.
> Snipers probably are assassins of a sort, but they "assassinate" in a
> military context (unless you mean the Leon type...).
>
They're military assassins, agreed. I think a non-evil assassin usually
works for reasons other than money.
> >A ranger or good-aligned thief who sneaks in to kill an evil
> >leader would be committing assassination. I think it's possible for
> >someone to practice stealthy killing for a good *cause*, rather than for
> >money, and still work in all other respects as an assassin.
>
> The reasoning behind assassins being evil, IMO, is that they have
> divorced themselves from their profession to the extent that life means
> little to them - the ranger might feel remorse that he has had to kill a
> human being, no matter how evil, in order to protect that which he holds
> dear. The assassin would simply bump the guy off without a second
> though, then ask for the balance of his fee.
>
> Life means nothing to an assassin - ending it is how they make their
> coin. Thus, assassins care little for others (everyone is a potential
> wage packet), and although may be of a neutral alignment at a pinch, are
> more likely to be evil. Look at the afformentioned film, "Leon", for
> what happens to an assassin's career if they drop their guard and let
> emotions in!
Right. That's the difference between a good assassin and an evil one,
but it doesn't prove that assassins are *only* evil.
Josh Jasper
>
> In article <f8t0qBAe...@domicus.demon.co.uk>,
> i...@domicus.demon.co.uk says...
> >
> > >OTOH, *any* class can be brutally effective as an assassin. The goal of
> > >assassination is simply to get the other guy *dead* with a minimum of
> > >risk, fuss, and exposure. Wizards, fighters, thieves and clerics can all
> > >do that.
> >
> > But they are only "acting" as assassins - any class can assassinate
> > someone, but only assassins can do it *properly* (like your fighter
> > example....). And I'd disagree that the other classes can be as
> > "brutally effective" as an assassin as an assassin.
>
> "Properly," Ian? Of all things, assassination is the last I'd expect
> have standards. Assassins are interested in results. They don't care
> about methods. Is my target dead? Am I in the clear? Great. That was
> a "proper" assassination.
>
I know someone who literally was a government assasin (armed forces)
He had standards and morals.
If you want to do the silly "real world to AD&D" conversions, he'd
be a chaotic good type at this point.
Josh Jasper
>
> >> Assassin is a profession, not a class.
> >
> >I'd agree James. Anyone can be an assassin. Basically an assassin is
> >someone who kills for a living, with the idea that he will expose himself
> >to minimum risk so he can spend his fee. A wizard can do this (conjured
> >monsters make great assassination tools), as can a fighter, a priest, or
> >a thief.
>
> But none of those classes have dedicated their entire existence to the
> art of killing - wizards learn spells, priests worship their deities,
> thieves practice the arts of skulduggery, fighters train to fight (which
> is not the same as killing - a fighter didn't just spend all those years
> learning how to use a longsword effectively just to sneak up and cut
> someone's throat).
>
> >an assassin. So is James Bond ("licensed to kill"), to use a literary
> >example.
>
> Bond is a *spy*. His "license to kill" gives him the freedom to shoot
> the bad guys without fear of repurcussions from his government - not the
> description of what he does for a living.
>
> military context (unless you mean the Leon type...).
>
Ninja were assasins IRL.
Josh Jasper
>
> In article <373F81D9...@topaz.cqu.edu.au>,
> q960...@topaz.cqu.edu.au says...
> >
> >
> > Dragonscroll wrote:
> >
> > > My reasoning is that all the other character classes (with the possible
> > > exception of Rogue) require and contain a standard set of skills in
> > > order to be considered a member of that class. A warrior must be
> > > primarily a user of melee weapons and train specially for this purpose;
> > > a priest is a member of the clergy and has trained in the use of
> > > priestly magic; a wizard has trained in the casting of spells and
> > > enchantments.
> > >
> > > Conversely, a character can perform the duties of an assassin without
> > > having to use the standard set of skills typically assigned to this
> > > "class", or any standard set of skills for that matter.
> >
> > I disagree. Assassins are a unique type of mercenary, they are paid to
> > kill one specific target and only that target. Often they maybe employed
> > to do it and make it untracable or to simply make the person dissappear
> > without a trace. To be effective as an assassin he must stealthy, devious
> > and able to kill a single opponent with little fuss.
> >
>
> Agreed about an assassin's role, but what makes you think that only a
> Rogue can do that?
A fighter can break into houses too. Why not abolish the thief class
as well?
Autolycus
>In article <MPG.11a58225bded6f6998968e@news>,
> val...@earthlink.net.nospam (Jason Orman) wrote:
>> Why not just use the re-released official assasin class?
>I've always felt that the Assassin was a poor character class. Anyone
>can be an assassin; it's a choice, not a set of skills. You don't have
>to use backstabbing, or poison, or sneaking about. You can do it
>sniper-style, with arrows and called shots to the head; or as a mage,
>with big damage spells; or simply take them by surprise with a standard
>weapon as a fighter.
>Assassin is a profession, not a class.
I'd disagree, unless by this you mean that 'Fighter' is a profession, not
a class. After all, any class can be a 'Fighter'.
Assassins, IMO, are those who are trained to kill stealthily without
themselves being damaged significantly (since they are lightly clad and
not terribly damage resistant) or detected. They are trained above all
other classes in poisons and discreet use of discreet weapons. They can
deliver massive damage at a specific point in a hard-to-detect way. They
have a little herbalism, a little alchemy, a lot of skills such as
disguise. Since they 'Hide in Shadows', 'Climb Walls', and do other such
things designed to get them past defences (without resorting to magic),
they are most likely a Rogue-type class; after all, purchase of thieving
skills is not a mainstream ability for other classes (unless you count the
PO possibilities and some awful specialist priest types) except for
rangers.
Besides, 'big damage spells' etc are the difference between mere
slayer/killer/destroyer/mass murderer types and the various trad assassin
types - ninja, hashashin, thuggee and such, who kill silently for specific
reasons.
regds
Autolycus
PS This may grow into one of those awfully long assassin threads, but at
least it's on-topic!
KiM
"Aristotle@Threshold" wrote:
> Thief is a profession. Cleric is a professsion. Mage is a profession.
>
> Your logic for why assassin is not a good class is very flawed.
>
> -Aristotle@Threshold
According to the PHB and DMG the wizard is the only real class by the reasoning in
previous posts. All others are proffessions. Any urchin can steal a purse, anyone can
swing a sharp bit of metal, any pious person can preach the word of their faith. Only
wizards can cast spells though.
Therefore if Assassins shouldn't be a class, then there are only two classes. Wizard,
and Other. :-)
--
KiM
q960...@topaz.cqu.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/7756/index.html
"Only two things are limitless. The universe and human stupidity, and we're not quite
sure
about the universe yet." - Albert Einstein
"If Einstein was so great at physics, why couldn't he get his hair to sit flat?"
Dragonscroll
thre...@threshold-rpg.com (Aristotle@Threshold) wrote:
> Thief is a profession. Cleric is a professsion. Mage is a profession.
> Your logic for why assassin is not a good class is very flawed.
I guess I should have said "career" instead of "profession".
My reasoning is that all the other character classes (with the possible
exception of Rogue) require and contain a standard set of skills in
order to be considered a member of that class. A warrior must be
primarily a user of melee weapons and train specially for this purpose;
a priest is a member of the clergy and has trained in the use of
priestly magic; a wizard has trained in the casting of spells and
enchantments.
Conversely, a character can perform the duties of an assassin without
having to use the standard set of skills typically assigned to this
"class", or any standard set of skills for that matter. The "assassin"
as presented is merely one who uses Rogue and Rogue-like skills to do
this - a character kit of the Thief at best.
James
Dragonscroll
--
Dragonscroll is your source for fantasy, sci fi and RPGs at 20-40% off!
http://www.dragonscroll.com
Ian R Malcomson
>Conversely, a character can perform the duties of an assassin without
>having to use the standard set of skills typically assigned to this
>"class", or any standard set of skills for that matter. The "assassin"
>as presented is merely one who uses Rogue and Rogue-like skills to do
>this - a character kit of the Thief at best.
But then we get into the realms of individuals who highly specialise in
stealthy killing. A fighter can kill someone, but he will not generally
be able to do this through the arts of poisoning or covert attacks to
vital areas of the body. He'd probably get caught the first time he
tried operating as an assassin (*not* the same as simply "hired
killer").
In other words, true - *any* class can kill for money. Only the
assassin, though, has taken killing to the heights of an art form, only
the assassin has trained in various specialised skills in order to
execute an, *hem* execution with efficiency and finesse.
To create a character with such specialisation, you'd have to limit his
thieving abilities to those *specifically* useful for covert executions
(and perhaps add others to that end), and up his backstab ability to
represent his more complete knowledge of vital areas. You'd probably
have to give him some skill with poisons.
The assassin, IMO, is a rogue equally divorced from the standard thief
as is a bard (in different directions, of course) - moreso than a
burglar, bandit, swashbuckler, etc., and thus warrants a seperate class.
KiM
Dragonscroll wrote:
> My reasoning is that all the other character classes (with the possible
> exception of Rogue) require and contain a standard set of skills in
> order to be considered a member of that class. A warrior must be
> primarily a user of melee weapons and train specially for this purpose;
> a priest is a member of the clergy and has trained in the use of
> priestly magic; a wizard has trained in the casting of spells and
> enchantments.
>
> Conversely, a character can perform the duties of an assassin without
> having to use the standard set of skills typically assigned to this
> "class", or any standard set of skills for that matter.
I disagree. Assassins are a unique type of mercenary, they are paid to
kill one specific target and only that target. Often they maybe employed
to do it and make it untracable or to simply make the person dissappear
without a trace. To be effective as an assassin he must stealthy, devious
and able to kill a single opponent with little fuss.
> The "assassin" as presented is merely one who uses Rogue and Rogue-like
> skills to do
> this - a character kit of the Thief at best.
An assassin by definition is a Rogue, he works outside the law to attain
things in a less than legal manner, only rather than the thief, he kills
people for money instead of burglaring them. My own home made assassin's
kit (still being tinkered with) is an almost equal combination of rogue and
warrior. My assasins do not gain the theif's talent of magic scrolls, or
reading bizzare languages, make medicore pick pockets ( the skill can be
used effectively to palm poisons into cups etc). They do speak the
thieve's cant but never gain followers like other classes (the trust no
one), they have an assassinate ability and use fighter ThAC0 tables but
thief hit dice, saving throws and proficency choices. They do not have
exceptional strength and have no prime requisite bonus.
There is other junk I do too, but they are based off the 1st Edition set
(which a friend of mine had.)
Ian R Malcomson
>> Assassin is a profession, not a class.
>
>A ranger or good-aligned thief who sneaks in to kill an evil
>leader would be committing assassination. I think it's possible for
>someone to practice stealthy killing for a good *cause*, rather than for
>money, and still work in all other respects as an assassin.
The reasoning behind assassins being evil, IMO, is that they have
divorced themselves from their profession to the extent that life means
little to them - the ranger might feel remorse that he has had to kill a
human being, no matter how evil, in order to protect that which he holds
dear. The assassin would simply bump the guy off without a second
though, then ask for the balance of his fee.
Life means nothing to an assassin - ending it is how they make their
coin. Thus, assassins care little for others (everyone is a potential
wage packet), and although may be of a neutral alignment at a pinch, are
more likely to be evil. Look at the afformentioned film, "Leon", for
what happens to an assassin's career if they drop their guard and let
emotions in!
--
Ian R Malcomson
>OTOH, *any* class can be brutally effective as an assassin. The goal of
>assassination is simply to get the other guy *dead* with a minimum of
>risk, fuss, and exposure. Wizards, fighters, thieves and clerics can all
>do that.
But they are only "acting" as assassins - any class can assassinate
someone, but only assassins can do it *properly* (like your fighter
example....). And I'd disagree that the other classes can be as
"brutally effective" as an assassin as an assassin.
--
Paul Suliin
> Paul Suliin wrote:
> >
> > In article <f8t0qBAe...@domicus.demon.co.uk>,
> > i...@domicus.demon.co.uk says...
> > >
> > > >OTOH, *any* class can be brutally effective as an assassin. The goal of
> > > >assassination is simply to get the other guy *dead* with a minimum of
> > > >risk, fuss, and exposure. Wizards, fighters, thieves and clerics can all
> > > >do that.
> > >
> > > But they are only "acting" as assassins - any class can assassinate
> > > someone, but only assassins can do it *properly* (like your fighter
> > > example....). And I'd disagree that the other classes can be as
> > > "brutally effective" as an assassin as an assassin.
> >
> > have standards. Assassins are interested in results. They don't care
> > about methods. Is my target dead? Am I in the clear? Great. That was
> > a "proper" assassination.
> >
>
> I know someone who literally was a government assasin (armed forces)
> He had standards and morals.
Yes, I imagine he had standards about what sorts of assasinations he did,
and he probably tried to kill his targets as quickly and painlessly as
possible. But did he really care about "proper" assassinations, Josh?
Paul Suliin
> Paul Suliin wrote:
> >
> > In article <373F81D9...@topaz.cqu.edu.au>,
> > q960...@topaz.cqu.edu.au says...
> > >
> > >
> > > Dragonscroll wrote:
> > >
> > > > My reasoning is that all the other character classes (with the possible
> > > > exception of Rogue) require and contain a standard set of skills in
> > > > order to be considered a member of that class. A warrior must be
> > > > primarily a user of melee weapons and train specially for this purpose;
> > > > a priest is a member of the clergy and has trained in the use of
> > > > priestly magic; a wizard has trained in the casting of spells and
> > > > enchantments.
> > > >
> > > > Conversely, a character can perform the duties of an assassin without
> > > > having to use the standard set of skills typically assigned to this
> > > > "class", or any standard set of skills for that matter.
> > >
> > > I disagree. Assassins are a unique type of mercenary, they are paid to
> > > kill one specific target and only that target. Often they maybe employed
> > > to do it and make it untracable or to simply make the person dissappear
> > > without a trace. To be effective as an assassin he must stealthy, devious
> > > and able to kill a single opponent with little fuss.
> > >
> >
> > Rogue can do that?
>
> A fighter can break into houses too. Why not abolish the thief class
> as well?
>
Once again, the fighter *can* break into houses, yes. But he doesn't do
it as *well* as a thief. OTOH a fighter with an appropriate selection of
weapons and training *can* kill as efficiently as any "official"
assassin. As I and others have said before, the point is simply that
every class -- fighter, mage, thief, cleric, and psionicist -- has a
"mission" in the game that that class can do better than any other. But
the assassin's mission is simply efficient murder, and any class can be
equipped to do that.
Aristotle@Threshold
> The reverse does not, however, follow. Warriors make poor wizards-
> and vice versa. Yet both make good assassins.
Really? A wizard using an unseen servant doesn't make a good thief?
Keep trying Mikey =)
Juliet
>> But then we get into the realms of individuals who highly specialise
in
>> stealthy killing. A fighter can kill someone, but he will not
generally
>> be able to do this through the arts of poisoning or covert attacks to
>> vital areas of the body. He'd probably get caught the first time he
>> tried operating as an assassin (*not* the same as simply "hired
>> killer").
>
>talking about a fighter dart specialist in another thread, and the
damage
>potential of these characters is truly awesome. A dart or archery
>specialist might make an assassin who kills at range (with or without
>poison), and be a pure fighter. A fighter could also become an
assassin
>by specializing in sword, and working as a "duelist for hire" who
>challenges his victims and cuts them to pieces. This could make a
very
>subtle assassin who either kills a character or destroys his
reputation
>if the character refuses to fight.
>
>The potential of a wizard-assassin is enormous -- invisibility,
>wraithform, hold person, death spell, explosive runes, symbols and
power
>words, invisible stalkers -- the ways for a wizard to kill a foe with
>stealth are almost uncountable.
>
>Clerics are almost as bad, especially if they worship a deity of death
or
>stealth.
>
>And psionicists -- yeesh. I have a whole order of psionic assassins
IMC.
>
>The assassin can come from any class, I think.
So can the thief. A fighter can bust in, and say "give me all your
money or I throw darts at you". The mage can use invisibility, unseen
servant, teleports and illusions to steal stuff. The priest of the god
of theft can do similar things.
Juliet
>> > Agreed about an assassin's role, but what makes you think that
only a
>> > Rogue can do that?
>>
>> A fighter can break into houses too. Why not abolish the thief class
>> as well?
>>
>
>Once again, the fighter *can* break into houses, yes. But he doesn't
do
>it as *well* as a thief. OTOH a fighter with an appropriate selection
of
>weapons and training *can* kill as efficiently as any "official"
>assassin.
Really? A fighter can sneak into someones house and slit their throat
as well as a thief or assassin?
>As I and others have said before, the point is simply that
>every class -- fighter, mage, thief, cleric, and psionicist -- has a
>"mission" in the game that that class can do better than any other.
But
>the assassin's mission is simply efficient murder, and any class can
be
>equipped to do that.
Any class can steal. Lets eliminate the thief.
Juliet
>> > The reverse does not, however, follow. Warriors make poor
wizards-
>> > and vice versa. Yet both make good assassins.
>>
>> Really? A wizard using an unseen servant doesn't make a good thief?
>
a
>pocket,
Why not?
> open a lock,
Knock can.
> or remove a trap.
With unseen servant, he doesnt need to.
> And he certainly can't detect a
>trap. It's hard for him to scout out a villain's stronghold, and he
>can't possibly use backstab to remove a guard quietly.
He doesnt need backstab. He can simply walk in invisibily. Or use an
invisible stalker, the death spell, or zillions of other killing spells
to take out the guard.
>A wizard *can* do some of this with spells. Knock can open a locked
door
>or chest, and Wizard Eye can do some limited scouting. But a thief
can
>be more flexible about all of this because he can do it over and over,
>while the mage is limited by his spell list.
The mage can also do it 100% effectively. The thief can not.
>Basically a mage *can* be a thief, but most of the time if he has a
>choice between being a thief and hiring one to do it for him, the wise
>mage will contract the work out.
The wise mage will always contract work out if he can. The point is
that a mage can be just as effective as a thief, unless he is asked to
do it many times a day.
Juliet
>> >Once again, the fighter *can* break into houses, yes. But he
doesn't
>> do
>> >it as *well* as a thief. OTOH a fighter with an appropriate
selection
>> of
>> >weapons and training *can* kill as efficiently as any "official"
>> >assassin.
>>
>> Really? A fighter can sneak into someones house and slit their throat
>> as well as a thief or assassin?
>>
>
kill
>the target, plain and simple, by the most expedient means.
Or by the most stealthy.
> So while the
>fighter isn't going to creep into the house and kill the target in his
>sleep, he's great for doing a long-range kill using poisoned missiles
and
>specialization.
>
>People in this discussion keep fixating on the stealthy assassin with
a
>dagger beneath his cloak, but that's only one way to get the job done.
It is one of the best ways to get the job done, and to survive.
>Snipers are just as effective, and the target is just as dead. Making
>the target dead is the assassin's function. Creeping around unseen is
>for thieves.
And for assassins. The fighter can only assassinate if:
A. He can get a clear shot
B. The target is wearing very little armor, and he is high level, and
not too far away.
C. He wont be seen.
The assassin does not need any of those specific circumstances. He can
sneak in, be a sniper, whatever. Similarly, a fighter can steal using
brute force only("gimme your money or I chop you up"). A thief can use
that, or he can pick pockets, break into houses, etc, etc. Thats why we
have the thief class. He is a more effective thief than a fighter, mage
or priest. Similarly, an assassin is a more effective killer than a
mage, fighter or priest.
Juliet
>> A mage using knock, unseen servant, telekinesis, invisibility,
teleport, and
>> the like can perform heists in equal or superior manner to a very
skilled
>> thief.
>>
>
>That's true as far as it goes, and in fact a mage might make a fairly
>decent NPC thief who focussed on a single heist, got it and got out.
Or on a thief who goes around picking pockets, or a thief who scouts
ahead of the party, looking for the enemy.
> But
>that's not what most PC thieves do. They are scouts,
So is a mage with invis.
> con artists,
A mage with charm person.
> and
>sleight of hand specialists.
A mage with cantrip.
> They move ahead of a party in dangerous
>territory, scouting out hazards
Invisibility, various divination spells.
> and disarming traps.
Unseen servants to set them off before the party reaches them.
> They help the party
>get at treasures and other important items that are locked up or
>otherwise made inaccessible.
Knock.
> They mingle in parties and markets, swiping
>small valuables or placing something that the party needs in place.
Unseen servant.
> And
>they have to use their skills over and over in the course of a single
>adventure.
But not as effectively. Knock works 100% of the time. Open locks only
works about 30-50 at mid levels, and even that takes far more time.
>A thief can Hide in Shadows indefinitely, but a mage has to cast
>Invisibility every time he wants to go unseen.
Invisibility lasts 24 hours, and makes the mage completely invisibile.
HiS gives the thief a chance of not being seen(not very high until
higher levels), assuming there are actually hiding places in the room.
> Likewise Knock, and any
>other spell that duplicates a thief function. The mage has to
memorize
>the spell once for every time he expects to use it, and each such
spell
>means that he can't carry another one he might need. If the mage
knows
>exactly what he's going after and precisely what spells he needs to
get
>there and get the prize, then he makes an excellent thief for that one
>job -- better than a regular thief, perhaps. But he doesn't have the
>flexibility of a real thief.
And your fighter assassin doesnt have the flexibility of a real
assassin.
>An assassin, OTOH, *always* has a specific job in mind. He knows just
>who his target is, and he scouts out the location for the hit
carefully,
>planning for every contingency. Mages are ideal for that sort of
>precise, planned hit. So a mage can perform assassinations
beautifully.
Unless the target has magical countermeasures. And as above, the mage
is not as versatile as the real assassin.
>> Sorry folks, but the argument that 'an assassin is not a class' is a
poor
>> argument. If you don't like the class, that is fine. If you think it
is
>> unbalanced, that is also fine (hey, I can see the argument that
having a table
>> for instant death can be very unbalanced when used poorly). However,
other
>> classes in AD&D can easily be deemed "not a class" if you apply the
same
>> standard to them.
>
>Not really. The mage and fighter can do what the thief can do, though
>not as well. The fighter and thief can do *some* of what the mage can
>do, but very little, really. The Cleric can do some of what the Mage
and
>Fighter can do, but not as well as either of them, and isn't very good
at
>all at thieving. And no one really does the Cleric's job all that
well.
>
>It's a matter of mission. The Fighter's mission is not just to deal
>damage (which anyone can do). The Fighter's mission is to deal damage
>brutally well, to absorb punishment in return, and to defend the other
>members of the party who can't suck it up as well as he can. The
Mage's
>job is to act as long-range fire support, to identify and deal with
>magical threats, and to help other party members do their jobs
better.
>The Thief is a scout, spy, and penetration specialist who helps the
party
>get by dangers that might otherwise blindside them.
So is a mage, with the right spells. Or a priest, of the right god.
> And the Cleric heals
>and fortifies the party, helps deal with spiritual dangers such as
>undead, and acts as an auxilliary fighter.
>
>The assassin? Well, the assassin kills people without giving them a
>chance to fight back. And pretty much any class can do that.
But only under some circumstances. The assassin is trained to deal with
almost all of them. The assassin can be a sniper, a backstabber, a
poisoner, a scout, almost anything of that sort. A fighter can only be
a sniper. A mage can only be a magical killer, and is not good for most
assassin character concepts.
Larry Mead
: On Fri, 14 May 1999 08:49:27 GMT, val...@earthlink.net.nospam (Jason
: Orman) wrote:
: >Why not just use the re-released official assasin class? btw.. did you
: >know the monk is back also?
: The monk's BEEN back. Since S&M. In arguably less quirky, more
: playable form.
Why was the original (similar to Adnd1) "quirky"?
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Paul Suliin
says...
>
> >> > Agreed about an assassin's role, but what makes you think that
> only a
> >> > Rogue can do that?
> >>
> >> A fighter can break into houses too. Why not abolish the thief class
> >> as well?
> >>
> >
> do
> >it as *well* as a thief. OTOH a fighter with an appropriate selection
> of
> >weapons and training *can* kill as efficiently as any "official"
> >assassin.
>
> Really? A fighter can sneak into someones house and slit their throat
> as well as a thief or assassin?
>
No, but that's not the assassin's goal. The assassin's goal is to kill
the target, plain and simple, by the most expedient means. So while the
fighter isn't going to creep into the house and kill the target in his
sleep, he's great for doing a long-range kill using poisoned missiles and
specialization.
People in this discussion keep fixating on the stealthy assassin with a
dagger beneath his cloak, but that's only one way to get the job done.
Snipers are just as effective, and the target is just as dead. Making
the target dead is the assassin's function. Creeping around unseen is
for thieves.
--Paul
Paul Suliin
rpg.com says...
> In article <7hn5h9$697$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> > and vice versa. Yet both make good assassins.
>
> Really? A wizard using an unseen servant doesn't make a good thief?
Not terribly. He's stealthy, sure. But an Unseen Servant can't pick a
pocket, open a lock, or remove a trap. And he certainly can't detect a
trap. It's hard for him to scout out a villain's stronghold, and he
can't possibly use backstab to remove a guard quietly.
A wizard *can* do some of this with spells. Knock can open a locked door
or chest, and Wizard Eye can do some limited scouting. But a thief can
be more flexible about all of this because he can do it over and over,
while the mage is limited by his spell list.
Basically a mage *can* be a thief, but most of the time if he has a
choice between being a thief and hiring one to do it for him, the wise
mage will contract the work out.
--Paul
Michael Scott Brown
Aristotle@Threshold <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote:
>In article <7hn5h9$697$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
>> The reverse does not, however, follow. Warriors make poor wizards-
>> and vice versa. Yet both make good assassins.
>
>Really? A wizard using an unseen servant doesn't make a good thief?
That would almost be a good point save that the "thief" class
almost never engages in "theft" - the name's an anachronistic
leftover and ought to be changed, IMO. The _skillset_ of the
'thief' class is a quite viable approach to many adventuring roles
(spy, assassin, thief, troubleshooter, scout, etc). Taking the
skill idea a notch further, we can create a whole family of rogue
classes whose common theme is "lots of improving skills"
(as opposed to magic: wizard or priest, or battle savvy:warrior).
Renaming "fighter" would also alleviate some confusion of this sort.
-Michael
Aristotle@Threshold
>Basically a mage *can* be a thief, but most of the time if he has a
>choice between being a thief and hiring one to do it for him, the wise
>mage will contract the work out.
A mage using knock, unseen servant, telekinesis, invisibility, teleport, and
the like can perform heists in equal or superior manner to a very skilled
thief.
Sorry folks, but the argument that 'an assassin is not a class' is a poor
argument. If you don't like the class, that is fine. If you think it is
unbalanced, that is also fine (hey, I can see the argument that having a table
for instant death can be very unbalanced when used poorly). However, other
classes in AD&D can easily be deemed "not a class" if you apply the same
standard to them.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
Paul Suliin
rpg.com says...
> In article <MPG.11a9d8fd7...@news.earthlink.net>, bes...@earthlink.net (Paul Suliin) wrote:
> >Basically a mage *can* be a thief, but most of the time if he has a
> >choice between being a thief and hiring one to do it for him, the wise
> >mage will contract the work out.
>
> A mage using knock, unseen servant, telekinesis, invisibility, teleport, and
> the like can perform heists in equal or superior manner to a very skilled
> thief.
>
That's true as far as it goes, and in fact a mage might make a fairly
decent NPC thief who focussed on a single heist, got it and got out. But
that's not what most PC thieves do. They are scouts, con artists, and
sleight of hand specialists. They move ahead of a party in dangerous
territory, scouting out hazards and disarming traps. They help the party
get at treasures and other important items that are locked up or
otherwise made inaccessible. They mingle in parties and markets, swiping
small valuables or placing something that the party needs in place. And
they have to use their skills over and over in the course of a single
adventure.
A thief can Hide in Shadows indefinitely, but a mage has to cast
Invisibility every time he wants to go unseen. Likewise Knock, and any
other spell that duplicates a thief function. The mage has to memorize
the spell once for every time he expects to use it, and each such spell
means that he can't carry another one he might need. If the mage knows
exactly what he's going after and precisely what spells he needs to get
there and get the prize, then he makes an excellent thief for that one
job -- better than a regular thief, perhaps. But he doesn't have the
flexibility of a real thief.
An assassin, OTOH, *always* has a specific job in mind. He knows just
who his target is, and he scouts out the location for the hit carefully,
planning for every contingency. Mages are ideal for that sort of
precise, planned hit. So a mage can perform assassinations beautifully.
> Sorry folks, but the argument that 'an assassin is not a class' is a poor
> argument. If you don't like the class, that is fine. If you think it is
> unbalanced, that is also fine (hey, I can see the argument that having a table
> for instant death can be very unbalanced when used poorly). However, other
> classes in AD&D can easily be deemed "not a class" if you apply the same
> standard to them.
Not really. The mage and fighter can do what the thief can do, though
not as well. The fighter and thief can do *some* of what the mage can
do, but very little, really. The Cleric can do some of what the Mage and
Fighter can do, but not as well as either of them, and isn't very good at
all at thieving. And no one really does the Cleric's job all that well.
It's a matter of mission. The Fighter's mission is not just to deal
damage (which anyone can do). The Fighter's mission is to deal damage
brutally well, to absorb punishment in return, and to defend the other
members of the party who can't suck it up as well as he can. The Mage's
job is to act as long-range fire support, to identify and deal with
magical threats, and to help other party members do their jobs better.
The Thief is a scout, spy, and penetration specialist who helps the party
get by dangers that might otherwise blindside them. And the Cleric heals
and fortifies the party, helps deal with spiritual dangers such as
undead, and acts as an auxilliary fighter.
The assassin? Well, the assassin kills people without giving them a
chance to fight back. And pretty much any class can do that.
--Paul
Ian R Malcomson
>"Properly," Ian? Of all things, assassination is the last I'd expect
>have standards. Assassins are interested in results. They don't care
>about methods.
Don't they? I'd say they *do*, hence dedicating their professional
lives to perfecting their art.
>Is my target dead? Am I in the clear? Great. That was
>a "proper" assassination.
>
>As for effectiveness, well, if a wizard uses invisibility and wraithform
>to creep into the king's bedroom at night, then slits his throat and
>teleports away, how is that any less effective than an assassin with
>disguise, silent movement, and a poisoned dagger? The king can't get any
>deader. The wizard can even use poison -- that's just a skill that
>anyone can learn.
If a world is of a magic level high enough to allow this sort of thing,
IMO the king would have safeguards placed around him to counter them.
Yes, he may also set up safeguards to counter non-magical assassins,
too, but half the skill of an assassin is being able to avoid such
measures - skills that a mage doesn't have. IMO (and experience), an
assassin is more likely to succeed in an assassination than a mage of
equivilant level.
Ian R Malcomson
>The *classes* don't hone every skill to killing, but individual members
>of each class can. A fighter can practice long hours to make called kill
>shots at long range with poisoned arrows. A mage can take special pains
>to learn spells of illusion, enchantment and death to let him get close
>to his targets and kill them. A specialty priesthood can be specifically
>designed by the GM to work as assassins in the service of a God of
>Destruction. Psionicists can slant their powers toward infiltration and
>murder as well. Rogues -- well, rogues are obvious.
But only assassins are dedicated to such by definition.
>> >OTOH, I'm *not* convinced that an assassin has to be evil. A sniper is
>> >an assassin. So is James Bond ("licensed to kill"), to use a literary
>> >example.
>>
>> Bond is a *spy*. His "license to kill" gives him the freedom to shoot
>> the bad guys without fear of repurcussions from his government - not the
>> description of what he does for a living.
>
>But more than that, Ian, Bond and other 00x operatives are generally sent
>in when MI6 believes that the *best* solution is to kill the bad guy.
>He's a spy, but he's most often used as a professional killer.
From the books, I'd say that Bond is used more in a spy/detective role
than a spy/assassin. M rarely says to him "go kill this bloke" - more
"try and find out what's going on here"....
....and *then* kill the bloke :-)
>> Snipers probably are assassins of a sort, but they "assassinate" in a
>> military context (unless you mean the Leon type...).
>
>They're military assassins, agreed. I think a non-evil assassin usually
>works for reasons other than money.
Altruistic killers!
<snip>
>Right. That's the difference between a good assassin and an evil one,
>but it doesn't prove that assassins are *only* evil.
Agreed - I think limiting assassins to being solely evil isn't *quite*
right, but I'd argue that they shouldn't be allowed to be good - the
manner in which they conduct their busniness just doesn't allow for a
good alignment.
Ian R Malcomson
>Ninja were assasins IRL.
Ninja are an oddity - assassination was only *part* of what they got up
to. IMO, saying "Ninja are assassins" is simplifying ninja far too
much.
Paul Suliin
says...
>
> >> A mage using knock, unseen servant, telekinesis, invisibility,
> teleport, and
> >> the like can perform heists in equal or superior manner to a very
> skilled
> >> thief.
> >>
> >
> >That's true as far as it goes, and in fact a mage might make a fairly
> >decent NPC thief who focussed on a single heist, got it and got out.
>
> ahead of the party, looking for the enemy.
>
Um, Juliet, how does a mage pick pockets? As for scouting ahead,
certainly a mage can turn invisible. But what how does he keep quiet?
Heck, don't take my word for it -- next time you run a mage, have him try
a scouting mission that would normally go to the party's thief.
> > But
> >that's not what most PC thieves do. They are scouts,
>
> So is a mage with invis.
>
See above.
> > con artists,
>
> A mage with charm person.
>
Works great, if there's no one there to see you cast the spell. And if
you only have to fool one person. A thief can run a con on an entire
market full of marks.
> > and
> >sleight of hand specialists.
>
> A mage with cantrip.
>
So-so. It works well with very small items though.
> > They move ahead of a party in dangerous
> >territory, scouting out hazards
>
> Invisibility, various divination spells.
>
Each spell can only be cast once. And I don't think "find traps" is one
of the Wizard's spells. Besides, how many spells are you planning on
carrying, Juliet? We've got Invisibility at least once, Knock at least
once, and at least one divination spell such as ESP. That's at least a
fourth or fifth level mage devoting nearly all his resources to allow him
to do once each things that a thief can do repeatedly all day. I don't
think you're making a very good case here, Juliet. If the party has no
thief at all, they might be able to make do with a mage for a little
while -- but they *are* making do.
> > and disarming traps.
>
> Unseen servants to set them off before the party reaches them.
>
Unseen servant can't set off a trap unless it's something he can lift or
pull, and even then he has to know it's there. The servant has no
weight, and so can't set off any pressure or pit traps. He can't detect
the trap in advance and avoid it. And often you don't *want* to set off
a trap -- it will make noise, or even destroy what it's guarding. This
is definitely a poor second, even in those cases when it will work at
all.
> > They help the party
> >get at treasures and other important items that are locked up or
> >otherwise made inaccessible.
>
> Knock.
>
Yes -- once for every lock between you and your target.
> > They mingle in parties and markets, swiping
> >small valuables or placing something that the party needs in place.
>
> Unseen servant.
>
Unseen servant can't pick pockets, and it can't keep people from noticing
the object floating through the room. That sort of thing causes talk
<G>.
> > And
> >they have to use their skills over and over in the course of a single
> >adventure.
>
> But not as effectively. Knock works 100% of the time. Open locks only
> works about 30-50 at mid levels, and even that takes far more time.
>
Knock's great for emergencies and when no other way will work -- wizard-
thieves have the best of both worlds. But it still has that memorization
problem.
> >A thief can Hide in Shadows indefinitely, but a mage has to cast
> >Invisibility every time he wants to go unseen.
>
> Invisibility lasts 24 hours, and makes the mage completely invisibile.
> HiS gives the thief a chance of not being seen(not very high until
> higher levels), assuming there are actually hiding places in the room.
>
Invisibility works great until you don't want to be invisible any more --
such as when someone has to hand you something, throw something to you,
heal you, or avoid stepping on you. It's also cancelled whenever you do
anything offensive -- such as kill a guard. The wizard can certainly
cast it again, but only if he's memorized it more than once. And, as I
mentioned above, it doesn't keep you quiet.
> > If the mage knows
> >exactly what he's going after and precisely what spells he needs to
> get
> >there and get the prize, then he makes an excellent thief for that one
> >job -- better than a regular thief, perhaps. But he doesn't have the
> >flexibility of a real thief.
>
> And your fighter assassin doesnt have the flexibility of a real
> assassin.
>
Oh? How so?
> >An assassin, OTOH, *always* has a specific job in mind. He knows just
> >who his target is, and he scouts out the location for the hit
> carefully,
> >planning for every contingency. Mages are ideal for that sort of
> >precise, planned hit. So a mage can perform assassinations
> beautifully.
>
> Unless the target has magical countermeasures. And as above, the mage
> is not as versatile as the real assassin.
>
Again, how so? With a specific target in mind and the ability to select
his spells for the precise job at hand, the mage is in his element. This
is the only time that the mage *can* outdo a rogue character at this sort
of thing. And versatility? That's a wizard's middle name -- the salient
advantage of all spellcasters to select from a broader range of "powers"
than any mundane has access to.
As for magical countermeasures, who would you rather put up against
magic? A rogue who can't even *detect* magic, or a mage?
> >The assassin? Well, the assassin kills people without giving them a
> >chance to fight back. And pretty much any class can do that.
>
> But only under some circumstances. The assassin is trained to deal with
> almost all of them. The assassin can be a sniper, a backstabber, a
> poisoner, a scout, almost anything of that sort. A fighter can only be
> a sniper. A mage can only be a magical killer, and is not good for most
> assassin character concepts.
Unless he's attacking from behind with a melee weapon, the assassin's
chance of hitting his target are far below those of a fighter of
equivalent level. There's no chance for an assassin to be as effective a
sniper as a specialist fighter of the same level and DEX. Nor is a
fighter limited to only being a sniper. I mentioned a duelist assassin
in another message who goads his target into a fight he can't win and
kills him legally.
Anyone can use poison.
And certainly the mage can only be a magical killer. What else does he
need to be? The only assassin character concept a mage doesn't work for
is the one you seem to be fixated on -- the stealthy warrior with cloak
and dagger. Other than that, the dark wizard who takes a fee to kill a
target with magic works fine as a concept.
Paul Suliin
i...@domicus.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >The *classes* don't hone every skill to killing, but individual members
> >of each class can. A fighter can practice long hours to make called kill
> >shots at long range with poisoned arrows. A mage can take special pains
> >to learn spells of illusion, enchantment and death to let him get close
> >to his targets and kill them. A specialty priesthood can be specifically
> >designed by the GM to work as assassins in the service of a God of
> >Destruction. Psionicists can slant their powers toward infiltration and
> >murder as well. Rogues -- well, rogues are obvious.
>
> But only assassins are dedicated to such by definition.
That's certainly true, but given that they're only a subclass of rogue,
and that any other class *can* be built to be an assassin, is a dedicated
assassin class necessary?
>
> >> >OTOH, I'm *not* convinced that an assassin has to be evil. A sniper is
> >> >an assassin. So is James Bond ("licensed to kill"), to use a literary
> >> >example.
> >>
> >> Bond is a *spy*. His "license to kill" gives him the freedom to shoot
> >> the bad guys without fear of repurcussions from his government - not the
> >> description of what he does for a living.
> >
> >But more than that, Ian, Bond and other 00x operatives are generally sent
> >in when MI6 believes that the *best* solution is to kill the bad guy.
> >He's a spy, but he's most often used as a professional killer.
>
> From the books, I'd say that Bond is used more in a spy/detective role
> than a spy/assassin. M rarely says to him "go kill this bloke" - more
> "try and find out what's going on here"....
>
> ....and *then* kill the bloke :-)
>
Right <g>
> >> Snipers probably are assassins of a sort, but they "assassinate" in a
> >> military context (unless you mean the Leon type...).
> >
> >They're military assassins, agreed. I think a non-evil assassin usually
> >works for reasons other than money.
>
> Altruistic killers!
>
More or less. A non-evil assassin isn't going to take money to kill just
any target -- though he might take money to kill a target that falls
within what he sees as his "mission." Many of them (like the military
sniper) accept a salary to keep them in groceries while working for
someone whose cause they agree with -- a ruler or a clandestine order,
perhaps.
> <snip>
> >Right. That's the difference between a good assassin and an evil one,
> >but it doesn't prove that assassins are *only* evil.
>
> Agreed - I think limiting assassins to being solely evil isn't *quite*
> right, but I'd argue that they shouldn't be allowed to be good - the
> manner in which they conduct their busniness just doesn't allow for a
> good alignment.
>
Taking money to kill complete strangers, with no thought to whether
killing them will serve any good purpose, is what makes the assassin
evil. An "assassin" who practiced stealthy death exclusively on evil
targets might be good -- though a dark sort of good.
Paul Suliin
i...@domicus.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >"Properly," Ian? Of all things, assassination is the last I'd expect
> >have standards. Assassins are interested in results. They don't care
> >about methods.
>
> Don't they? I'd say they *do*, hence dedicating their professional
> lives to perfecting their art.
>
They care about killing their target, but they don't care *how* they kill
him. An assassin will use any tool or technique he has available.
> >Is my target dead? Am I in the clear? Great. That was
> >a "proper" assassination.
> >
> >As for effectiveness, well, if a wizard uses invisibility and wraithform
> >to creep into the king's bedroom at night, then slits his throat and
> >teleports away, how is that any less effective than an assassin with
> >disguise, silent movement, and a poisoned dagger? The king can't get any
> >deader. The wizard can even use poison -- that's just a skill that
> >anyone can learn.
>
> If a world is of a magic level high enough to allow this sort of thing,
> IMO the king would have safeguards placed around him to counter them.
> Yes, he may also set up safeguards to counter non-magical assassins,
> too, but half the skill of an assassin is being able to avoid such
> measures - skills that a mage doesn't have. IMO (and experience), an
> assassin is more likely to succeed in an assassination than a mage of
> equivilant level.
If a world has a magic level too low to use 5th level spells, then it's a
rare world indeed IMX.
Now, what skills does an assassin have to scope out a target's defenses
than a mage can't duplicate? Most of the business of casing a target is
a matter or roleplaying and careful planning. It doesn't turn on any
specific class ability that I can think of.
I agree that an assassin will do a better job than an ordinary everyday
mage. In order to be an effective assassin, a mage (or any other
character) has to be dedicated to that purpose from the start. That's
really all the assassin class is -- a rogue fine-tuned for stealthy
killing. To make a mage-assassin you'd have to custom-build the
character for that purpose. Here's an example:
Take spells from the schools of Enchantment, Illusion, Divination,
Alteration, Conjuration, and Abjuration.
Give him Bonus Spells in one school, preferably Illusion, Alteration, or
Enchantment.
Now select appropriate spells. At low levels spells like Detect
Magic, ESP, Change Self, Hypnotism, Knock, Ventriloquism, Invisibility
and Find Familiar will be handy. At mid level look for Fly, Dispel
Magic, Wraithform, Polymorph Self, Magic Mirror, Conjure Elemental-kin,
Watery Double, Improved Invisibility, Charm Monster, Phantasmal
Killer, and so on. And at high levels keep an eye out for Death Spell,
Invisible Stalker, Telekinesis, Teleport, Etherealness, Vile Venom, etc.
Ant at very high levels go for broke -- Prismatic Spray, Symbol,
Ensnarement, Phase Door, True Seeing, Mass Suggestion, Shades, Limited
Wish...
I'm sure you can see that a mage who specialized in spells like these
would be an extraordinarily dangerous assassin. In many cases he'll be
able to kill his targets in ways that look like accidents or suicides.
But he can always fall back on a poisoned dagger if he has too. At high
levels he'd be nearly impossible to stop once he had selected a target.
Obviously many other combinations are possible. An artificer could make
a very dangerous assassin. A wizard who specialized more in illusions,
with a thief's backstab purchased using Character Points, would be
dangerous in another way.
The key is just to do what the regular assassin class has already done --
design a character of any class with abilities slanted toward a specific
style of killing.
Chad Lubrecht
> >>
> >> A mage with charm person.
> >>
> >
> >Works great, if there's no one there to see you cast the spell.
>
>
> > And if
> >you only have to fool one person. A thief can run a con on an entire
> >market full of marks.
Any reason a mage can't do the same thing? A mage can be just as good
a con-man as a thief even without magic. Just gotta know how to work
the crowd, nothing in the thief class makes them particularly good at
this, and nothing in the mage class makes them bad.
--
Chad Lubrecht
lubr...@udel.edu
The Sage at UD
http://udel.edu/~lubrecht
Paul Suliin
says...
> >> But only assassins are dedicated to such by definition.
> >
> >That's certainly true, but given that they're only a subclass of
> rogue,
> >and that any other class *can* be built to be an assassin, is a
> dedicated
> >assassin class necessary?
>
> *can* be built to be an assassin, is a dedicated thief class necessary?
>
I've written a lot in other messages on the problems other classes face
in trying to fill the thief's mission. It's tough. It's not nearly as
hard to fill the assassin's mission, which is really just efficient
murder.
> >Taking money to kill complete strangers, with no thought to whether
> >killing them will serve any good purpose, is what makes the assassin
> >evil. An "assassin" who practiced stealthy death exclusively on evil
> >targets might be good -- though a dark sort of good.
>
> A good assassin could also be a former assassin.
Absolutely. An assassin character who is conceived as having undergone
an alignment change -- a conversion, of sorts -- might turn his skills to
righting the wrongs he had done before, by removing villains.
Paul Suliin
q960...@topaz.cqu.edu.au says...
>
>
> Paul Suliin wrote:
>
> > Agreed about an assassin's role, but what makes you think that only a
> > him disappear without a trace.
>
> Because first the mage has to move undetected close enough to his target (most
> likely within the target's own home) so that it is possible for him to get out
> and battle his way through the guards. Also there are lots of simple tricks
> (rings of spell turning, etc) which hinder mages and can be put up.
>
Getting in undetected is not all that hard. The mage can work with
several spells to get this done -- Fly, Wraithform, Invisibility,
Polymorph Self, Change Self...the list goes on. But getting in
undetected is also not the only option. Charm Person or Hypnotism can
also be used in various ways to get close to a target with the target's
full knowledge and consent.
Magical defenses are a problem for any assassin, no matter his style. A
Periapt of Proof vs Poison or a Ring of Regeneration or a Stoneskin spell
can all complicate a hit even for a rogue-type assassin. Learning a
target's defenses and figuring out ways around them are the first and
most vital thing that any assassin has to do on a job, so this isn't a
unique problem for the mage-assassin.
> Also you are forgetting that to do this the mage would already have to be of a
> reasonably high level. A first level mage has about zero chance of
> assassinating anyone, and a third level is not far behind, fifth might be able
> to in a hit and run attack, seventh level he's starting to be pretty dangerous.
This isn't true at all, Kim. *Any* assassin has to limit himself to
targets that are within his means. A first level rogue-assassin who sets
out to kill a twelfth level wizard is on a fool's errand. He's better
off sticking to small fry (and small fees) until he gains experience.
A first level wizard has several approaches to removing a low to mid-
level target. His greatest limitation is the fact that he has relatively
few spells, so he has to use them carefully. He might use Charm Person
on a member of the target's household to get a job as a kitchen servant,
work there for a few days or even weeks, then slip poison into the
target's wine. He could come up on the target in a busy marketplace and
stab him with a dagger enhanced with both poison and a Shocking Grasp
spell, then use Change Self to cover his escape. (This would require that
the character take Bonus Spells in one school to have the necessary two
spells available) Other strategems are possible -- as numerous and
varied as the creative thinking of the wizard. Even a simple Grease
spell has applications in assassination.
The tricks available to a low-level wizard will naturally work best on a
low-level target, but that's true for any assassin.
> A mage/thief is slightly more effective but takes twice as long to work his way
> up to a level where he has the killing power to do the job reliably. Fighters
> are usually limited to a very simple, break in and hack your way through
> strategy and clerics are usually stuck with the same only they have to stop to
> heal themselve more.
>
Actually a mage-thief is probably the best all-around assassin. The slow
advancement is a price to be paid for that expertise. A fighter can do a
lot more than just hack his way through, though. See discussions
elsewhere in this thread on snipers, specialist fighters, and the
duelist-assassin. Clerics can only be effective assassins if their
priesthood is designed that way, but it's not unlikely that some Deities
*would* have assassin-priest orders (that's essentially what the Thuggee
cult was).
> Assassination is a job for which few are fit, and less want to do. It requires
> a specific set of skills, a specific mindset, and specific goals in your
> training. Sounds an awful lot like a class to me.
It would, except that any class can lend itself to a character concept
with the necessary skills, mindset, and goals.
Juliet
>> >The *classes* don't hone every skill to killing, but individual
members
>> >of each class can. A fighter can practice long hours to make
called kill
>> >shots at long range with poisoned arrows. A mage can take special
pains
>> >to learn spells of illusion, enchantment and death to let him get
close
>> >to his targets and kill them. A specialty priesthood can be
specifically
>> >designed by the GM to work as assassins in the service of a God of
>> >Destruction. Psionicists can slant their powers toward
infiltration and
>> >murder as well. Rogues -- well, rogues are obvious.
>>
>
>That's certainly true, but given that they're only a subclass of
rogue,
>and that any other class *can* be built to be an assassin, is a
dedicated
>assassin class necessary?
Seeing as thief is only a subclass of rogue, and that any other class
*can* be built to be an assassin, is a dedicated thief class necessary?
>> >> Snipers probably are assassins of a sort, but they "assassinate"
in a
>> >> military context (unless you mean the Leon type...).
>> >
>> >They're military assassins, agreed. I think a non-evil assassin
usually
>> >works for reasons other than money.
>>
>> Altruistic killers!
>>
>
>More or less. A non-evil assassin isn't going to take money to kill
just
>any target -- though he might take money to kill a target that falls
>within what he sees as his "mission." Many of them (like the military
>sniper) accept a salary to keep them in groceries while working for
>someone whose cause they agree with -- a ruler or a clandestine order,
>perhaps.
Section 1, anyone?
>> <snip>
>> >Right. That's the difference between a good assassin and an evil
one,
>> >but it doesn't prove that assassins are *only* evil.
>>
>> Agreed - I think limiting assassins to being solely evil isn't
*quite*
>> right, but I'd argue that they shouldn't be allowed to be good - the
>> manner in which they conduct their busniness just doesn't allow for a
>> good alignment.
>>
>
>Taking money to kill complete strangers, with no thought to whether
>killing them will serve any good purpose, is what makes the assassin
>evil. An "assassin" who practiced stealthy death exclusively on evil
>targets might be good -- though a dark sort of good.
A good assassin could also be a former assassin.
Juliet
>> >That's true as far as it goes, and in fact a mage might make a
fairly
>> >decent NPC thief who focussed on a single heist, got it and got out.
>>
>> Or on a thief who goes around picking pockets, or a thief who scouts
>> ahead of the party, looking for the enemy.
>>
>
>Um, Juliet, how does a mage pick pockets?
Cantrip. If it can teleport a coin through ones hand, or from
underneath one cup to another(I think I've heard of it being used this
way), why not a coin from your pocket to my hand?
> As for scouting ahead,
>certainly a mage can turn invisible. But what how does he keep quiet?
Stay far enough away that they wouldnt hear you anyway. Or wraithform.
>Heck, don't take my word for it -- next time you run a mage, have him
try
>a scouting mission that would normally go to the party's thief.
Actually, that task usually goes to Fifi, my familiar(an owl).
>> > But
>> >that's not what most PC thieves do. They are scouts,
>>
>> So is a mage with invis.
>>
>
>See above.
>
>> > con artists,
>>
>> A mage with charm person.
>>
>
>Works great, if there's no one there to see you cast the spell.
You mean no one with spellcraft.
> And if
>you only have to fool one person. A thief can run a con on an entire
>market full of marks.
So can a mage casting friends. Or (mass)suggestion. Forget is also
useful for 1-4 people. "Alright, that will be 10gp. Thank you ver
ymuch." ::casts forget:: "Alright, that will be 10gp."
Illusions are also handy. As is fools gold. And minor/major creation.
>> > and
>> >sleight of hand specialists.
>>
>> A mage with cantrip.
>>
>
>So-so. It works well with very small items though.
Isnt that what sleight of hand is? Working well with small items?
>> > They move ahead of a party in dangerous
>> >territory, scouting out hazards
>>
>> Invisibility, various divination spells.
>>
>
>Each spell can only be cast once.
Invisibility lasts 24 hours.
> And I don't think "find traps" is one
>of the Wizard's spells. Besides, how many spells are you planning on
>carrying, Juliet? We've got Invisibility at least once, Knock at
least
>once, and at least one divination spell such as ESP. That's at least
a
>fourth or fifth level mage devoting nearly all his resources to allow
him
>to do once each things that a thief can do repeatedly all day.
A thief can become completely invisibile all day? Thats news to me.
Last I checked, the thief only had a chance of about 1 in 2(or less) of
hiding. We have invisibility, unseen servant and knock. 3 spells.
> I don't
>think you're making a very good case here, Juliet. If the party has
no
>thief at all, they might be able to make do with a mage for a little
>while -- but they *are* making do.
Seeing as the mage can go completely unseen in any room, rather than
just having a 50% chance of it in some rooms or locations, I disagree.
>> > and disarming traps.
>>
>> Unseen servants to set them off before the party reaches them.
>>
>
>Unseen servant can't set off a trap unless it's something he can lift
or
>pull, and even then he has to know it's there. The servant has no
>weight, and so can't set off any pressure or pit traps.
"Servant, press down on the floor over there."
> He can't detect
>the trap in advance and avoid it. And often you don't *want* to set
off
>a trap -- it will make noise, or even destroy what it's guarding.
This
>is definitely a poor second, even in those cases when it will work at
>all.
So just as with your mock assassin, the mage cant do everything a thief
can do. That still doesnt explain why we should keep the thief, but
scrap the assassin.
>> > They help the party
>> >get at treasures and other important items that are locked up or
>> >otherwise made inaccessible.
>>
>> Knock.
>>
>
>Yes -- once for every lock between you and your target.
It also always works. Open locks works only 30-50% of the time, atleast
at lower levels.
>> > They mingle in parties and markets, swiping
>> >small valuables or placing something that the party needs in place.
>>
>> Unseen servant.
>>
>
>Unseen servant can't pick pockets, and it can't keep people from
noticing
>the object floating through the room. That sort of thing causes talk
><G>.
What, the unseen servant cant duck? And cantrip is what you would use
to pick pockets.
>> > And
>> >they have to use their skills over and over in the course of a
single
>> >adventure.
>>
>> But not as effectively. Knock works 100% of the time. Open locks only
>> works about 30-50 at mid levels, and even that takes far more time.
>>
>
>Knock's great for emergencies and when no other way will work --
wizard-
>thieves have the best of both worlds. But it still has that
memorization
>problem.
As opposed to thieves, who have that percentile dice problem.
>> >A thief can Hide in Shadows indefinitely, but a mage has to cast
>> >Invisibility every time he wants to go unseen.
>>
>> Invisibility lasts 24 hours, and makes the mage completely
invisibile.
>> HiS gives the thief a chance of not being seen(not very high until
>> higher levels), assuming there are actually hiding places in the
room.
>>
>
>Invisibility works great until you don't want to be invisible any
more --
>such as when someone has to hand you something,
They hold it out, you grab it.
> throw something to you,
>heal you,
Heal by touch, grab after they throw.
>or avoid stepping on you. It's also cancelled whenever you do
>anything offensive -- such as kill a guard. The wizard can certainly
>cast it again, but only if he's memorized it more than once. And, as
I
>mentioned above, it doesn't keep you quiet.
As I mentioned above, HiS only works 30-50% of the time.
>> > If the mage knows
>> >exactly what he's going after and precisely what spells he needs to
>> get
>> >there and get the prize, then he makes an excellent thief for that
one
>> >job -- better than a regular thief, perhaps. But he doesn't have
the
>> >flexibility of a real thief.
>>
>> And your fighter assassin doesnt have the flexibility of a real
>> assassin.
>>
>
>Oh? How so?
He cant sneak into the palace and poison the kings drink. He cant
disguise himself as the maid, and slit the kings throat. He cant climb
the palace walls, and set up a booby trap.
>> >An assassin, OTOH, *always* has a specific job in mind. He knows
just
>> >who his target is, and he scouts out the location for the hit
>> carefully,
>> >planning for every contingency. Mages are ideal for that sort of
>> >precise, planned hit. So a mage can perform assassinations
>> beautifully.
>>
>> Unless the target has magical countermeasures. And as above, the mage
>> is not as versatile as the real assassin.
>>
>
>Again, how so? With a specific target in mind and the ability to
select
>his spells for the precise job at hand, the mage is in his element.
Which works, unless something unexpected comes up.
> This
>is the only time that the mage *can* outdo a rogue character at this
sort
>of thing. And versatility? That's a wizard's middle name -- the
salient
>advantage of all spellcasters to select from a broader range
of "powers"
>than any mundane has access to.
Which, as you say above, only work once.
>As for magical countermeasures, who would you rather put up against
>magic? A rogue who can't even *detect* magic, or a mage?
The rogue, who uses a non-magical blade that works just fine, anti-
magic shell, dispell magic, etc or not.
>> >The assassin? Well, the assassin kills people without giving them a
>> >chance to fight back. And pretty much any class can do that.
>>
>> But only under some circumstances. The assassin is trained to deal
with
>> almost all of them. The assassin can be a sniper, a backstabber, a
>> poisoner, a scout, almost anything of that sort. A fighter can only
be
>> a sniper. A mage can only be a magical killer, and is not good for
most
>> assassin character concepts.
>
>Unless he's attacking from behind with a melee weapon, the assassin's
>chance of hitting his target are far below those of a fighter of
>equivalent level. There's no chance for an assassin to be as
effective a
>sniper as a specialist fighter of the same level and DEX. Nor is a
>fighter limited to only being a sniper. I mentioned a duelist
assassin
>in another message who goads his target into a fight he can't win and
>kills him legally.
A duelist. Also quite limited. Only useful against those who like to
have duels. The assassin is useful for most other situations. And the
assassin can be a very good sniper; bear in mind that he gets a bonus
to poisons of some sort, and that he gets training in hitting the exact
locations that will kill the target(hence his instant kill table).
>Anyone can use poison.
But the assassin is better at it.
>And certainly the mage can only be a magical killer. What else does
he
>need to be? The only assassin character concept a mage doesn't work
for
>is the one you seem to be fixated on -- the stealthy warrior with
cloak
>and dagger. Other than that, the dark wizard who takes a fee to kill
a
>target with magic works fine as a concept.
Right, just as the dark wizard who steals stuff with magic works fine.
But it does not work fine for all jobs, or all character concepts.
Juliet
>> Because first the mage has to move undetected close enough to his
target (most
>> likely within the target's own home) so that it is possible for him
to get out
>> and battle his way through the guards. Also there are lots of
simple tricks
>> (rings of spell turning, etc) which hinder mages and can be put up.
>>
>
>Getting in undetected is not all that hard. The mage can work with
>several spells to get this done -- Fly, Wraithform, Invisibility,
>Polymorph Self, Change Self...the list goes on. But getting in
>undetected is also not the only option. Charm Person or Hypnotism can
>also be used in various ways to get close to a target with the
target's
>full knowledge and consent.
>
>Magical defenses are a problem for any assassin, no matter his style.
A
>Periapt of Proof vs Poison or a Ring of Regeneration or a Stoneskin
spell
>can all complicate a hit even for a rogue-type assassin. Learning a
>target's defenses and figuring out ways around them are the first and
>most vital thing that any assassin has to do on a job, so this isn't a
>unique problem for the mage-assassin.
But it is more of a problem for him than the assassin, who is trained
to handle all that stuff.
>> Also you are forgetting that to do this the mage would already have
to be of a
>> reasonably high level. A first level mage has about zero chance of
>> assassinating anyone, and a third level is not far behind, fifth
might be able
>> to in a hit and run attack, seventh level he's starting to be pretty
dangerous.
>
>This isn't true at all, Kim. *Any* assassin has to limit himself to
>targets that are within his means. A first level rogue-assassin who
sets
>out to kill a twelfth level wizard is on a fool's errand. He's better
>off sticking to small fry (and small fees) until he gains experience.
He still has a far better chance than the mage. And has far more means
open to him.
>A first level wizard has several approaches to removing a low to mid-
>level target. His greatest limitation is the fact that he has
relatively
>few spells, so he has to use them carefully. He might use Charm
Person
>on a member of the target's household to get a job as a kitchen
servant,
>work there for a few days or even weeks, then slip poison into the
>target's wine. He could come up on the target in a busy marketplace
and
>stab him with a dagger enhanced with both poison and a Shocking Grasp
>spell, then use Change Self to cover his escape. (This would require
that
>the character take Bonus Spells in one school to have the necessary
two
>spells available) Other strategems are possible -- as numerous and
>varied as the creative thinking of the wizard. Even a simple Grease
>spell has applications in assassination.
And all are dependant on very specific circumstances. The assassin is
prepared for almost any.
>The tricks available to a low-level wizard will naturally work best on
a
>low-level target, but that's true for any assassin.
The assassin has a much better chance, however.
>> A mage/thief is slightly more effective but takes twice as long to
work his way
>> up to a level where he has the killing power to do the job
reliably. Fighters
>> are usually limited to a very simple, break in and hack your way
through
>> strategy and clerics are usually stuck with the same only they have
to stop to
>> heal themselve more.
>>
>
>Actually a mage-thief is probably the best all-around assassin. The
slow
>advancement is a price to be paid for that expertise. A fighter can
do a
>lot more than just hack his way through, though. See discussions
>elsewhere in this thread on snipers, specialist fighters, and the
>duelist-assassin.
Again, these work only under very specific circumstances. The duelist
works, until you run into someone smart enough to say "how about this
guy duels you instead". The sniper only works at higher levels, if he
can get a clear shot, get away without being seen, etc.
> Clerics can only be effective assassins if their
>priesthood is designed that way, but it's not unlikely that some
Deities
>*would* have assassin-priest orders (that's essentially what the
Thuggee
>cult was).
Clerics can also be effective thieves if their priesthood is designed
that way. Or mages. Or fighters.
>> Assassination is a job for which few are fit, and less want to do.
It requires
>> a specific set of skills, a specific mindset, and specific goals in
your
>> training. Sounds an awful lot like a class to me.
>
>It would, except that any class can lend itself to a character concept
>with the necessary skills, mindset, and goals.
Fine. Heres an assassin, mike the mage hater(human, BTW), who's parents
were killed by a wizard, so now he wants to go out and kill all
wizards. He utterly detests magic. Have fun making him with your
mage/fighter or mage/thief.
Juliet
>> >Um, Juliet, how does a mage pick pockets?
>>
>> Cantrip. If it can teleport a coin through ones hand, or from
>> underneath one cup to another(I think I've heard of it being used
this
>> way), why not a coin from your pocket to my hand?
>>
>
>unnoticeably. So a clever prestidigitator can make it *appear* that
he
>is "teleporting" an object from one hand to another, for example. But
he
>isn't really. I'd rule that the ability to teleport an unseen object
>over a distance
of perhaps a foot or two
> into one's hand is way beyond the power of a cantrip.
I wouldnt, especially considering that in books, they have been used to
do exactly that("whoops, coins in this hand now!").
>It's the sort of thing one might do with Drawmij's Instant Summons,
>except that the item to be affected by that spell has to be prepared
in
>advance. Be very careful if you think to introduce this ability with
a
>mere cantrip into your campaign, Juliet -- the possibilities for abuse
>are frightful. Think of a mage using a cantrip to teleport a
fighter's
>sword out of his scabbard and into the mage's hand. Scary.
A sword, certainly not. A coin, gem, ring, or even something as amusing
as a bra? Absolutely.
>> > As for scouting ahead,
>> >certainly a mage can turn invisible. But what how does he keep
quiet?
>>
>> Stay far enough away that they wouldnt hear you anyway. Or
wraithform.
>>
>
>In order to stay far enough away you have to know that "they" are
there,
>Juliet -- and that's exactly what the scout is trying to find out.
And eyes work for that. If I am invisible, and 20+ feet away from
someones camp, I see them, but they will neither see nor hear me.
>Wraithform works, for sure. But now you're talking about a 7th level
>wizard to do what a 1st level thief can do.
A 1'st level thief can waltz into an enemy camp and stand in front of
them completely invisible, completely inaudible(100% of the time,
rather than 30-50%), completely unhittable? Thats news to me.
>> >Heck, don't take my word for it -- next time you run a mage, have
him
>> try
>> >a scouting mission that would normally go to the party's thief.
>>
>> Actually, that task usually goes to Fifi, my familiar(an owl).
>>
>
>Fifi is good for certain types of scouting missions. But how does she
>handle closed (let alone locked) doors? Can she detect traps?
No, that is what knock and unseen servant are for.
>> >Works great, if there's no one there to see you cast the spell.
>>
>> You mean no one with spellcraft.
>
>Nope. Anyone who can see you make funny passes in the air and mutter
>words under your breath, then suddenly make buddy-buddy with someone
>you've never met. It doesn't take spellcraft to suspect that a spell
has
>been cast, only to figure out *which* spell.
Except that we dont know exactly what the somatic components are. They
may not be funny passes in the air. They could be as simple as slapping
someone on the back, with the verbal components being "Hey, good
buddy!".
It is also worth noting that the thief has no inherent con abilities
whatsoever.
>> > And if
>> >you only have to fool one person. A thief can run a con on an
entire
>> >market full of marks.
>>
>> So can a mage casting friends. Or (mass)suggestion. Forget is also
>> useful for 1-4 people. "Alright, that will be 10gp. Thank you ver
>> ymuch." ::casts forget:: "Alright, that will be 10gp."
>>
>
>With any spell, you still have to hope that no one sees you cast it.
Actually, with forget, you dont, because they will forget about it!
>Friends is a great spell, and it can be *useful* to a con artist, but
it
>doesn't *make* you a con artist -- you just become more charismatic.
>It's a wonderful spell for a mage-thief, though. Forget? Be very
>careful. It affects 1-4 persons,
Nope, only 1. The caster.
> but you don't know how many it has
>affected until you ask them for their money. If you're dealing with
one
>person, however, it's not a bad idea. Still, there's that
memorization
>problem again. Every time you want to fleece a mark (or, if you feel
>lucky, up to four marks) you have to cast it again. A thief doesn't
have
>to do that.
Better to have one spell to fleece a mark than none, like the thief.
The thief has no special con-job abilities.
>Mass suggestion? I think not. You have to be 14th level to cast it.
If
>you conceive a mage as a thief-type and work him up to 14th level
running
>cons, then you could certainly run some amazing cons with that spell.
>But it seems like a highly specialized application <g>.
Better to have mass suggestion than no con ability whatsoever, like the
thief.
>> Illusions are also handy. As is fools gold. And minor/major creation.
>>
>
>Illusions are great. Likewise fools gold. But a thief can get the
same
>results with more flexibility.
Oh, the thief can make fake gold coins? I forgot about that. Could you
point out to me the page that tells of that ability?
> Again, if the mage has a specific target
>in mind, and can aim all his spells at that end, he can outdo a thief
on
>that one job. But the thief will still have arrows in his quiver when
>the mage's last bolt is spent.
The mage hits 100% of the time. The thief hits only 30-50%.
>> >So-so. It works well with very small items though.
>>
>> Isnt that what sleight of hand is? Working well with small items?
>>
>
>Yep. In this one area, the mage can match the thief fairly
consistently
>(within the limits of his spell's duration, of course). It's not much
to
>build an entire character on though.
So lets see. The mage can match the thieves pickpocketing abilities for
an hour per level. He can beat the thieves hiding abilities(100%
invisibility anywhere, vs 30-50% invisibility in some areas), once he
gets to 3rd level. He can run con jobs better than the thief. He can
trick people better than the thief, with illusions. He can change his
look more effectively and faster than the thief(change self). How is
the thief superior? Why do we need the thief at all?
>> > And I don't think "find traps" is one
>> >of the Wizard's spells. Besides, how many spells are you planning
on
>> >carrying, Juliet? We've got Invisibility at least once, Knock at
>> least
>> >once, and at least one divination spell such as ESP. That's at
least
>> a
>> >fourth or fifth level mage devoting nearly all his resources to
allow
>> him
>> >to do once each things that a thief can do repeatedly all day.
>>
>> A thief can become completely invisibile all day? Thats news to me.
>> Last I checked, the thief only had a chance of about 1 in 2(or less)
of
>> hiding. We have invisibility, unseen servant and knock. 3 spells.
>>
>
>Plus "various divination spells" you mentioned. Is Find Traps one of
>them? That's at least 4 -- nearly the entire complement for a wizard
of
>4th or 5th level, all aimed just at helping him do just once a few of
the
>things a thief can do over and over.
Do once perfectly. BEtter than the thief doing it many times, and
failing 50-70% of them.
>The thief can become "invisible" more often than the mage. If it's
not
>convenient or possible for the mage to remain invisible then he has to
>cast the spell again. A mage trying to imitate a thief on a scouting
>mission might have to kill a guard, for example, and then his
>invisibility is kaput.
No, the thief cant, atleast not with any reliability. Gotta role that
percentile dice, remember?
>> >Unseen servant can't set off a trap unless it's something he can
lift
>> or
>> >pull, and even then he has to know it's there. The servant has no
>> >weight, and so can't set off any pressure or pit traps.
>>
>> "Servant, press down on the floor over there."
>>
>
>How do you know where to press?
"Press in a line all along the floor."
> And can the servant press hard enough to
>trigger a trap set to go off under the weight of a human? Or even the
>weight of a halfling? Not unless the halfling weighs less than 40
>pounds.
Halfling weight is 50 +/- d20, if I'm not mistaken.
>And what do you do after the spell expires, or a triggered trap does
more
>than 6 points of damage (the max a servant can take)? You'd better
have
>that spell memorized again. Meanwhile the thief is detecting traps
the
>servant can't even find, and disarming them without setting them off
in
>the first place.
Once in a while. Not very often.
>> > He can't detect
>> >the trap in advance and avoid it. And often you don't *want* to set
>> off
>> >a trap -- it will make noise, or even destroy what it's guarding.
>> This
>> >is definitely a poor second, even in those cases when it will work
at
>> >all.
>>
>> So just as with your mock assassin, the mage cant do everything a
thief
>> can do. That still doesnt explain why we should keep the thief, but
>> scrap the assassin.
>>
>
>Because the mage-assassin (or fighter-assassin, or whatever) can do
>everything a rogue-assassin can do *that matters*. The only thing
that
>matters when an assassin is hired is that the target end up dead.
And the mage or fighter assassin can do that most of the time, assuming
everything goes according to plan. But just like the mage-thief, if
something goes wrong, he is not well prepared. And your fighter
assassin is pathetic, considering how uncommonly it would be used.
> How he
>dies generally isn't important. A rogue, a fighter, a psionicist, and
a
>mage all have different methods of seeing to that, but all can do it.
>The thief's mission is much broader than that, and with the exception
of
>the well-planned single heist, other classes can't fill that broad
>mandate as well as he can.
Mages can quite well.
>> >> > They help the party
>> >> >get at treasures and other important items that are locked up or
>> >> >otherwise made inaccessible.
>> >>
>> >> Knock.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes -- once for every lock between you and your target.
>>
>> It also always works. Open locks works only 30-50% of the time,
atleast
>> at lower levels.
>>
>
>See below. And think about how many locks you're going to have to
open
>in a standard dungeon crawl, Juliet. I don't know about you, but my
>wizard only uses his precious Knock spell after all other means
>(including brute force, if that's possible) have failed.
Great, so the thief can open 30-50% of all locks, while the mage can
open all. A benefit, and a hindrance for the mage. It evens out.
>> >> > They mingle in parties and markets, swiping
>> >> >small valuables or placing something that the party needs in
place.
>> >>
>> >> Unseen servant.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Unseen servant can't pick pockets, and it can't keep people from
>> noticing
>> >the object floating through the room. That sort of thing causes
talk
>> ><G>.
>>
>> What, the unseen servant cant duck? And cantrip is what you would use
>> to pick pockets.
>>
>
>Actually, no, an unseen servant can't "duck." They aren't very
dextrous,
>can't think to hide, and the objects they carry are always clearly
>visible.
I read the description. If the wizard tells it to carry the item low,
it will. "It is not strong, but unfailingly obeys the command of the
wizard." It wont think, but that is what the mage-thief is for.
>See above re cantrip.
>
>> >> > And
>> >> >they have to use their skills over and over in the course of a
>> single
>> >> >adventure.
>> >>
>> >> But not as effectively. Knock works 100% of the time. Open locks
only
>> >> works about 30-50 at mid levels, and even that takes far more
time.
>> >>
>> >
>
>Would you want something that works once perfectly, or any number of
>times with less reliability? I'd say it depends on circumstances, but
if
>I had no way to know how many times I might need to use it, I'd go
with
>the inexhaustible supply myself.
I probably would as well, which is why I would want an assassin, rather
than a mage or fighter killing for me.
>Once again, it comes down to planning. If the mage can plan it out,
he
>can beat the thief (and therefore the rogue-assassin) at his own
game.
>If he has to ad lib, the thief has a better shot at it. Most dungeon
>adventures are heavily ad libbed.
As are many assassinations. Who knows what may come up?
>> >Knock's great for emergencies and when no other way will work --
>> wizard-
>> >thieves have the best of both worlds. But it still has that
>> memorization
>> >problem.
>>
>> As opposed to thieves, who have that percentile dice problem.
>
>See below. Assassins have that same problem.
>
>> >Invisibility works great until you don't want to be invisible any
>> more --
>> >such as when someone has to hand you something,
>>
>> They hold it out, you grab it.
>>
>
>Sure, but it's awkward. And awkward can kill you sometimes.
Its awkward to grab something that someone is holding out for you?
>> > throw something to you,
>> >heal you,
>>
>> Heal by touch, grab after they throw.
>>
>
>I wouldn't want to locate a wound by touch. And you can *try* to grab
>something that someone has thrown when they can't see you. Try it
>sometime in real life. Even if you make enough noise for them (and
any
>monster within shouting distance) to get a fix on you, it's still
pretty
>challenging. Best to hope whatever it is it can survive hitting the
>ground.
I can also take out a dagger, hold it up so they see where I am, then
grab the other item from the air when they throw it to me.
>Basically, Juliet, a person who tries to work with a party while under
>constant invisibility is setting himself up for every danger and
>inconvenience the DM can think of to throw at him. I've had a lot of
>practice doing just that with players who want to pull similar stunts
>using rings of invisibility.
>
>And of course, if you have to remove a guard, all bets (and
invisibility
>spells) are off.
So use a non-violent spell to remove the guard. Sleep, for example.
>> >or avoid stepping on you. It's also cancelled whenever you do
>> >anything offensive -- such as kill a guard. The wizard can
certainly
>> >cast it again, but only if he's memorized it more than once. And,
as
>> I
>> >mentioned above, it doesn't keep you quiet.
>>
>> As I mentioned above, HiS only works 30-50% of the time.
>>
>
>You know, Juliet, you seem fond of the fact that a thief's (that is,
an
>assassin's) abilities are based on chance. Why doesn't that bother
you
>so much when you start talking about the superiority of the assassin
over
>the mage? Probably because you know that a thief's abilities usually
>work well enough to get the job done.
Ah, so a percentile chance that is repeatable is better than spells?
Guess that makes the assassin better than the mage.
>> >> And your fighter assassin doesnt have the flexibility of a real
>> >> assassin.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oh? How so?
>>
>> He cant sneak into the palace and poison the kings drink. He cant
>> disguise himself as the maid, and slit the kings throat. He cant
climb
>> the palace walls, and set up a booby trap.
>>
>
>But why does he *need* to do any of those things, Juliet? His mission
is
>to kill the king. How he does it doesn't matter. If he can lay in
wait
>while the king goes out hunting and nail him at long range with a
>poisoned arrow, then what is the net difference in result as far as
the
>king (and the king's survivors) are concerned?
What if the king doesnt go hunting? What if the king is an arabian
king, who's palace is built in the desert(no cover to hide behind when
shooting)? What if the king is smart, and has some guards far away from
him, who will notice and catch the fighter? The assassin is prepared
for situations like that. The fighter is not.
>> >Again, how so? With a specific target in mind and the ability to
>> select
>> >his spells for the precise job at hand, the mage is in his element.
>>
>> Which works, unless something unexpected comes up.
>>
>
>Every assassin has to plan for the unexpected, and have an escape
route
>plotted out in advance in case it all goes to hell. Mages just have
to
>plan for that like anyone else.
But as you keep saying above, mages suck at "ad-libbing". Which is it?
Can they improvise or not?
>> > This
>> >is the only time that the mage *can* outdo a rogue character at this
>> sort
>> >of thing. And versatility? That's a wizard's middle name -- the
>> salient
>> >advantage of all spellcasters to select from a broader range
>> of "powers"
>> >than any mundane has access to.
>>
>> Which, as you say above, only work once.
>>
>
>Ah, but for a specific mission, with each spell planned to accomplish
a
>specific goal, they only need to work once. An assassination will be
>planned out that way. It's when you find yourself creeping about in
>unknown areas, as thieves often do, that the memorization problem
bites.
Assassins can do that just as well. And assassins dont always know
exactly what their target will do. A mage might work just fine for
killing a predictable target(say, an LN target), but what about the CN
one?
>> >As for magical countermeasures, who would you rather put up against
>> >magic? A rogue who can't even *detect* magic, or a mage?
>>
>> The rogue, who uses a non-magical blade that works just fine, anti-
>> magic shell, dispell magic, etc or not.
>>
>
>Ah, you didn't specify *which* magical countermeasures you were
thinking
>of. Anti-magic shell is a nuisance, but it has a sharply limited
>duration. It only comes up if the assassin's target suspects trouble,
>and at that point any assassination mission is blown in any case.
Ditto
>dispel magic -- death can't be dispelled, so the mage-assassin is only
>worried about it if the target knows he's coming and is prepared. In
>that case any assassin has to abort the mission if he values his skin.
>
>The kinds of magical defenses that an assassin actually has to worry
>about are the passive ones, that don't need to be activated. Things
like
>Glyphs of Warding, Stoneskin, and Fire Trap. The rogue-assassin can't
>easily even find most such defenses, let alone neutralize them.
Or perhaps spell turning.
>> A duelist. Also quite limited. Only useful against those who like to
>> have duels.
>
>You say limited, I say specialized. <G> He has the decided advantage
>that his kills are legal. So he can make a tidy living working in his
>little niche market.
The real assassin, on the other hand, is not limited.
>> The assassin is useful for most other situations.
>
>True, be it the rogue-assassin, the mage-assassin, the psionicist-
>assassin, the cleric-assassin, or the sniper-assassin.
The mage-assassin? Really? The mage-assassin can handle unexpected
circumstances?
As for the psionic assassin, I wouldnt know. I dont use psionics.
>> And the
>> assassin can be a very good sniper; bear in mind that he gets a bonus
>> to poisons of some sort, and that he gets training in hitting the
exact
>> locations that will kill the target(hence his instant kill table).
>>
>
>Poison works great if you hit. The specialist fighter has a much
>better chance of doing that. The Instant Kill rule for assassins
works
>only with melee weapons, Juliet. He's just not cut out to be a
sniper.
>Check the rules again.
I cant, since unfortunately I only have a PHB2. In any case, the sniper
situation(as well as the dueling one) are still the only circumstances
where the fighter is better.
>> >Anyone can use poison.
>>
>> But the assassin is better at it.
>>
>
>Anyone can be as good as an assassin if they just put some extra CP
into
>the Herbalism proficiency.
CP? Given munchkins options, I can make a megadeathmachine orc/god who
farts lightning bolts and breathes fire(a minor exaggeration, I know).
Given a balanced cp system, an assassin class(as well as the thief, and
bard, and fighter, and paladin, etc) would not be necessary.
But as long as we are using the PHB class based system, we do need an
assassin, as well as a number of other classes(or kits).
Juliet
>>And for assassins. The fighter can only assassinate if:
>>A. He can get a clear shot
>>B. The target is wearing very little armor, and he is high level, and
>>not too far away.
>>C. He wont be seen.
>
> (somehow- stealth, subterfuge, raw force of arms) and attack.
> Assuming he's the better combatant, his skill at battle will
> lead to his victory, at which point he makes his escape.
> Not pretty, but the target is dead. If he was a naughty man,
> he'd use poisoned weapons to speed the affair. Or snipe with
> venomed projectiles.
If he isnt stealthy, guards will immediately chase the fighter, and get
the target to safety. If he is seen, guards will hunt him down wherever
he goes. He might be able to kill all the guards in a xena-like scene,
but that is hardly subtle, or desirable under most circumstances. So
yes, technically, a fighter can be an assassin, but he isnt nearly as
good as a real assassin.
>>or priest. Similarly, an assassin is a more effective killer than a
>>mage, fighter or priest.
>
> The assassin is most certainly not as effective as a
> medium (much less high level) wizard.
Under circumstances he has prepared for, no. And I suppose a high level
mage could just "assassinate" a target with an army of zombies. But
that is hardly the role that an assassin is used to fill.
Juliet
>> So can the thief. A fighter can bust in, and say "give me all your
>> money or I throw darts at you". The mage can use invisibility, unseen
>> servant, teleports and illusions to steal stuff. The priest of the
god
>> of theft can do similar things.
>
you
>back to the several posts in which I've addressed this. Other classes
>*can* do *some* of what a thief does, but they don't do it as well.
>
>The short version is, thieves do a lot more than steal. Assassins do
>*not* do a lot more than kill.
What, assassins cant scout and spy, and "assassinate" guards, just like
thieves?
Michael Scott Brown
>And for assassins. The fighter can only assassinate if:
>A. He can get a clear shot
>B. The target is wearing very little armor, and he is high level, and
>not too far away.
>C. He wont be seen.
None of this follows. All the fighter has to do is get in there
(somehow- stealth, subterfuge, raw force of arms) and attack.
Assuming he's the better combatant, his skill at battle will
lead to his victory, at which point he makes his escape.
Not pretty, but the target is dead. If he was a naughty man,
he'd use poisoned weapons to speed the affair. Or snipe with
venomed projectiles.
>or priest. Similarly, an assassin is a more effective killer than a
>mage, fighter or priest.
The assassin is most certainly not as effective as a
medium (much less high level) wizard.
-Michael
Paul Suliin
says...
> >The assassin can come from any class, I think.
>
> So can the thief. A fighter can bust in, and say "give me all your
> money or I throw darts at you". The mage can use invisibility, unseen
> servant, teleports and illusions to steal stuff. The priest of the god
> of theft can do similar things.
<shaking head> You're just repeating yourself, Juliet, so I'll refer you
back to the several posts in which I've addressed this. Other classes
*can* do *some* of what a thief does, but they don't do it as well.
The short version is, thieves do a lot more than steal. Assassins do
*not* do a lot more than kill.
--Paul
Michael Scott Brown
>back to the several posts in which I've addressed this. Other classes
>*can* do *some* of what a thief does, but they don't do it as well.
<grin> The wizard does it *better*.
-Michael
Paul Suliin
says...
> >But the assassin's mission is simply efficient murder,
> >and any class can be equipped to do that.
>
>
> More to the point: efficient murder is *all* an assassin does, strictly
> speaking. A fighter can be a grunt soldier, a dead-eye archer, a gallant
> swordsman, a hulking brute, a noble knight, et cetera. A priest can be a
> wandering scholar, one who lays the risen dead to rest, a proselytiser, a
> defender of the faith, a pious pastor, et cetera. A wizard can be a scholar,
> a battlemage, in search of immortality, a specialist, et cetera. A thief can
> be a spy, a scout, a Robin Hood figure, a dishonest merchant, a burglar, et
> cetera.
>
<snip>
> Any class can be an assassin. Any class can probably take on the role of
> another, to a certain extent and with less success. The thing about classes
> is that they aren't specialists per se, they are good at a whole, wide range
> of similar activities, with a LOT of flexibility within that range.
That's the best summary of the central point that I've seen so far,
Chris. When we say, "Assassin is a profession, not a class," we're
pointing to the fact that a "class" is a broad category of skills and
abilities that can be applied to many different professions. A
"profession," OTOH, is a job -- something to do, not how to do it.
Classes do many different things. An assassin really only does one
thing: kill people efficiently. Anyone who can kill efficiently can
therefore be an assassin.
Paul Suliin
>
>
> Paul Suliin wrote:
> >
> > In article <7hqhj4$ddo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, julie...@my-dejanews.com
> > says...
> > >
> <snip>
> > > >
> > > >Um, Juliet, how does a mage pick pockets?
> > >
> > > Cantrip. If it can teleport a coin through ones hand, or from
> > > underneath one cup to another(I think I've heard of it being used this
> > > way), why not a coin from your pocket to my hand?
> > >
> >
> > unnoticeably. So a clever prestidigitator can make it *appear* that he
> > is "teleporting" an object from one hand to another, for example. But he
> > isn't really. I'd rule that the ability to teleport an unseen object
> > It's the sort of thing one might do with Drawmij's Instant Summons,
> > except that the item to be affected by that spell has to be prepared in
> > advance. Be very careful if you think to introduce this ability with a
> > mere cantrip into your campaign, Juliet -- the possibilities for abuse
> > are frightful. Think of a mage using a cantrip to teleport a fighter's
> > sword out of his scabbard and into the mage's hand. Scary.
> >
>
> There was (in 1st Ed.) a cantrip of the type Juliet described.
>
> From Unearthed Arcana (TSR 1985) p. 49:
>
> Present (Alteration)
>
> Area of Effect: One small item Casting Time: 1/6 segment
>
> "A _present_ cantrip enables the caster to bring any small object or
> series of objects from within a 2-foot radius of his or her person to
> his or her hand. The object or objects will appear magically in the
> caster's hand as he or she puts the hand upward or outward with a
> flourish and speaks the keyword to begin the dweomer.
>
> If an object as large as a tankard is thus presented, the cantrip will
> be exhausted, but as many as a dozen coins could brought to the hand
> before the dweomer failed. The caster must know the exact nature and
> location of the object or objects to be presented. If they are on the
> person of another individual, a saving throw versus spell applies to the
> individual, unless the object or objects are within palin sight."
Thanks for the data, Arivne. If you're thinking about using this a
pickpocket, spell, though, you'd better check the description. The
cantrip is called "Present" because that's what you have to do with the
item you're teleporting: present it with a dramatic flourish. It's
intended to simulate stage magic, but it's not useful for stealing
something without being noticed.
Cantrips tend to have little glitches like that built in precisely to
limit their usefulness.
Arivne
Paul Suliin wrote:
>
<snip previous material>
>
> > Arivne (ari...@home.com) said
> > There was (in 1st Ed.) a cantrip of the type Juliet described.
> >
> > From Unearthed Arcana (TSR 1985) p. 49:
> >
> > Present (Alteration)
> >
> > Area of Effect: One small item Casting Time: 1/6 segment
> >
> > "A _present_ cantrip enables the caster to bring any small object or
> > series of objects from within a 2-foot radius of his or her person to
> > his or her hand. The object or objects will appear magically in the
> > caster's hand as he or she puts the hand upward or outward with a
> > flourish and speaks the keyword to begin the dweomer.
> >
> > If an object as large as a tankard is thus presented, the cantrip will
> > be exhausted, but as many as a dozen coins could brought to the hand
> > before the dweomer failed. The caster must know the exact nature and
> > location of the object or objects to be presented. If they are on the
> > person of another individual, a saving throw versus spell applies to the
> > individual, unless the object or objects are within plain sight."
>
> Thanks for the data, Arivne. If you're thinking about using this as
> a pickpocket spell, though, you'd better check the description. The
> cantrip is called "Present" because that's what you have to do with the
> item you're teleporting: present it with a dramatic flourish. It's
> intended to simulate stage magic, but it's not useful for stealing
> something without being noticed.
>
> Cantrips tend to have little glitches like that built in precisely to
> limit their usefulness.
>
> --Paul
>
> --
> Fred Flintstone was a Hanna-Barbarian.
You are correct about the limitations of the Present cantrip when used
for pickpocketing. The last thing a pickpocket wants is attention. :)
How about a modification of the cantrip that does what the mage wants?
***************************************************************************
Pickpocket (Alteration)
Area of Effect: One small item Casting Time: 1 segment (1 in 2nd Ed.)
The Pickpocket cantrip allows the mage to remove one small object (no
more than 4 oz. or 2 inches in any dimension when folded) in the
possession of another being. The object taken cannot be in use at the
time it is taken (e.g. a necklace or bracelet being worn). The object
disappears from the target's person and appear in the caster's hand. The
maximum range of the spell is 10 feet. The target receives a saving
throw vs. spell: if it succeeds, the casting fails.
The caster can choose whether to try for a generic item ("a gold piece",
"a gem") or a specific item. If the target has more than one of a
generic item, the mage will receive the one with the least monetary
value. If trying to get a specific item, the mage must know where on the
target's body the item is and what it looks like.
****************************************************************************
_Notes_
This cantrip is both more limited and more powerful than Present. It can
only get one object, the target always gets a saving throw even if the
objects are in plain sight, the object cannot be in use, and it has
specific weight and volume limitations.
On the other hand, it has a somewhat longer range and can obtain objects
without the caster knowing exactly what or where they are.
For the purposes of this cantrip, a magic item is considered "in use" if
it is providing any benefit to the target, even if it is not being worn
(e.g. a Luckstone).
If you think this cantrip is too powerful, you can tone it down by
changing it in one (or more) of the following ways:
1. It cannot obtain magical items.
2. It can only be used to obtain specific items, not generic.
3. Add a "maximum value" limitation (100 gp?).
4. Reduce the maximum range.
5. Require that the target be distracted in order for the cantrip to
work.
6. Increase the casting time.
7. If the saving throw succeeds, the target notices the attempted theft.
Comments? Flames? :)
Arivne