Why Assassins are awesome!!!

[The1True]

*It's almost distressing how poor the pattern recognition is from people going backward into editions released before they began playing the game themselves. Perhaps it just isn't possible to let go of whatever foundation one starts with. To sum up:

Look at you, defending the indefensible.

Bro, I plaid D&D and AD&D (1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5) all through the 80's and 90's. 3e came along and I ditched what was to myself and my friends, a tangled mess of insanity. To us (and we weren't the only ones) the only thing salvageable from those decades are the awesome adventure scenarios and imaginative campaign worlds. (I will stop here before I set off another pointless edition war). I am willing to accept that to understand the lightning in the bottle that is a classic AD&D module, it helps to immerse oneself in the original system, and that is why I (and I am not alone) mostly put up with the edition bashing on the various OSR blogs

You are correct in a way however, my memory of moribund editions is flawed at best and clouded by prejudice at worst. I went and reread the Assassin entry and indeed, I had conflated the poison paragraph with the death-attack paragraph. My bad.
It's still a shitty death-attack mechanic.
The alignment restriction is still stifling.
And, rules as written, the 2nd function of an assassin is a spy, so ... muh Zero-Dark Jason 007 all day every day my dude. That I chose to express it in anachronistic terms is a matter of semantics.
All of your arguments seem to me to be supporting the holistic integrity of the rules as opposed to the actual functionality/playability/utility of this particular character class.

Moving on from my poorly supported, knee-jerk reaction: My whole impassioned plee was for a build that one-shot kills (much) less, but could absolutely make it stick even against an overwhelmingly powerful opponent given appropriate planning, preparation and support. In my opinion, none of the editions offer that. As I said, I'm not looking for a killing machine that's going to sideline the other characters or hijack the plot, but I am looking for something a lot less swingy than a crappy 50/50 on the percentile dice with maybe a few digits one way or the other from DM latitude, when I've made it my whole mission to end this one primary target.

 

[The1True]

The taming/normalization of the other and unbridled anthropomorphism is almost as bad. It's a freakin' manga cartoon!

I can't even bridle at this provocation anymore. I mean, I guess it comes down to what kind of fantasy trip you're into? I was way into that 'Myth' series by Robert Lynn Asprin when I was a kid, so I was ripe for Spelljammer and Planescape when they came along. Now I'm old and I can't abide anything above maaaybe medium-low fantasy in a book, but I still dig a weird D&D character for some reason.

That said, you don't see myself or others here posting how they can't understand playing in a world peopled only by human fighters. How that seems soulless, drab and miserable to play in. I'm sure it's as enriching for you as my tiefling inventor is for me.

There are distinctly some broken things in the later editions, but they are all the same things that are broken in the earlier editions. (I feel like I've written exactly this, quite recently here?). It's not the candy classes and races; it's the bread and butter human wizard/magic-user and maybe the cleric. If you're playing a dragonfoof fancy-knight, you may have a brief advantage in the formative levels of the game, but you will quickly be outclassed by the bread and butter. Hopefully by then though, you'll be in love with your flavourful reptile and it will be all about rrrrrrole playing at that point.

I suspect the problem is it's easier to say goodbye to generic 14/12/10/8/6/9 guy #3 (with Bardiche this time!) after he stomped on a save-or-die trap than it is to the carefully crafted and painstakingly illustrated Warforged Duskblade you spent a week researching and clearing backstory with the DM. All comes down to what type of game you want to play. Strategic board game or role playing game. Both are fun!

 

[Maynard]

Squeen is just very emphatically stating his preferences. I don't think he's intending to imply that you're not allowed to enjoy something different.

 

[Beoric]

It's an aesthetic assault for me, regardless of mechanic specifics. Be a paladin (if you must) or be a (proper) dragon...but both? Oy.

Kind of what I was getting at when I said

Like, it looks cool, so therefore it must be seriously overpowered?

Which you will recall was a response to you saying

This guy is so D&D. Sure, assassins are cool...but Paladins are still the kickass-est.

If only he could also be 50-ft tall, and just stomp on the "bad guys" while their weapons bounced harmlessly off his impenetrable hide. Now that would be some REALLY great gaming!

You started out conflating someone's fan art with wanting to run a seriously overpowered character, which we know from previous posts you also conflate with "coddling" players who are impliedly not mature enough to handle character death. You have not effectivley resiled from your own posting history.

Squeen is just very emphatically stating his preferences. I don't think he's intending to imply that you're not allowed to enjoy something different.

No, I really think he is implying that there is something wrong with the way other people play.

 

[squeen]

Squeen is just very emphatically stating his preferences. I don't think he's intending to imply that you're not allowed to enjoy something different.

100% correct Maynard! Thank you!

I don't advocate a ban, I just hoping for some small realization that everything-all-at-once can be ridiculous/messy. I believe that in the long run, restraint bears a sweeter fruit and hope that if I make my point in an evocative manner others may get where I am coming from...and even give it serious consideration. My D&D experiences have been amazing when applying that simple rule, and I wish that same level of gratification for others. I'm attempting to express a minority opinion that pushes in the opposite direction of the cultural zeitgeist of excess.

I do this in a spirit of camaraderie, even though I know some folks like vanilla and some folks like chocolate.

 

[squeen]

You started out conflating someone's fan art with wanting to run a seriously overpowered character, which we know from previous posts you also conflate with "coddling" players who are impliedly not mature enough to handle character death. You have not effectivley resiled from your own posting history.

I think wanting to be a (1e) paladin is about having the most innate in-game power at roll-up. I think wanting to be a dragon is about the perception of being fearsome. Both are symptomatic (to me) of a desire to dominate the game---and I strongly believe that D&D starts to fall apart if and when players are able to dominate the game.

It is far better the players always feel that they are on the back foot---striving to achieve dominance...but never fully getting there except in small flashes of advancement. Lack of prestige (in game) can be a major motivator for in-game action as the PCs try to achieve some new rung of status. When they first walk into a pub, who is going to off-handily dismiss a massively charismatic paladin that also looks like an 8-ft tall dragon? It doesn't logically happen---that PC has instant prestige at roll up.

Now you guys are going to tell me how you tweak this-that-and-the-other to make it work and that everything I just wrote is irrelevant because you've got a mechanism to fix the situation --- but I can tell you right now, I probably won't believe you. It makes no logical sense to me based on my (limited) experience. A prestige-class or race is mainly about prestige.

 

[Beoric]

Just because a player has a cool image of their character in their head doesn't mean the character is any more powerful in-game. The DM still has the same tools even if the player draws a tough-looking portrait of the character.

I mean, I could roll up a 1st level 1e thief and say it looks like an 8 foot tall humanoid dragon, but it isn't going to improve my abilities, AC, HP, to-hit or damage. I don't know why you think those things have to be cumulative. Even with the dragonborn paladin, have you ever thought that maybe the reason that paladin has a high charisma is because of its draconic presence? That but for that the charisma would be much more modest (and not qualifying for the class)?

Or maybe the reason he looks so tough but has low prestige is because dragonborn are hated enemies in the setting? Or pitiful refugees? Or are believed to be in league with dark forces? Or are so feared that people don't like to deal with them? Or maybe they are rare and largely unheard of, and people assume the player is cursed? All it requires is starting with the assumption that the character is no more powerful than any other character of its level, and applying a little imagination.

You don't like the aesthetic of including them? That's fine. But when you try to argue there is a logical reason for your entirely subjective opinion, you are effectively saying that other opinions are wrong.

 

[The1True]

When they first walk into a pub, who is going to off-handily dismiss a massively charismatic paladin that also looks like an 8-ft tall dragon?

Well, you're either in a world where there are other 8' tall dragondudes, in which case no one in the pub gives a fig, or this character is indeed exceptional and he's going to find that useful in some places, and a total pain in the ass in others. Same as the fancypants paladin. If the warrior-monk, lord of chivalry tries to saunter into the dockside tavern like it aint no thang, he's going to find himself quickly in over his head. ROLE playing.

And so what if one (or all) of your players want to feel like a god of war. This world sucks. It rips power away from us and leaves us feeling helpless in the face of insane, insurmountable forces. Fuck yes people want to pretend to carve out a little control with just their sword and a little bit of courage! Medieval realism is horrific! As the Elder E pointed out above, AD&D is finely balanced. I believe that is mathematically true across most of the editions. Special snowflake builds, unless maliciously sourced off a Min/Max forum, almost always end up compromised by the game, without the need for DM interference. They are frequently overpowered at lower levels, but so what? They'll meatshield the weaker party members through the early days and then step aside as wizards and bards etc. hit their stride.

Maybe, part of the problem is 1e players feel that paladins render fighters redundant? I think this was adressed as early as UA (booo hissss!) and moreso in 2/2.5e by better and earlier access to weapon specialization and mastery (I think only fighters can get Grand Mastery)? In 3e Fighters get an absolute shit-ton of Feats which allows them to customize a flavourful and deadly fighting style which makes for an equally attractive character build to the paladin.

Dammit, the I Hate Paladins thread has returned from the dead to takeover the I Hate Assassins thread!

 

[The1True]

Just because a player has a cool image of their character in their head doesn't mean the character is any more powerful in-game.

I really gotta read to the bottom of the thread before reacting, lol. I wish I could react more emphatically than 'thumbs up'.

 

[The1True]

Squeen is just very emphatically stating his preferences. I don't think he's intending to imply that you're not allowed to enjoy something different.

Meh, everyone's keeping it mostly positive so far I think? Just chipping away at eachother's orthodoxies...

 

[squeen]

I also enjoyed the Myth books as a kid. But remember that Skeeve was human (Klad) and less than impressive. The supporting cast of NPCs, and the revealed world, were what brought the wonder. The result is not dry medival historical drama---it's Vance, Lovecraft, Howard and Tolkien. Hobbits are small for a reason.

As DMs, and world authors, this is a good stylistic mechanic to remember. It works well, and as soon as it gets turned on its head (as it did in the later Myth books)...the magic quickly goes away. Don't conflate what you wish for as a player with what you should serve up as a DM. Wishes and desires drive play. Wishes being granted occur at the end of the story.

Set the stage for great adventures to unfold, not predictably scripted Hollywood trash. The Hero's Journey doesn't start with Luke in black. That's second-tier Mary Sue stuff.

 

[Malrex]

Or maybe the reason he looks so tough but has low prestige is because dragonborn are hated enemies in the setting? Or pitiful refugees? Or are believed to be in league with dark forces? Or are so feared that people don't like to deal with them? Or maybe they are rare and largely unheard of, and people assume the player is cursed? All it requires is starting with the assumption that the character is no more powerful than any other character of its level, and applying a little imagination.

You don't like the aesthetic of including them? That's fine. But when you try to argue there is a logical reason for your entirely subjective opinion, you are effectively saying that other opinions are wrong.

Since everyone is sharing their opinion again....If you don't use roleplaying (and in a sense, alignment) as a tool to balance out a 'candy-class' character like a paladin--like the potential examples Beoric stated above, then of course it's going to be overpowered...but complaining about how overpowered paladins are while refusing to use the tools to balance them (i.e. roleplaying) is (still) weird to me. Perhaps its not a candy-class but a candy way to play the game because it just becomes an entitled character with no responsibilities or restrictions--no wonder why some hate the class, but damn, use your tools--that's what they are there for.

Same can be applied to dragonborn or other 'monster' races. It could be a real headache trying to deal with NPCs in towns or different factions in a dungeon. If roleplay is not used, then sure, they can be 'overpowered' and get off super easy. But looking 'cool' should have a price.

This is why I still think alignment for an assassin should not just be thrown away where assassins could be of any alignment especially if they have a skill to outright slay someone. It's a tool to help with balance. If alignment is thrown away (which basically makes an assassin harder to be detectable from Detect Evil, Detect type magics, and being Chaotic Evil can be difficult to play effectively), then using the roleplaying tool would have to go in extra heavy to keep it balanced. No one should trust a Lawful Good assassin---because they murder people. It could be evil people, but still, the nefarious action is the same.

Despite what I said above, I'm actually in Squeen's camp about the 'monster' races. I'm all about having variety and being creative, but in my opinion, when everyone is a 'monster' it does take away the 'awe' of encountering monsters and sometimes less is more. Although, I think an all orc party would be an interesting campaign--fending off humans and doing missions to better your clan--in fact, maybe I'll write that up one day.

I do like and agree with Squeen's above post. I'm always ready to roll up a level 1 character when my character gets to about 7th level or so--my wishes and desires are mostly met by 7th level for me. I enjoy the low level struggle moreso than having a plethora of magic items and spells to solve problems. Although, arguably this could also be a case of where I haven't really gone on a fun high level campaign. But I can understand where he is coming from when it feels like everything is handed to you at level 1--without the struggle, Id be bored of the game. I don't necessarily agree with him that a paladin or being a dragonborn is having everything being handed to you (because again, roleplay tool can make these choices a total nightmare for a player), but I get where he is coming from and can agree to an extent.

Anyways, the point of this whole post was to get some activity on the boards....hold on to your seats as the next post topic will be: Why Dragonborn are awesome!!! (I jest...I jest...)

 

[Beoric]

Since everyone is sharing their opinion again....If you don't use roleplaying (and in a sense, alignment) as a tool to balance out a 'candy-class' character like a paladin--like the potential examples Beoric stated above, then of course it's going to be overpowered...but complaining about how overpowered paladins are while refusing to use the tools to balance them (i.e. roleplaying) is (still) weird to me. Perhaps its not a candy-class but a candy way to play the game because it just becomes an entitled character with no responsibilities or restrictions--no wonder why some hate the class, but damn, use your tools--that's what they are there for.

Right. This is called out in 1e mechanics, where a primary check on the power level of paladins was having to be lawful good; evil acts could turn you into a fighter.

This is why I still think alignment for an assassin should not just be thrown away where assassins could be of any alignment especially if they have a skill to outright slay someone. It's a tool to help with balance. If alignment is thrown away (which basically makes an assassin harder to be detectable from Detect Evil, Detect type magics, and being Chaotic Evil can be difficult to play effectively), then using the roleplaying tool would have to go in extra heavy to keep it balanced. No one should trust a Lawful Good assassin---because they murder people. It could be evil people, but still, the nefarious action is the same.

I note the necessity of alignment restrictions becomes obviated in later editions where paladins and assassins were not really tougher than fighters and thieves. Squeen's rants about 5e players choosing to play paladins are particularly ill-conceived for this reason.

Despite what I said above, I'm actually in Squeen's camp about the 'monster' races. I'm all about having variety and being creative, but in my opinion, when everyone is a 'monster' it does take away the 'awe' of encountering monsters and sometimes less is more. Although, I think an all orc party would be an interesting campaign--fending off humans and doing missions to better your clan--in fact, maybe I'll write that up one day.

I think it is fair to say that playable races that are well known in the setting cease to be monsters - except in the sense that humans can be monsters.

I also think in a lot of kitchen-sink, points-of-light style games, D&D race becomes a proxy for culture, and having different races increases the cultural diversity of the setting. This goes back at least to Tolkien, where elves or dwarves were more or less the same culturally regardless of where they were encountered.

(Eberron pushes back on this, as with so many things, by adopting nationalism as the basis of culture, and expressly stating that the various races within a nation tend to be culturally similar. So the elves of Breland, a largely human nation, are culturally Brelish, and very different from the elves of Aerenal, a mostly elvish nation.)

I do like and agree with Squeen's above post. I'm always ready to roll up a level 1 character when my character gets to about 7th level or so--my wishes and desires are mostly met by 7th level for me. I enjoy the low level struggle moreso than having a plethora of magic items and spells to solve problems. Although, arguably this could also be a case of where I haven't really gone on a fun high level campaign. But I can understand where he is coming from when it feels like everything is handed to you at level 1--without the struggle, Id be bored of the game. I don't necessarily agree with him that a paladin or being a dragonborn is having everything being handed to you (because again, roleplay tool can make these choices a total nightmare for a player), but I get where he is coming from and can agree to an extent.

I tend to play more low level campaigns than high level campaigns simply by virtue of the fact that all our campaigns start at first level, and they don't all last that long. That being said, I have enjoyed the few campaigns I was in that got to high level, including one 1e campaign that didn't peter out until 25th level or so. They are very different campaigns though, and the challenges become different - not least because high level opponents have access to the same spells you do, and 1e magic is not designed to counter creative spell use employed by NPCs with long term strategic goals. It becomes very, very hard to secure your castle, or ensure that your allies are who you think they are...

 

[The1True]

Although, I think an all orc party would be an interesting campaign

Yasss! I recently broke out the old 2e Monstrous Compendium binder because the kids were looking for reference for the MEGA dungeon they're building (and illustrating!) (and since I just found out what my old 1e MM is worth, it's gone in a bag...) and was deeply compelled by this artwork:

I am way more interested in those defeated hobgoblins (maybe orcs?) than their human victors. Sure they were assholes, but no one will ever say they were cowards or quitters. I want to know their story!

 

[The1True]

Also, this was a fun thought experiment:

Right on the cusp of 3e. This kind of thing became much more doable in later editions. I mentioned that I'm reading through 'A Paladin in Hell' right now, and it's interesting seeing the writers experimenting with monsters with character levels. Converting these things is a bitch since an Osyluth (Bone Devil)/14th lvl Wizard is a perfectly legitimate 16th lvl encounter in 2e, but an epic level encounter (at least 24!) in 3. Multiclassing or adding levels to monsters didn't crank up their difficulty nearly as much in earlier editions...

 

[The1True]

No one should trust a Lawful Good assassin---because they murder people.

No one should trust a Lawful Good assassin, because they are almost certainly an absolutist fanatic. Even moreso than a Paladin or Priest. They have to believe that the orders they take from their organization are just and righteous or their whole world will fall apart. This level of lawfulness is best illustrated by the Mercykillers Faction in the Planescape setting. Mostly LE and LN, there are LG members though who's obsession with justice leaves no room for shades of grey in the world. In the shadows, punishing those who think to go unpunished.

So yeah. ROLE playing.

 

[Hemlock]

It's not enough he's the singularly most powerful subclass...he's also a bloody dragon on top of it!

It's really just me? You really don't get the implied ego gratification like the stink of an old gym sock and think...oh, pu-leeeeze, can't you spare the rest of us of tiny minions ?

The taming/normalization of the other and unbridled anthropomorphism is almost as bad. It's a freakin' manga cartoon!

Oh, I get it now. At first I thought you were sincerely praising the dragon art, and I was like, "Meh. It doesn't do anything for me." At least now I know it doesn't do anything for you either, squeen.

 

[Beoric]

Yasss! I recently broke out the old 2e Monstrous Compendium binder because the kids were looking for reference for the MEGA dungeon they're building (and illustrating!) (and since I just found out what my old 1e MM is worth, it's gone in a bag...) and was deeply compelled by this artwork:
View attachment 1344
I am way more interested in those defeated hobgoblins (maybe orcs?) than their human victors. Sure they were assholes, but no one will ever say they were cowards or quitters. I want to know their story!

They are hobgoblins, and clearly they are the last remnants of the Dhakaani Empire. This appears to be in the central Empire, near the Seawall Mountains, and would have been the last vestige of goblinoid power, in what would later become Cyre, and then Darguun. After their pyrrhic victory against the Daelkyr, the Empire was greatly weakened, and was vulnerable to the depredations of Malleon the Reaver and the human refugees who accompanied him to Khorvaire. This may well have been the final battle, in which the hobgoblins and bugbears were pushed into the mountains; their cousins, the goblins, were enslaved by the humans for centuries, until the region was annexed by the Empire of Galifar, which outlawed slavery.

 

[Beoric]

No one should trust a Lawful Good assassin, because they are almost certainly an absolutist fanatic. Even moreso than a Paladin or Priest. They have to believe that the orders they take from their organization are just and righteous or their whole world will fall apart. This level of lawfulness is best illustrated by the Mercykillers Faction in the Planescape setting. Mostly LE and LN, there are LG members though who's obsession with justice leaves no room for shades of grey in the world. In the shadows, punishing those who think to go unpunished.

So yeah. ROLE playing.

I am really interested in ambiguous settings where, for instance, lawful good people and groups can come into conflict with each other through lack of information, misinformation, or even a lack of agreement on what constitutes the common good. I have no doubt that a character could be legitimately viewed as lawful good, and yet employ the full range of class abilities of the 1e assassin, including poison and attacks on the assassination table, in pursuit of a cause they deem worthy.

The evil alignment may be a legitimate balancing mechanic; if I understand @Malrex's argument, this is largely because of susceptibility to detect alignment magic, which doesn't really come up much for PCs unless they are spending a lot of time with paladins, but I accept that it poses some sort of limit. But I think it is clumsy, and one could impose more meaningful restrictions with obligations to the PC's guild.

Even if the detect alignment issues is considered to the the main one, it would be easy enough to allow a lawful good assassin who has an aura of evil, for the purposes of detection magic, because of his function as a killer.

 

[The1True]

I am really interested in ambiguous settings where, for instance, lawful good people and groups can come into conflict with each other through lack of information, misinformation, or even a lack of agreement on what constitutes the common good.

Yeah, shades of white and shades of black interactions are fun. I've run a couple of campaigns with powerful LG antagonists. This is especially easy when you've got a party of majority chaotic alignments, but more fun when you've got a Paladin or LG Priest type. You're average LG PC has had to accept a little grey in order to cooperate with others and survive in the chaotic world outside the walls and may swiftly find themselves in conflict with others of their alignment, particularly with lawful extra-planar beings. In one campaign, the players slowly drove a singularly inflexible Planetar over the edge with their constant meddling in his grand ambitions, finally forcing him into a catastrophic fall that transformed him into a diabolical final boss. fun.

Similarly, sympathetic evil NPC's, like Lord Vetinari in the (initially not-terrible) Discworld series, or evil creatures motivated by love or loss rather than greed or cruelty, can present a fascinating moral quandary for players.