Community

When it comes to determining which concepts get classes, important considerations include:

1. Unique mechanics

2. Unique place in the game/world

3. Tradition

I think assassin can and should be given a class based on those criteria.

Sure, it’s easy enough to give a rogue the right skills and call him an assassin, and it makes perfect sense. It’s just a job title.

However, similar logic would allow any class to be an assassin. Fighter, wizard, etc. You kill people for a living—you’re an assassin. Good enough.

But...it’s not. Although there was a lapse in 2e, in every other edition since 1e AD&D the idea of a unique class to represent the iconic assassin has been there.

1. In every instance unique mechanics were applied, many of which carried over. I’m only minimally familiar with the 4e assassin, so I won’t mention it much. But here are a few things that I see as iconic D&D assassin features.

a) Poison usage. They are better with poison than other classes.

b) Minor magical abilities. They study arcane magic to support their other abilities.

c) Rogue-like in combat, but better than a rogue (through an expanded weapon selection, better HD, whatever)

d) Special ability to perform better death/critical sorts of attacks.

That seems about as distinct from rogue as ranger is from fighter.

2. When we talk about assassins, we primarily mean the kinds of people who will be sent on the job by an assassin’s guild (and their corollaries who may work for any organization or individual). If you go to the local guild, this is what you expect to see. They are trained specifically in killing—more so than a rogue. They are better at it. They focus on techniques (such as poison) or death attacks that kill more easily than a rogue. They learn whatever they can—including dabbling in arcane magic at higher levels—to make them better at what they do.

The archetype has expanded beyond D&D into the fantasy genre in general. It’s found in books with no direct connection to D&D, MMOs, PC games, console games, etc. Few of these attempt to squeeze it together into a thief or rogue class or category—despite the fact that it could be done easily enough.

I get excited about playing an iconic assassin with unique mechanics, spellcasting at higher levels, and clearly distinct from rogue.

I’m not saying that assassin can’t be done “well enough” with rogue. What I’m saying is that it deserves to be treated with enough respect to be given its own class, just like rangers, paladins, and other traditional D&D classes.

I can't decide whether i agree with you or not.
My argument for both sides:
For assassin being it's own class
 - A fighter can be good at picking locks, but this doesn't mean he's a rogue. similarly, just because a rogue is trained to kill people in a sneaky manner does not make him an assassin.
 - A rogue may be able to kill things really well, have a whole network of underworld allies, and be really sneaky but he will never be able to have the assassin's spell casting, which is a critical part of the class (to me)

Against the assassin being it's own class
- An assassin is just a job. i can have a fighter who is part of an order of palladin's, and therefore is a palladin even if he has no divine powers.
- if the rogue can do everything the assassin can except for spell casting, what is the point of having a seperate class at all? you may as well go rogue/srceror or wizard or warlock or whathave you and end up with the same result. if we just added spellcasting onto a fighter we would not get a new class, we would get a fighter that could cast spells.

Overall i think i would rather see the assassin as it's own class, because if you want you can alwauys ignore it completely and not use it at all if you think that the rogue just does the same thing.

Conclusion: The assassin is the class we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

Yeah, everything that I see about the Assassin usually makes me think that it's just a better Rogue. A Rogue who uses illusions and magic to become invisible rather than hiding, who just has a way better version of sneak attack, and so on. The only way that I think the Assassin has a shot at being something really unique is if what we really end up with is two classes that are very mechanically distinct. For example, I'd love to see the Rogue use expertise dice and combat maneuvers while the Assassin instead uses shadow spells (death attack? poison use? all handed through spells). Same general concept but with extremely different mechanical execution, pun intended.

Nov 26, 2012 -- 5:39PM, sirmagicToast wrote:

I can't decide whether i agree with you or not.
My argument for both sides:
For assassin being it's own class
 - A fighter can be good at picking locks, but this doesn't mean he's a rogue. similarly, just because a rogue is trained to kill people in a sneaky manner does not make him an assassin.
 - A rogue may be able to kill things really well, have a whole network of underworld allies, and be really sneaky but he will never be able to have the assassin's spell casting, which is a critical part of the class (to me)

Against the assassin being it's own class
- An assassin is just a job. i can have a fighter who is part of an order of palladin's, and therefore is a palladin even if he has no divine powers.
- if the rogue can do everything the assassin can except for spell casting, what is the point of having a seperate class at all? you may as well go rogue/srceror or wizard or warlock or whathave you and end up with the same result. if we just added spellcasting onto a fighter we would not get a new class, we would get a fighter that could cast spells.

Overall i think i would rather see the assassin as it's own class, because if you want you can alwauys ignore it completely and not use it at all if you think that the rogue just does the same thing.

Conclusion: The assassin is the class we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

Have to agree with this post and especially with the bolded part.